Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Blames Linux Australia Notice on Human Error

Posted by samzenpus on from the pirated-movie-down-under dept.

rjch writes "According to ZDNet Australia, the MPAA is blaming their recent takedown notice to Linux Australia as 'human error'. 'MPAA spokesman Matt Grossman denied the MPAA's system, which sends out 100,000 notices of claimed infringement on an annual basis was flawed. He said the organisation was not doing blind keyword matching against Internet content and sending out automatic infringement notices without checks, as Linux Australia had previously claimed.' When asked why this slipped through their checks, Grossman told Builder AU 'the answer is a simple human error unfortunately. Everyone has a bad day'. Grossman further denied the MPAA was sending out unsolicited e-mails."

5 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. automatic checking! by psy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you really believe that they are going to manually check 100,000 files for legimacy?

    1. Re:automatic checking! by .orvp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They would need more than that, he said that %99.9999 of the people getting them were actually sharing the files illegally. That would mean that since there are 3 highly publicised mess ups, they have sent these notices to over 3 million people. And really, I bet there are more than just 3.

      So if there are 10 people who get bad notices, did they really send out infringment notices to 10 million people? That is a lot of monkies you need.

      --
      My other sig is just as lame
  2. Maybe.. by Wilkshake · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Maybe the MPAA needs to start basing their takedown notices on actual or proven infringement of copyright rather than just their current reign of circumstantial and claimed legal Gestapoing.

    ---

    --

    -
    "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous." - David Bradley, inventor of Ctrl-Alt-Del
    1. Re:Maybe.. by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you can still inform the *AA that what you're doing is, in fact, completely legal.

      I could. But why should I? They are looking for something, it's their job to verify their search results. Why should I waste a second of my time pointing out to them what they should've checked themselves?

      They're sending these messages out in the thousands. If we assume an error rate of 1%, and that is a very forgiving assumption, that's a hundred or so errors. If it takes 30 minutes to sort things out, that's 50 hours burnt on account of the **AA, 50 hours that they don't pay a dime for, but should.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  3. Human error, sure ... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everybody get's away with human error:

    Some guy:
    "No it ws human error, I didn't mean to:
    - violate the speed limit by 100KM/h
    - kill that guy
    - steal money from tax payers
    - cheat the stock market
    - use an aimbot
    - attack iraq because I thought they have WMD
    - ..."

    Judge:
    "Oh, if it was human error then law doesn't apply, so it's ok."

    Can somebody spell bullshit?