MPAA Forced To Take Down University Toolkit

bobbocanfly writes "Ubuntu developer Matthew Garrett has succeeded in getting the MPAA to remove their 'University Toolkit' after claims it violated the GNU GPL. After several unsuccessful attempts to contact the MPAA directly, Garrett eventually emailed the group's ISP and the violating software was taken down."

Comments

A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[garcia]

Linking to a LiveJournal post that reads:

MPAA don't fuck with my shit.

(And yes, I did attempt to contact them by email and phone before resorting to the more obnoxious behaviour of contacting the ISP. No reply to my email, and the series of friendly receptionists I got bounced between had no idea who would be responsible but promised me someone would call back. No joy there, either.)

Awesome.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[gringer]

Or a new high...

One might almost say that the summary of the article is more informative than the article itself.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[QuantumG]

if it is any consolation, we are now hosing LJ to death.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Anonymous Coward]

from kdawson, of all people

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[_xeno_]

You missed the two screen shots. Essentially the post shows a "before and after" screenshot of the MPA University Toolkit page. The before picture contains a link that the after picture doesn't: "Click Here to Download The Beta Version of the Toolkit"

There's also another link that links to a blog entry about the MPAA toolkit which, if you dive into the comments, explains the GPL violation. (Just search for GPL, it's easier than trying to find it.)

So not entirely worthless, and therefore not a new low, just meeting the same low standards.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[enoz]

1. send takedown notice to MPAA
2. LiveJournal servers slashdotted to hell
3. ???
4. geekocalypse!

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Sanat]

Is this a "jump the shark" moment by posting this story?

Or perhaps just a new low... apparently the old low was defective and replaced.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Sanat]

I thought your post was really humorous.

I'll make you my friend... apparently we are the only two who thought this post was funny and so we better stick together

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[commodoresloat]

One might almost say that the summary of the article is more informative than the article itself. Well, I wouldn't know, and you shouldn't either. We're not supposed to RTFA around here - turn in your slashdot ID at the door.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[perthling]

no, CopyLeft is good. And yes, I already pay for all my music. Do you?

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Kingrames]

It's the modern day way of saying "Come and Take it."
I consider it to be just as "low" as using politically correct bullshit to say the exact same thing.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Vthornheart]

Can we play the Final Fantasy "fanfare" music?
You got 20 gil.
You found an MP3!

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[bigstrat2003]

Aha, but this result is only possible because of copyright law. Thus, if one is celebrating this case, they are indirectly saying copyright is good.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[tankadin]

1. send takedown notice to MPAA
2. LiveJournal servers slashdotted to hell
3. ???
4. geekocalypse!
--
5. Profit?

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[paving-slab]

Actually, this is only *necessary* because of copyright law. If there was no copyright law there would be no perceived need to monitor the traffic.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[pfleming]

Aha, but this result is only possible because of copyright law. Thus, if one is celebrating this case, they are indirectly saying copyright is good. They are directly stating that the GPL enforcement is good. They are not saying that this software should be protected for 120 years (hell, a bug fix next week makes 120 years laughable).
Copyright laws do need to be changed to take reality into account, but the issue here is that the software is being distributed in violation of the license. Copyright law is just the "enforcement stick" of this license.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[Red Alastor]

I'm Canadian, I'm already paying for all the music I can download via a levy on blank medias.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[mpe]

If there was no copyright law there would be no perceived need to monitor the traffic.

No reason for the MPAA to be monitoring traffic on other people's networks. There are plenty of good reasons for network admins (especially of large and complex networks) to considering monitoring traffic.

Re:A new low has been acheived here on Slashdot...

[bigstrat2003]

Supporting copyright does not mean supporting copyright law as-is, that should be obvious. Nowhere did I say that anyone thinks that having a 120-year copyright is reasonable.

Duh

[explosivejared]

This is news?! What is up with that! Every body knows that the RIAA is a completely honest and upright organization. They practice what they preach. They obey everyone else's takedown notice, be it gpl or dmca, whatever, just like they expect you to obey their takedown notices. I can't wait to see the day that all these trolls on slashdot finally go the way of the dinosaur and the true intellectuals out there call the RIAA what it is! It is an honest, upright, artist first organization! IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THAT GET OFF SLASHDOT!!

