Slashdot Mirror
BayTSP Provides Automatic DMCA Notices
ruvreve sent in a pointer that BayTSP is promising to identify Bittorrent uploaders for the entertainment industry to file suit against. Slashdot has run numerous stories discussing what happens when you automate DMCA takedown notices - see also chillingeffects.org.
...misleadingly named materials in order to create false positives?
And if enough folks do it will it make resistance via auto-notices futile?
Stop the world; I need to get off.
Is this software good enough to notice the difference between a movie and 120k of source code?
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Lawsuit-bot honeypot. Check it out. It has a huge list of randomly generated filenames (with all sorts of well-known/recent game titles, movie titles, musicians, etc.). Designed to attract lawsuit-bots and give ironclad PROOF that the files are not real (they're just long strings of zero bytes) :)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I cannot see how this should impact the "serious" BT filetraders that much. Most clients used nowadays include dynamic blacklists, effectively blocking requests from services such as BayTSP to the torrent? BayTSP can't keep hopping IP's all the time without some ever increasing expenses?
Has anyone had any success in getting the RIAA/MPAA/ESA/etc to recoup any expenses you might get dinged with while doing work to prove your innocent? I know the letters aren't an actual lawsuit, but if you don't respond, one can only assume it's a matter of time until you do get sued.
One quite interesting angle is that in countires with strict privacy laws (many EU countires), it may be illeagal to record IP addresses that carry pirated content. Copyright infringement is a petty crime that does not warrant home searches or disclosing communication (IP addresses, telephone numbers) unless you ask money for it.
Thus, a company that records IP addresses of file swappers could be liable under Finnish penal law facing upto four years of physically limited freedom for management.
whay makes them think they have the right to notify anyone ?
some 3 months ago the ISP i used to work for here in brasil received a notification that someone in our network was downloading "exorcist - the begining", complete with IP address. happens that a simple "whois " returned the name of another ISP, with an IP address range in a neighbour AS (autonomous system. huge IP address ranges ISPs and network operator have). we simply had NOTHING to do with that.
lucky them they were in US. if they were here with the threatening tone of the e-mail we could sue them. threatening a person or a company on an empty basis or based on false information is (IIRC, IANAL) ilegal here.
What ? Me, worry ?
How do I go about blacklisting American IPs?
Is there a nice range, just like for blocking out spam from eastern countries?
If I'm gonna be sued, I might as well get it from my own country.
liqbase
No, there is something wrong with the laws. Law is meant to mirror the morality of society, not dictate it.
Same thing happened to me, but it happened at least 6 months ago. At that time, I wasn't even aware companies were going nuts over television shows, would they rather just have me buy a PVR/Tivo or something? And I whole heartedly plan on buying the DVD set anyway (when it comes out, months from now).
I think the whole entertainment industry needs to just stop freaking out, take a step back, and look at what they're doing.
this is the shit my isp sent me a month ago... thought i had seen this baytsp name before. The mpaa can go fuck themselves.. i'll be using I2P bittorrent for my stuff from now on.
> Notice ID:7957592
> Notice Date:16 Dec 2004 01:18:22 GMT
>
> Dear Sir or Madam:
>
> BayTSP, Inc. ("BayTSP") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized BayTSP to act as its non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. BayTSP's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the attached report.
>
> BayTSP has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of in the attached report is not authorized by Paramount, its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the attached report. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Universal Copyright Convention, as well as bilateral treati
es with other countries allow for protection of client's copyrighted work even beyond U.S. borders. The attached documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement.
>
> We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others Paramount's materials in the future (see, 17 U.S.C. 512).
>
> Further, we believe that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action to stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your actions. We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.
>
> Please send us a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter. Please reference the Notice ID number above in your response.
>
> Nothing in this letter shall serve as a waiver of any rights or remedies of Paramount with respect to the alleged infringement, all of which are expressly reserved. Should you need to contact me, I may be reached at the following address:
>
> Mark Ishikawa
> Chief Executive Officer
> BayTSP, Inc.
> PO Box 1314
> Los Gatos, CA 95031
>
> v: 408-341-2300
> f: 408-341-2399
> paramount-picture@copyright-compliance.com
>
> *pgp public key is available on the key server at ldap://keyserver.pgp.com
>
> Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.
>
> This infringement notice contains an XML tag that can be used to automate the processing of this data. If you would like more information on how to use this tag please contact BayTSP.
>
>
>
> Infringed Work: Machinist, The
> Infringing FileName: The.Machinist.LIMITED.SCREENER-VideoCD
> Infringing FileSize: 1070386415
> Protocol: BitTorrent
> Infringers IP Address: x.x.x.x
> Infringer's User Name:
> Infringer's DNS Name: x.cablecompany.net
> Initial Infringement Timestamp: 14 Dec 2004 14:11:25 GMT
> Recent Infringement Timestamp: 14 Dec 2004 15:45:09 GMT
>
>
What happenes if they knock at my door and claim that I have shared certain files and I decline? Well, I guess, they want to have a look at my hard drive. But what if they cannot read it because the drive is crypted? How are they gonna prove that there are the claimed files on my computer? Is there any law which says that I have to hand out the key?
