Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sends Linux Australia Dubious Takedown Notice
L1TH10N writes "News.com has a story on how the MPAA sent a takedown notice to Linux Australia for the movies 'Twisted' and "Grind.' What was actually hosted with Linux Australia is Twisted (being a Python framework) and Valgrind (being a tool for finding memory management problems in programs). An interesting question that the article raises is whether automatic takedown notices based on blind keyword searches constitutes spam."
The words Twisted and Grind are used by other people than the MPAA? God knows those are such uncommon trademarked words. Anybody using those words must be pirating the movies.
"This seems to be a huge misuse of resources, an infringement upon various global spam laws, an infringement upon our own Copyright Act under Section 102 and needless stress and cost upon small Australian organizations and companies," Smith said. ......
"Linux Australia is concerned that this kind of shoot-in-the-dark approach to copyright protection is potentially damaging for Australian organizations and companies," Smith added. "Organizations that participate in such behavior should be held accountable and forced to put at least some effort into researching the validity of their keyword searches."
Why aren't there any similar laws in the United States? Or are there similar laws that are applicable here (in the States)? I mean, it's understandable once or twice (ie- story where professor posted an mp3 of his lectures and RIAA hounded him for it), but any more than that and it just doesn't make any sense...... "Should be held accountable" indeed......
Offtopic - what movies were named "Twisted" or "Grind"? Anybody?
-thewldisntenuff
My MythTV HowTo
The MPAA makes mistakes? I am shocked. My entire world is shattered.
It constitutes stupidity and makes them hated by even more people (is that possible?). If it happened to me I'd be very pissed, especially if it happened in my workplace.
"Organizations that participate in such behavior should be held accountable and forced to put at least some effort into researching the validity of their keyword searches."
That does it! My next projects are going to be called Lord of the Rings and Matrix Revolutions.
Wonder if RIAA uses similar techniques. Hmm, maybe I could start a pr0n search tool called Britney. On second thoughts...
Yes, unwanted un-asked-for and undeserved email is spam in many people's eyes. It's very similar in another way because normal spammers automatically search the web for the "@" symbol, and these spammers look for Motion Picture titles. There's very little difference.
main(0)
Motion picture industry SPAMS linux Australia regarding a PYTHON framework.
Coincidence?
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Twisted and Grind
Indy Media Watch Sticking my head in filled trashcans and telling the world what I find...
A more interesting question is whether a takedown notice from a party who does not own the copyright on the material in question and who, given the nature of the material subject to the notice, could not reasonably have believed they owned the copyright constitutes illegal interference with the right of the copyright holder to distribute his works, and if so exactly what civil and criminal penalties does the law prescribe?
"the article raises is whether automatic takedown notices based on blind keyword searches constitutes spam."
Spam? How about unwarranted and unprovoked legal harrassment? I say Linux Australia should contact the EFF or similar and look into suing the pants off those MPAA bastards.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
It sure does raise the issue of whether or not the MPAA is trying to be lazy and controling/monopolistic/greedy at the same time.
..
i dunno about that. i think it'd be safe to say that issue was settled a long time ago
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Huh?
Unbelievable. You actually got modded up for that troll.
Firstly, a name is just a name. A tool for association. It's not supposed to be a description of something. As another poster said, how about C, Pascal, Outlook, Excel, Apache, blah blah. Hell, how about your own name? Dancing Santa? That name describes you? "It's just a nick" you say? Well, how about David or William or Veronica or whatever your real name - does that describe you?
What rot! Creative names are easier to remember. Would it be easier to remember names like Gentoo, Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, etc., or names like MyLinux, YourLinux, HisLinux, YetAnotherLinux?
The Australian Copyright Council publishes information sheets dealing with copyright in Australia. You can see their website at http://copyright.org.au
p df) states:
One such information sheet "Infringement: What can I do?" (http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G052.
"In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has infringed copyright can result in problems under the law of defamation or under section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless threats of legal proceedings)."
Interesting to note: It is apparently not copyright infringement if you copy something to review it (such as for a magazine (although specifics are not given)). The informaiton sheets are very informative (who would have guessed?).