;)

Re:Duh

[jamonterrell]

Who said anything about the RIAA?

Re:Duh

[explosivejared]

My bad, screwed that joke up! I sincerely apologize!

Re:Duh

[godcipherdivine]

Call me a troll, but I have 3 words for everyone: FIGHT THE POWER!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Duh

[Machtyn]

Leave Bri... RI... er MPAA ALONE!!!

Re:Duh

[dwater]

na. riaa is the same thing for a lot of people. joke was still funny.

Re:Duh

[Sanat]

Nice 132 joke. If you got'em, show'em

Not sure anyone still works in binary except for the "There are 10 kinds of people in the world" guy

Re:Duh

[zuggy40]

I hope your being sarcastic, or your drunk. 2 corrections, 1st it was the MPAA not the RIAA. 2nd the MPAA did not comply with a takedown, because no one with any authority could be contacted, their ISP did and probably notified the MPAA of the takedown so they could remove the dead link.

Obvious retaliation

[Oriumpor]

Next they'll contract a russian ISP and put the torrent up on one of their trackers...

Re:Obvious retaliation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very common in pseudo-democracies for common citizens to contract ISPs. I lived in Moscow for several years in the eighties, and several of my acquaintances (I had no true friends, being a Serb), contracted ISPs. Sexual intercourse was rarely involved, but when it was, it was a bit more satisfying than your run-of-the-mill bar encounter.

Since I was not a citizen (I was there illegally), I was unable to contract an ISP. I feel I missed out somehow, but I got over it after Glasnost.

Anyway, my point is, you were more accurate than you thought.

Re:Obvious retaliation

[Sanat]

Your post is really interesting, however I feel that I am missing at least one of the points you made in it.

Re:Obvious retaliation

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like any other joke, if you have to explain it it's not really funny anymore.

But in the interest of answering a triple digit /. er. The point is, the MPAA is (collectively speaking) a bunch of asshats who will do whatever they can to maintain a crumbling monopoly. They stick to old traditions, old ideas and use the long arm of "Tha Larwwww" when it pleases them, and dirty tricks when they have to.

In so doing, they have become what they claim to fight, criminals. (Punchline)

And if the parallels of the crumbled soviet empire, and subsequent rise in public corruption happens to be an easy comedic instrument of irony so be it.

I know if I had something I wanted to stay out of the hands of the US gov't, i'd put it in Russia, China, Iran, or anywhere else the civil arm of the US is batted aside like so much putty.

-ori

Re:Obvious retaliation

[hughk]

Nah, no need. They can just put it up on the piratebay

Re:Obvious retaliation

[Homr Zodyssey]

I think he was making fun of the GP who mis-spelled "contact" as "contract". Then he continued the joke by making an ironic confusion of "ISP" and "STD". So, he spoke about "contracting a Russian STD".

Its true. A joke is lost when its explained.

Re:Obvious retaliation

[Sanat]

I felt that the mis-use of words might have been a language barrier situation rather than a deliberate ironic statement. His English though did seem equal or better than mine so the play on words should have occurred to me.

Explanation.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Explanation.

As TFS & TFA have little info, here's some background:

The MPA(A) released a Xubuntu derived livecd with a bunch of F/OSS tools to assist universities in monitoring their networks. *rolls*eyes*. More info about the software in this Washington Post article.

Unfortuntately the CD as shipped contained no source & no written offer for the source, so was in violation of the GPL (and hence, the MPAA are in violation of various software author's copyright).

After several attempts to reach contact the MPAA, the ubuntu developer sent a takedown notice to the hosting ISP.

I hope he now presses for copyright violation - as he so elequoently says: MPAA don't fuck with my shit.

Re:Explanation.

[Aladrin]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source. As all (x|edu|k)ubuntu distros have that built into the package manager, they -had- told people how to get the source.

Or are you suggesting that each distro made from Ubuntu must have its own separate repository for the source? That clearly flies in the face of what already exists.

Re:Explanation.

[zonky]

Should also be made clear that the tools only identified torrent users, and didn't make any attempt to distinguish between 'naughty' and legal torrents.

Re:Explanation.

[faedle]

The MPAA was distributing "modified binaries" of GPLed software without distributing, or offering to distribute under the terms of the GPL, the modifications.

Even if all you do is change a strcat(); line, you have to (at minimum) distribute that change's source.