I thought that one of the requirements for the DMCA takedown notices was that the party making the claim about copyright infringement had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that the works were being copied in violation of copyright.
If someone deliberately put up a safe/public domain file with a misleading name and get sent a notification, could the people running this auto-DMCA service be hit with perjury charges?
I expect that would shut it down pretty quickly. I thought that a perjury penalty was put in there to make sure that it was only invoked when absolutely justified.
Is there any law which says that I have to hand out the key?
First of all, only people with a warrent have the power to enter your home and search your hard drive. If you let someone else in, it's your problem.
In most juristications, you can be FORCED to hand out the key to your encrypted partitions, but only if the judge sees a reasonable reason suspicition.
There's an easy work-around though, but it has not yet been technically implemented in GBDE, CFS or other crypto filesystems: use multiple keys for different purposes. If you provide them key1, you'll get at something irrelevant. They'll see that you're cooperating and will give up harrassing you. Once you're safe again, use key2 to decrypt the bits that really matter.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
No what really happens in the software and entertainment industry, and every industry for that matter, is that the "face" of the industry (MPAA, Bands [singers, etc.], Managers, CEOs, etc.) get the bulk of the income while the people who actually make the industry work get a negligible amount of income when compared to the "face" of the industry. You think a song writer gets nearly as much money as the untalented lip-synching "artist" that sings it? No! You think the "artist" gets nearly as much money as an RIAA executive? No! You think a programmer makes nearly as much a salary as someone in marketing or sales? Hello no!
This just leads to more divide of the class and the number of the population that controls over 50% of the national income keeps rising and rising.
Frankly, I don't like paying $0.80 on the $1.00 for a product just for marketing. And the team that made that product will get what? $0.02 on the $1.00 for the product on the market while the person that sold it will make $0.20 on the $1.00.
That's ridiculous! People who commit copyright infringement aren't robbing poor folks of their salaries or ripping them off. It's quite the opposite. The *majority* of the general populous is getting ripped off my charasmatic dickheads who think about one thing and one thing only and that's their wallet!
There was massive carnage predicted when the national 55 mph speed limit was raised. The Roads Would Run Red With Blood.
As I recall, the death rate dropped significantly. It's climbing again, but that's due to the number of passenger and vehicle miles climbing. If we're honest with the numbers the death toll would skyrocket if we went back to double nickel limits.
Anyone who has driven across the midwest or intermountain west could tell you why. At 55 mph your attention wanders and you'll miss something important. At 75 mph you'll pay more attention to driving. You don't know boredom until you've driven I-70 across western Kansas, I-80 across the Great Basin or I-84 through central Oregon.
A secondary effect is that traffic now travels at about the same pace. There's some spread, but on a rural interstate (outside of mountains) I'ld guess 80+% of the traffic is within a 10 mph band. A lot of drivers ignored the posted speed limit in the double nickel days and the same 80% band would have been over 20 mph wide. That meant you had a lot more passing and a significantly larger difference in speed as cars passed.
Does that mean that the speed limit should be 75 mph through urban cores? Or 40 past elementary schools and parks? Of course not. But the argument "slower speeds mean lower deaths" is not borne out by the facts. Accidents, when they occur, tend to be more severe. But the accident rate is lower... and newer cars are so much safer that people often walk away unharmed from accidents much more severe than the ones that would have killed everyone a few decades ago.
BTW, a while back I read that the Colorado Dept. of Transportation does monitor actual speeds and will adjust speed limits accordingly, if possible. (US highways often have restrictions.) Their position was mentioned by the GP - the overwhelming majority of drivers will travel at an appropriate speed.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
IP blacklisting is not technically viable. This fact should be obvious to slashdot readers, and we need to stop modding these posts up.
BayTSP can trivially acquire new IPs. I bet they could even get a few in the same subnet as PeerGuardian's web server. Until you figure out what IPs your opponents use, you are fully exposed. In other words, PeerGuardian and others rely on continual sacrifice of their 'sheep' userbase to figure out what IPs are being used by the 'wolves' to prosecute illegal distribution.
Another problem is that PeerGuardian blacklists a huge amount of the IPv4 space (~20% IIRC), which means there are many high performance "allied" nodes it won't be able to access.
IP blacklists are not acceptable over the long term and basically doesn't even work over the short term. Please stop modding this stuff up.
that the cost of threatening legal action without any basis whatsoever is too low for these big corporations.
I wonder how often they actually follow up of these threats. Sending out a form letter is fairly cheap to them. Probably considerably cheaper than actually initiating legal action.
The legal system has become a way for big corporations to push individuals and small companies around and basically create a parallel state were the punishment for any behavior big corporations doesn't like is litigation.
No doubt they would claim that threatening litigation is not actually using the legal system.
Part of the technique here appears to be to actually avoid things actually comming before a judge.
You know how trivially easy it is for somebody to get around these blocks?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.