It is also interesting to compare the webistes; copyright.org (US site), compared to copyright.org.au (AU copyright website). The later gives out factual and easy to understand information without any sort of obvious agenda.
The worst part of this are two very big lies.
When they send out these bogus takedown messages (which has been happening often lately), they will claim they are acting on some kind of "good faith" belief that the work is copyrighted and should not be distributed. LIE. They are simply doing keyword searches and auto-spamming people when download matches come up.
Then, they will claim that they are acting on behalf of the copyright holder of the work. LIE. The work in question is not really a film, so they are NOT acting on behalf of the real copyright holder of the item in question.
If you ask me, they should at the VERY least be legally liable for the second big lie, and be forced to pay some kind of damages every time they send out something this blatantly false.
This is ridiculous and it has to stop.
Why the UK? This thing called the Computer Misuse Act. Basically, you're prohibited in England from using a computer's resources without proper authority. Now, sending unwarranted Cease and Desist notices, especially for the purpose of intimidation, may well be considered by some UK judges to be misuse of resources. (Hey, the British legal system is notoriously unpredictable - just ask Judge Pickles! :)
There's also some question as to whether it violates the Data Protection Act, as an account is considered "personal information" (one reason bulletin boards had to be registered under the Act) and the trade in personal accounts (and therefore personal information) is definitely going on here. Under the Act, the MPAA is not authorized to hold personal information without permission. Even with permission, it has to be accurate, and the individual whose information it is has the legal right to demand that inaccuracies be rectified, under penalty of law.
Now, I fully understand the MPAA's situation, here. They want to get to grips with piracy, which is a fair point. In the 1990s, there were over 60 million Internet sites. It's probably closer to 600 million, these days, or more. Checking each by hand would be both tedious and impractical. Some kind of automated filtering system, to make the problem managable, is inevitable.
Do simple keyword searches do the job? No. Anyone who wanted to could easily set up a name translation table, and then store the files under a fake name. Hey, automatic word replacement systems are two a penny. Most "Echelon Jammer" software out there works on that principle. It would be trivial to operate file-sharing using a filename substitution system.
Would hashes work? No. Lossy encoding means that it'd be impossible to check for every possible hash of the same movie, never mind every movie out there.
Ok, what about checking the file type? No good. Pirates would just use zip, or some other common archiving format, and a binary check for the file type signature (eg: using Unix' 'file' command) would reveal nothing.
No, piracy won't be solved by brute-force methods, any more than system cracking is solved by applying Microsoft patches. There's always a way round. The key lies in the people, not in the technology. In the same way systems are secured OR broken by social engineering, the only sure-fire way that exists to stop piracy is by changing attitudes.
Now, attitudes are rather resistant to change, especially when people have the idea that they're being ripped off royally. The MPAA needs to address this image problem. Fix the image, and the piracy problem will take care of itself. It always does. History has encountered the problem before, and it'll encounter it again. It's efficient to learn along the way, however.
Now, it doesn't help that movie studios quote price tags in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for movies. Why? Because most movie-making sites are noting that the REAL price of making the movie is generally between a tenth to a hundredth that which the studios are giving. It's like that story of crying wolf - once you're established as being "economical with the truth" (as one British Minister famously put it), nobody is going to believe anything else you say.
Which goes right back to the image thing. The MPAA needs to give the movie studios a serious image make-over. Accuracy and honesty are vital, if the studios are to convince anyone that they have any kind of money problem from piracy at all. (Especially when the consumer watchdog groups keep claiming that sales are booming.)
Nor does it help the MPAA that movie studios are notorious for vice-related crimes. Who, exactly, did Madame Hollywood supply those (il
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
to see more of this hilarity in action, see the recent copyright infringement notice sent to scene.org
4 0047
:) "
http://www.scene.org/showforum.php?forum=5&topic=
" But it is kind of flattering for them to think that the demoscene coders now have found a way to pack 1 whole tv series episode into a ~30KB file
IANAL, etc...