Re:Explanation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source.

Common misconception at least with regard to GPLv2 because when it's done that way, FOSS authors often let it slide but strictly speaking it's a license violation. Quoting from GPLv2 section 3:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Those are the _only_ options for distributing the source code. The GPLv3 is a bit more lax on this but v2 is very strict.

Re:Explanation.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source.

When did you last check? Prior to the GPLv2 at least. From gpl-violations.org's FAQ:

Remember the license requires you make source available to your customers with the product or to include a written offer. Putting a zip of the relevant sources on the Documentation CDis a great way to do this.

Or are you suggesting that each distro made from Ubuntu must have its own separate repository for the source? That clearly flies in the face of what already exists.

Tell me how that clearly flies in the face of what already exists. I don't see how it does at all.

Re:Explanation.

[faedle]

Additionally, it is my understanding they actually made some changes to ntop, and did not provide any instructions on how to obtain the changes.

So, it's not even a technical violation in the letter of the license, it's a legitimate violation of the spirit of the license. They are distributing a change to the code without source.

Re:Explanation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source. As all (x|edu|k)ubuntu distros have that built into the package manager, they -had- told people how to get the source.

I don't see the standard package manager anywhere in the MPAA UT Admin Guide (PDF). It appears to go straight from the splash screen to the "Peerwatch" configuration.

Besides, the GPL section 3 is pretty clear on this: if you're not distributing source code yourself (option a), or a written offer to sell it (option b), then you must "Accompany [the program] with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code". Unless you count disassembling the install CD, they haven't met this at all.

Or are you suggesting that each distro made from Ubuntu must have its own separate repository for the source? That clearly flies in the face of what already exists.

You're going to have to be more specific. I tried a random sampling of a few Ubuntu-derived distro, and I couldn't find one that didn't meet at least one of the GPL's 3 options:
- Xubuntu's download page has a "source" folder along with all the torrents
- MEPIS's store page has a "Need GPL source code but don't have an Internet connection?" link
- gNewSense seems to have *only* source code (SVN, etc.) on their software page
- Ichthux's download page says "1. Download Kubuntu" -- they're *just* a meta-package you install later

Re:Explanation.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the MPAA had just decided that they could break that GPL copyright since the students at the university(s) were all breaking the MPAA copyrights. Perhaps they felt that breaking three copyrights is a copyleft? Or maybe it was a 180 since "turnabout is fair play"?

Re:Explanation.

[Kadin2048]

then you must "Accompany [the program] with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code". Unless you count disassembling the install CD, they haven't met this at all. Remember also: that's only an option for noncommercial distribution. I think what they're doing is pretty close to commercial distribution -- I'm not intimately familiar with how the GPL defines "commercial" but I wouldn't simply assume that because they're not charging for it directly that they're allowed to fall under non-commercial, particularly if they're using it in order to advance a business position or working on behalf of for-profit entities.

Re:Explanation.

[andy753421]

I would be really interested in seeing some data to back up this claim. When the toolkit was first released I downloaded a copy and checked the md5sums on both the ntop binaries and the snort binaries. Both corresponded to the binaries I downloaded form the Ubuntu server.

There was also a page on the 'monitor' site that stated the software was released under the GPL, but I don't recall if it included a copy of the license itself. The MPAA code seemed to be kept separate and the license on that was unclear, however there were Java Server Pages distributed as binary only as well as some shell scripts and maybe some python (again, i don't remember).

Does anyone know of a mirror of the original ISO? I would like to look at it further but I deleted the one I originally downloaded.

Re:Explanation.

[icedevil]

No, last I read the GPL you had to *PROVIDE* the source code that you used to create the binaries that you distributed on request (for a reasonable fee, if necessary)

Now in many cases if you did not change the source code that you snagged from a sourceforge site or similar you would probably never be questioned, unless you're part of a hated organization (e.g. ??AA). For example a company I used to work for distributes a copy of libstdc++ that they built against for ease of use, they don't modify it, they tell you where they got it, and that you will probably fuck a lot of shit up if you try to build and install it on your system (e.g. out of date for most systems). And if you *really* want you to they will send you the source code, but ultimately if you play the GPL game it is your responsibility to provide the source code that you used for distribution.

Re:Explanation.

