Grannies and Pirated Software

dthomas731 writes, "After reading Ed Foster's blog about how the Embroidery Software Protection Coalition (ESPC) is suing grandmothers over using pirated digitized designs, I thought you might want to call your own grandmothers and tell them they are going to be needing a lawyer. And the ESPC is very serious. On the ESPC faq page they scare these grandmothers by telling them even if they didn't know the software was pirated, that 'Unfortunately, when it comes to copyright violations, ignorance is no defense.'"

Comments

Turkish Law is better than U.S. law in this shit

[unity100]

Well, here is some point where turkish law is better than u.s. law.

Recently a high court whose decisions are exemplary and binding have decided that it is not the customers' responsibility to know what they were buying was pirated or not - the SELLER of pirated stuff is guilty. And it is the companies' responsibility to protect their own copyrights.

Which perfectly makes sense, as no inhabitant of this planet has to maintain a list that contains which company holds the rights to what product.

Re:Fake?

[Elemenope]

Perhaps. Their homepage provides a phone number though. Anybody from PA who can call and check it out? (I hate long-distance charges.) As far as the story being ridiculous...I don't know. If you had asked me 20 years ago if I believed that the music industry would be hauling their customers to court for making personal copies of songs and trading songs with friends, I'd have called you crazy. And yet, here we are.

Re:Fake?

[One Louder]

Well, the domain has been registered since 1999, by the folks that run sewing.org, which has been registered since 1995, so if it's a hoax, it's a bit more elaborate than normal.

Fake? doesn't seem so...scary is more like it!

[jargon82]

Dialing... (after hours, clearly) 1 2 3 4 rings You have reached the legal dept for the ESPC. Our office hours are Monday - thurs 9:30am through 4pm Central standard time. Please leave your name, number that you can be reached at between those hours, thank you. Why Central, if it's in PA? Monroeville is near Pittsburgh... it's a pity it's a PO box because I am there about once a month. Anyone got a better addy? :)

Re:Fake? doesn't seem so...scary is more like it!

[jargon82]

I'd further like to point out that the number is 888-921-5732. Thats a toll free number for US callers. That means, it costs them money, not you. Thats right, everytime you dial 888-921-5732 and listen to that voice message, it costs the owners of 888-921-5732 some amount of money. Again, that number is 888-921-5732. Or something.

Software Costs

[jhines0042]

I've actually looked in to getting an embroidery machine. (My mother actually has one too)

Here's the rub. The machine costs $5000. The software for loading your own designs into it... another $5000 (last I checked)

Yes, these machines hook up to a computer via USB, they have their own CD drives and their own format for embroidery patterns. The patterns you can buy on CD for a pretty penny, more expensive than a music CD for sure.

So, no, I'm not surprised by this at all.

Sounds like the RIAA has been an inspiration....

[zappepcs]

From the website at http://www.infotoday.com/linkup/lud090106-goldsbor ough.shtml

""" The group, EmbroideryOrganizationInformation (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EmbroideryOrganizat ionInformation), is a Yahoo! Groups discussion group that was set up in response to piracy and copyright infringement charges made by ESPC against those who share embroidery designs obtained from embroidery software and from embroidery design companies.

Many of the participants have elected to participate in the discussion group on an anonymous basis. In response to this, ESPC obtained a subpoena to force Yahoo! to reveal the identities of these people in addition to filing defamation claims against individual members for what they wrote.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in turn, filed a motion to block this subpoena, which it described as "brazen" and "heavy-handed." """

Re:hmmmm, a way to make money?

[jmauro]

Thanks to the US Congress the (C) symbol and registering is no longer a requirement. Copyright is automatic.

Cue massive backlash in 3...2...1...

[compro01]

someone please tell me this is merely a bad joke... if it isn't, there is gonna be some serious crap going down. seniors vote much more than average citizens. up here, IIRC, 87% of senior citizens voted, vs. 65% of the general population. i can imagine that there is a comparable phenomenon in the US.

and plus, the whole suing old people raised a PR firestorm upon the RIAA, so i can expect a similar effect on this.

provided again that this isn't a really early april fools joke...

Re:not quite correct.

[cpt kangarooski]

But there is no way that just looking at a copyrighted data file, assuming that's all that's being done here, by a person who happened to purchase a copy from a person who didn't have the rights to distribute it, could possibly be in violation of copyright law.

Yes, that's absolutely correct, except that it's completely wrong, sorry:

The first question, then, is whether those who browse any of the three infringing websites are infringing plaintiff's copyright. Central to this inquiry is whether the persons browsing are merely viewing the Handbook (which is not a copyright infringement), or whether they are making a copy of the Handbook (which is a copyright infringement). See 17 U.S.C. 106.

"Copy" is defined in the Copyright Act as: "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 U.S.C. 101. "A work is fixed' . . . when its . . . sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Id.

When a person browses a website, and by so doing displays the Handbook, a copy of the Handbook is made in the computer's random access memory (RAM), to permit viewing of the material. And in making a copy, even a temporary one, the person who browsed infringes the copyright. n5 See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that when material is transferred to a computer's RAM, copying has occurred; in the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by licence, such an act constitutes copyright infringement); Marobie-Fl., Inc. v. National Ass'n of Fire Equip. Distrib., 983 F. Supp. 1167, 1179 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (noting that liability for copyright infringement is with the persons who cause the display or distribution of the infringing material onto their computer); see also Nimmer on Copyright 8.08(A)(1) (stating that the infringing act of copying may occur from "loading the copyrighted material . . . into the computer's random access memory (RAM)"). Additionally, a person making a printout or re-posting a copy of the Handbook on another website would infringe plaintiff's copyright.

n5 Although this seems harsh, the Copyright Act has provided a safeguard for innocent infringers. Where the infringer "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages. . . ." 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2).

Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999) (emphasis added).

Computers make copies all the time in their normal operations. It's the way they're built. Unfortunately, this means that it's trivially easy to infringe using a computer, as opposed to by other means. If dear old grandmama buys a printed copy of the pattern and merely looks at it, without actually making a copy of whatever is therein, then that's not infringing. If she looks at the pattern over the Internet, then that is infringing.

And this isn't the only, or even the most important, case along these lines. I just like it because it's very clear as to this point.

Re:Fake? Yup it's a SCAM!

[zifferent]

Most definitely is fake. In fact it's a scam.

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jspa?threadID=20 00117763&tstart=0&mod=1156813029715

You see they get these sewing people all scared, work them up into a lather and then direct them to the "Amnesty Program" here:

http://www.embroideryprotection.org/Amnesty_Progra m.pdf

Where they procede to take $300 a piece from unwitting cross-stichers.