But it seems like it would be a fairly clearcut case to claim that these takedown notices do not constitute a legitimate notice that the ISP is hosting copyrighted material.
This may or may not apply under Australian law, but my understanding is that the reason these things work under American law is that ISPs are classified as "common carriers." So they don't have to monitor their systems for copyrighted material, but in order to maintain common carrier status and not be liable for infringement they have to respond promptly when a copyright holder informs them of a violation. If there can be no reasonable level of certainty that a takedown notice actually refers to copyrighted material because the MPAA isn't actually checking for accuracy, then the MPAA is effectively imposing the burden of monitoring the network for infringements on the ISPs. As common carriers, they shouldn't have to do this.
MPAA: "The ISP was duly notified of infringing material..."
ISP: "No we weren't. We've gotten hundreds of these emails. Nobody at the MPAA actually looks at them, why should we?"
Judge: "So who at the MPAA informed them of infringement?"
MPAA: "..."
In the US, ignoring an MPAA/RIAA demand can and likely will result in your upstream ISP shutting you off, as well as further legal expenses. Ignoring their claim based on absurd evidence (e.g. possessing Python's Twisted framework) will result in potentially significant damages that may exceed the cost of alternate options.
Subsequently, a more prudent response is to:
1. Send WRITTEN notice to the requesting party that you have received their request and as you are not a party to any unauthorized copyrighted materials, provisions under copyright law and/or DCMA (if in the US) and were inappropriately served notice/demand, their demand necessitates a response at their expense to which you have engaged upon receipt of their demand. Note the location where you received this notice and indicate that it is your place of business and where this notification was received (for jurisdictional purposes).
2. Fully document your compliance with the appropriate copyright/DCMA/etc. laws, including information on filenames, respective licensing, sources, etc.
3. Track the time realistically and honestly that it takes to prepare the response.
4. Send a bill for this time at a defensible market rate for your services (be realistic; seek several estimates from third party firms if you did this yourself; even better, hire another firm at fair market rates to do the above first steps for you) to the requesting party. If your ISP sent you the notice, bill them. If the MPAA or RIAA sent it, bill them.
5. Send your bill registered mail (return receipt).
6. If payment is not provided after thirty days, send a followup notice via registered mail indicating the matter will be taken to collections or small claims court within thirty days should payment not be received.
7. FOLLOW UP IN SMALL CLAIMS IN YOUR JURISDICTION!
This will require the notifying party (MPAA/RIAA/ISP) to retain counsel in your jurisdiction (normally a several thousand dollar retainer just to get them active) to respond to a minor case. Failure to represent themselves will likely result in a default judgment, which is even more of a concern.
Slashdot posts, complaints, angry emails, threats, angst, etc. won't stop these "fire-ready-aim" massmail notices. Extremely annoying litigation by innocent parties will. Suggestion for the day: Go visit your small claims court and obtain information on what the requirements are in your state (as they will vary on maximum damages, etc.)
Actually the one nice thing about the safe harbor provision for ISPs is that the ISP has the ability to deligate a DMCA contact at their company, and the provision specifically states the notice -must- be delivered to this contact.
D 129
The way we handled this at the ISP I used to work at was, on the main webpage, as an image of course, was a message stating all DMCA and copyright notices must be sent to [address here] which was an address at our domain which forwarded directly to our lawyer and not us.
We also had to file this address somewhere, I believe the copyright office, but I am not sure on that detail as it was our legal department that handled it.
If a bot is doing whois lookups for an email and it is sent to one of the addresses we get at the NOC, the letter can be legally ignored.
If its not sent to the specific address, we have not been notified as per the safe harbor provision and thusly have a legal defense.
In our case, one would have to go to our website to look for contact addresses, and look either on the main page or the contact page to find the right address.
Any emails like that sent to us were ignored.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QI
The above URL is the only quote I can find at the moment, but it states:
In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]
Seeing as we did get a large number of claims of copyright infringement sent to our staff and support addresses, and to my knowledge our legal team never mentioned any, it looks like both bots and stupid people don't look up the correct address at all.