[dwater]

"three"? wouldn't it be two? Three would be back to copyright again...

Re:Explanation.

[dinog]

For God's sake man, just say it :
The MPAA was pirating a copyrighted work of intellectual property!
Dacelo

Re:Explanation.

[Antibozo]

andy753421> however there were Java Server Pages distributed as binary only as well as some shell scripts and maybe some python (again, i don't remember).

Close. There were Java server pages, which *are* source, and there were some Java classes in bytecode form, both of their own design. I decompiled the Java classes and there was nothing particularly interesting there. There was also Python, as you say, in source form.

I didn't see any evidence of modification of GPL code. There were configuration tweaks to ntop and snort.

I noted all this, as well as some vulnerabilities I found, in the SecurityFix comments at washingtonpost.com.

I have a copy of the ISO, but now that there's a GPL witch hunt going on, I'm not comfortable handing it over. Chilling effect, you know. It sounds funny, but I'm not kidding.

Re:Explanation.

[ravenlock]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:Explanation.

[Hyperspite]

I don't understand why you are uncomfortable. It can only lead to the vicious mobs at least having evidence rather than conspiracy theories.

Re:Explanation.

[Antibozo]

I'm uncomfortable because I'm not interested in being the target of certain people's ill-considered vendette.

Besides, those of us who were genuinely interested downloaded it and analysed it when it was available.

What do you think would be the natural outcome of this pursuit? Increased sharing of code? I distribute some code under GPLv2 as well, and I do so to assure that if someone modifies my code and builds something new with it, the improvements will benefit the community as a whole. If someone distributes unmodified binary copies of my code, on the other hand, I couldn't care less--I do *not* use the GPL so that I can get all litigious in their faces over a non-issue, and frankly, I don't think much of those who do; I'm certainly not going to give the litigious ones the opportunity to come after me.

If you have specific questions that could be answered computationally (e.g. checksum comparisons), however, I might be able to help.

Re:Explanation.

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Mods, mod parent up.

Re:Explanation.

[pjeremyh]

Could someone explain *how* it identifies torrent users? Are you meant to dual interface it and run all the universities net traffic through it? If you connect it to a switch (as 99.999% of colleges have) then you're not going to be able to sniff all traffic, just ethernet addrsses the switch has seen on your port. Are MPAA really suggesting that you run all your traffic through their box or are they asking you to to turn on packet mirroring on the switch for the port you've connected their piece of crap to?

Re:Explanation.

[QuantumG]

Ahh the fun of the GPL. Doesn't actually matter if you've made no modifications. Unless you're distributing for "non-commercial purposes" you can't pass on a third party offer to provide source code.. and even if that was the claim that these asshats try to use to defend themselves, they would soon fine they were *still* screwed because they didn't even *do that*. It's really simple: make sure you put the source code (complete and with any modifications) on the iso with the binaries or put on an offer to provide source code, legal and clear, and honor it for 3 years.

Re:Explanation.

[Hyperspite]

Oh sorry, I was only really interested in why you were uncomfortable and you have a legitimate reasons that I should have thought of by myself (I've been out of it the past week). I completely understand your stance on the GPL and it's also the only reason I'd use it. However, I am torn because the *PAAs have used their influence to ruin lives and savage our laws and customs - this is a great way to strike back a politically meaningful blow if it's played correctly.

I don't want to expose you or anyone to legal troubles, so let's just leave it at that.

Re:Explanation.

[Antibozo]

However, I am torn because the *PAAs have used their influence to ruin lives and savage our laws and customs - this is a great way to strike back a politically meaningful blow if it's played correctly.

A great way to strike back would be for the vociferous masses who hate the MPAA so much to get off their butts and form a political action committee to lobby for reform of the legislation they blame on the MPAA. In this case, rather, they're using the GPL itself to make it demonstrably more difficult for researchers to analyse software security, where there's no evidence of actual harm (i.e. distribution of modified software), and certainly no actual need for yet another mirror of xubuntu sources.

If poor legal interpretation has resulted in harm to innocents, that's the fault of inept judges, and should be remedied by appeal and subsequent sanction against the judges responsible. Remediating the DMCA properly requires action in Congress. This sort of shallow response against one potential abuser doesn't help us against the next abuser (it doesn't even help us against the MPAA in any practical way). I wish that all the energy being directed at striking a tiny, meaningless, blow against perceived injustice were instead harnessed into political initiative that could have a hope of effecting real change.

Re:Explanation.

[Antibozo]

Doesn't actually matter if you've made no modifications.

Couldn't have said it better myself. May be actionable by the litigious, but doesn't actually matter.

Re:Explanation.

[Rogerborg]

Why don't you just read the license?

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

If you modify one line, then you have to make the entire source available, or offer to do so. If you do anything else, then your right to distribute is terminated. Just because it's not universally enforced doesn't mean that it's OK to pick and choose compliance.

Re:Explanation.

[malevolentjelly]

How is this any different any linux-based phone? Is Ubuntu GPLv3 licensed? If you're using the GPL in order to enforce the character of the usage based on your own moral compass-- doesn't that make F/OSS way "worse" than Microsoft?

This may be really pwnz0rz on slashdot, but it's probably hurting credibility for businesses that occasionally need to use binaries (see: almost all).

Who says the MPAA's release is even remotely commercial, anyway? It's freely available and just happens to be useful for their insidious purposes. Any money changing hands? No. The MPAA, if it's a corporation, is legally an individual- so they're allowed to create a non-commercial product, the same way Canonical is.

Does this make Freespire illegal?

Did anyone try requesting the source code?

Re:Explanation.

[mr_mischief]

The easy way would be to route traffic for each residence hall and campus lab using a PC with Linux or a BSD back to the NOC and to monitor at each of those points. It'd scale much better than putting this between the switch and the site's public-facing routers. It also gives the admins a chance to easily partition the campus network with multiple firewalls, set up multiple DHCP servers (each with their own pool per building), and possibly even NAT each building individually using cheap, off-the-shelf hardware.

I don't particularly agree with the MPAA's tactics, but there's no reason a campus network couldn't easily accommodate both filtering and monitoring every packet passing through. I'd be tempted in the position of a university campus lead network administrator to set up such a system and monitor traffic for signs of worms, backdoor trojans, spambots and other similar high-traffic malware.

When I was in the ISP field we'd send "your system appears to be infected" notices to customers. If I was running the network for a university I'd probably proactively monitor for such things in the traffic and advise students and faculty whose systems generated harmful traffic that they need take action. I just wouldn't do such a thing at the beck and call of the movie industry to chase down their supposed gremlins.

Re:Explanation.

[Hyperspite]

Hmm, I went to google and I typed in DMCA reform and I got a hodgepodge of links. There were one or two to the EFF, but you're right; there is no well formed and well publicized body that is dedicated to lobbying for change. Although I admit I have a strong distaste for Washington lobbyists, until they are all banished somehow, there should be decently powerful counterlobbyists to ensure a somewhat level playing field.

Google Search

I wonder if slashdot is listening ;-)

Re:Explanation.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Is Ubuntu GPLv3 licensed?

WTF does the GPLv3 have to do with anything? What does usage have to do with anything?

If you distribute binaries, distribute the source, or a written offer for the source. Now STFU dumbass.

Ha!

[ScrewMaster]

Classic. Absolutely classic.

Encouraging result

[GroeFaZ]

but at the same time rather worrysome what a simple email to the ISP can do, even if it's for a good cause. Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style? A pile of court-issued takedowns might be a more impressive repellant against future violations of the GPL (or any other such license) than a pile of social-engineering-issued takedowns. Don't associate "social engineering" with the negative connotation of spam/phising/etc. as I used it; instead, read it in its original meaning: someone requested a blocking of content from an ISP, essentially (TFA is void of details) only with convincing arguments but no hard proof that the GPL was indeed violated.

Re:Encouraging result

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand, the MPAA should have had all it's ducks lined up in a row. They're big boys, they can afford to do things right. The fact that they didn't bother is another indication of their above-the-law attitude. They really just don't care. I'll bet they're caring now, and I'll bet there are some heads rolling in the legal department right now.

The delicious irony here is that the MPAA drafted the DMCA and were primarily responsible for pushing it through Congress.

Re:Encouraging result

[GroeFaZ]

I'll bet they're caring now, and I'll bet there are some heads rolling in the legal department right now.

No shit. And, since this Livejournal entry made slashdot front page, the entire world and beyond knows. The only logical conclusion: the MPAA is preparing self termination out of shame and drafting the necessary papers as we speak.

Re:Encouraging result

[Michael Woodhams]

No, the MPAA can't necessarily just reissue the toolkit with source code and suffer no further consequences.

Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so. In GPL violation disputes, the FSF have normally relicensed a distributer once they conform to the GPL's requirements - but this is not automatic, or written into the GPL.

From GPL v2:

"4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

There is no clause about reinstating rights under the license.

In other words - if any of the copyright holders in Xubuntu code insist, the MPAA can't ever distribute their software, even with source. IANAL, so I don't know if the courts would support this hard-line.

Re:Encouraging result

[Frosty Piss]

Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style?

He asked the offending party, the MPAA, to take it down, they ignored him. He asked the ISP to deal with it, they took it down. How is that "vigilantism-style"? Dealing with it himself rather than running to a lawyer? I don't get it.

Re:Encouraging result

[hardburn]

Actually, I think that's the perfect word. The entire civil court system (at least in the US) is about vigilanteism (i.e., more concerned about personal revenge than justice). The rules for gathering evidence are much lower, and the rulings tend to make less sense (like burglars falling down somebody's stairs and suing for damages). While you won't go to jail, the financial burden might make you wish you had.

Re:Encouraging result

[budgenator]

Because now the ball is in their court,they either admit they violated copyright law and leave it down, or counter and puting it back up and letting the legal chips fall where they may by take legal responsibility. It'll be impossible for them to say "sorry, we didn't realize we were infringing" if they counter claim.

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

but at the same time rather worrysome what a simple email to the ISP can do, even if it's for a good cause... A pile of court-issued takedowns might be a more impressive repellant against future violations of the GPL (or any other such license) than a pile of social-engineering-issued takedowns.

We're not talking about a "social-engineering" takedown, but about a takedown notice defined and authorized by federal law, and enforceable in any court in the land.

IMO, the takedown notice defined in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is one of the few good things in that law. It says that if someone is publishing your copyrighted materials on the Internet, all you have to do is send a notice to the ISP, stating that the material is yours. The ISP is then *required* to take it down, or else be considered guilty of infringement. On the other hand, if the ISP does take it down, they are granted a "Safe Harbor" status, meaning that they're absolutely free of any liability for the infringement.

If something you've published on-line is taken down as a result of a DMCA takedown and it is not infringing, all you have to do is send the ISP a notice stating that the material is not infringing. The ISP can then put the material back on-line, without losing the "Safe Harbor" status. The system is set up so that the ISP doesn't end up trying to determine what is infringing and what is not.

Both the DMCA takedown notice and the counter-notice are sworn affidavits, meaning that when the issue goes to court any untruths in the notices can be prosecuted as perjury. So there's a strong disincentive for someone to issue a DMCA takedown frivolously, as it will cost the publisher almost nothing to get the takedown reversed, and may land the issuer in hot water. Likewise, there's a strong disincentive for a publisher of infringing materials to issue a counter-notice.

And, above all, the ISP who is caught in the middle is shielded from any potential liability, and doesn't have to make any attempt to adjudicate the ownership of the materials (which, obviously, no rational ISP would do anyway -- if in doubt they'd just take it down and leave it that way).

Re:Encouraging result

[dbIII]

They won't care. There's currently the idea that some people are above, below or completely outside the law. Since they were involved in drafting some copyright laws they are of the opinion that those laws are not for them and are only for the peasants.

Re:Encouraging result

[QuantumG]

Uhh, no. That termination crap is false.

What can happen is that the copyright owners can still sue them for the copyright violation that they have already done.. but it never happens. Even the recent Busybox lawsuits have been settled before they got to court.

Re:Encouraging result

[DustyShadow]

Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so. In GPL violation disputes, the FSF have normally relicensed a distributer once they conform to the GPL's requirements - but this is not automatic, or written into the GPL. This is interesting. What this basically means is that the MPAA may never use Xubuntu again. I highly doubt any of the developers will give them permission. And I think for them to get permission, they have to ask EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. They still can't use later versions either because those will be derivatives and it would violate the copyright of this older one.

Re:Encouraging result

[dwater]

> and I'll bet there are some heads rolling in the legal department right now

...or at least some eyes...

Re:Encouraging result

[shark72]

"Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so."

Sorta-kinda. They can terminate your license for that instance of that software (and that is, I believe, the intent of the portion of the license you quoted). Revoking your license to use any instance the software ever again for the rest of your life is, as you've stated, unenforceable.

Re:Encouraging result

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Why is it ironic that the MPAA drafted the DMCA? This was a violation of copyright, which existed prior to the millennium.

Re:Encouraging result

[pjt48108]

I believe the DMCA provides the legal framework for takedown requests.

It probably stings terribly to be spanked with a paddle of your own design and construction.

Re:Encouraging result

[Sancho]

The DMCA allows for takedown notices without anything but the author's word that copyright was infringed. Before that, different techniques were used (my understanding, at least.)

Re:Encouraging result

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Apparently the C stands for Copywrite. Huh, You learn something everyday. Disregard my previous post.

Re:Encouraging result

[Sancho]

The takedown notice is only even marginally acceptable when considered with the counter-notice. It's still all too easy to abuse. Like it or not, perjury convictions just aren't commonly sought. It's virtually a worthless threat.

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

The takedown notice is only even marginally acceptable when considered with the counter-notice. It's still all too easy to abuse. Like it or not, perjury convictions just aren't commonly sought. It's virtually a worthless threat.

You have any examples of such abuse?

Re:Encouraging result

[Hyperspite]

Go to chillingeffects.org
They watch this stuff. Here is a fun link for you though: DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights

Re:Encouraging result

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's spelled "copyright", referring to your rights to make a copy, not how you write a copy.

Congratulatons, you've learned something for tomorrow, too! (I don't normally bother about spelling errors on Slashdot, but this was actually a good point to remember.)

Re:Encouraging result

[Myopic]

Why not sue them and make things bullet-proof and at the same time strengthen the GPL in court, rather than sorting things out vigilantism-style?

Time. Money. Energy. Want.

Some people are rabble rousers; others, rabble. The world needs both. Maybe the dude would let you do the suing on his behalf.

Re:Encouraging result

[Sancho]

Someone already pointed you to chillingeffects. Here's a direct link to an example:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/02/michael-crook-sends-.html

Although he finally retracted the claim, the damage had already been done (Youtube, following the law, removed a video showing Mr. Crook, despite the fact that he had no claim to the ownership of the video.)

Uri Gellar has done similar things, though to my knowledge, he has not apologized. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/09/eff-sues-uri-geller-.html

So this isn't some crackpot paranoid conspiracy theory. These things have happened. As Cory Doctorow mentions in one of his posts on the subject, "For instance, others might use the same tactic to chill political speech: what better way to see to it that your opponent's campaign ads are yanked from YouTube a week before the elections?"

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

Although he finally retracted the claim, the damage had already been done (Youtube, following the law, removed a video showing Mr. Crook, despite the fact that he had no claim to the ownership of the video.)

Bah. Under the law it doesn't *matter* if he retracts the claim. All the legitimate owner has to do is assert his rights in a counter-notice and the material goes back up.

"For instance, others might use the same tactic to chill political speech: what better way to see to it that your opponent's campaign ads are yanked from YouTube a week before the elections?"

If you're concerned this may happen just have your counter-notice ready and fax it as soon as you hear the ads have been pulled.

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

They watch this stuff. Here is a fun link for you though: DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights

Yep, and did you notice third sentence in the professor's blog article about the takedown notice?

Re:Encouraging result

[Sancho]

Sure. And you're still going to be down for 14 days.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132

Fourteen days after filing the counter-notice, if the person who filed the takedown notice hasn't filed an actual lawsuit, then the service provider must restore the content.

It's a little worse than that, though. As you may read in the above link, a counter-notice includes identifying information. I could file a DMCA takedown notice claiming copyright infringement in your post. Slashdot would be required (by US law) to remove your post. If you filed a counter-notice, then I get your name and address[1]. If that's all I'm after, I don't even have to bother filing a suit--I've got what I was after.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I dislike all of this.

[1] This is necessary so that I could file a suit if that was what I wanted.

Re:Encouraging result

[OMEGA Power]

"Both the DMCA takedown notice and the counter-notice are sworn affidavits, meaning that when the issue goes to court any untruths in the notices can be prosecuted as perjury. So there's a strong disincentive for someone to issue a DMCA takedown frivolously, as it will cost the publisher almost nothing to get the takedown reversed, and may land the issuer in hot water. Likewise, there's a strong disincentive for a publisher of infringing materials to issue a counter-notice."

If only it worked this well. There have been numerous confirmed cases of people and organizations sending bogus takedown notices and I've yet to hear of a single prosecution. INAL, but doesn't perjury require intent (i.e. the person signing the notice knew or should have known it wasn't legit) often making it very hard to prove?

Re:Encouraging result

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Yes, I know, I thought I corrected that. What was that about measuring once and cutting twice?

Re:Encouraging result

[Todd Knarr]

You might want to talk to Cory Doctorow about abuses.

Re:Encouraging result

[irtza]

They may feel this way; however, for something like this, I don't think they'll chance it. They are targetting higher ups in teh university to buy their line - so are selling BS about copyright protection. Here I think they'll want to maintain an image of legitamacy. I think they'd be more willing to fight it if it was like the sony root-kit and just got installed onto peoples computers when they played a DVD - that targets the consumers who they would feel are like peasants. Right now they need the campus admins "partnering" with them. If they can get Congress to mandate these things, then they will no longer pretend like they want to cater to these people.

Re:Encouraging result

[Hyperspite]

Ah I picked a bad example although you have to admit that was a bit abusive of the spirit of copyright if not the letter.

Here is a study that suggests that as many as 1/3 of DMCA takedowns could readily be challenged in court on clear grounds.

Here is an outright abuse of the DMCA to silence discussion of a topic: DMCA Abused

Re:Encouraging result

[Alsee]

Both the DMCA takedown notice and the counter-notice are sworn affidavits, meaning that when the issue goes to court any untruths in the notices can be prosecuted as perjury.

Read that section more carefully. The portion of the takedown notice that is "under penalty of perjury" is the statement that I am the copyright holder on *something*.

I am the copyright holder on this very post. That statement would be under penalty of perjury. The rest of my takedown notice could frivolously assert that something of yours infringes on my copyright and have it taken down. No penalty of perjury.

The DMCA was LITERALLY written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. The entire DMCA, including the takedown procedure, is carefully written strictly to serve and protect the publishing industry.

-

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

Here is an outright abuse of the DMCA to silence discussion of a topic: DMCA Abused

I like that one. Especially the part where Photobucket kindly provided Matt with a counter-notice template when informing him that the material had been taken down.

I'm not a fan of the DMCA in any sense, but I still think the takedown and safe harbor provisions are fairly well-done. Can you propose an alternative system that would (a) allow copyright holders who do have a legitimate beef to get their materials taken off-line relatively quickly, (b) provide publishers who aren't infringing to easily fight inaccurate claims and (c) keep ISPs from getting ground into hamburger in the ensuing legal battles?

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

Read that section more carefully. The portion of the takedown notice that is "under penalty of perjury" is the statement that I am the copyright holder on *something*.

Sorry, no.

Title 17 section 512 (c)(3):

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

[...]

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed

[...]

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury

The statement that the notification is accurate covers the *entire* notification, which includes specific designation of the copyrighted work that is claimed to have been infringed.

I am the copyright holder on this very post. That statement would be under penalty of perjury. The rest of my takedown notice could frivolously assert that something of yours infringes on my copyright and have it taken down. No penalty of perjury.

I don't see how you can get that out of the law. There is nothing in subparagraph (vi) that designates which information in the notification is accurate under penalty of perjury. It says "the information in the notification is accurate". The use of the article "the" before "information" indicates that information in the notification is referred to as a single unit, as a whole, and that the statement of accuracy applies to the whole of the notification. Further, if you've read some of the affidavits and declarations used in court procedures, this is normal and expected practice. Have you ever seen such a document where the declaration at the bottom applies only to a portion of the document? Have you ever signed a contract where your signature only indicated approval of some parts and not others?

The DMCA was LITERALLY written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. The entire DMCA, including the takedown procedure, is carefully written strictly to serve and protect the publishing industry.

Yet even they can find themselves hoist on their own petard. I think they made a mistake in this case; they should have written some requirements in the law that made notifications and counter-notifications harder for people without large legal staffs to create.

As another poster pointed out, there is one potential problem with the law as it is, which is that the ISP must provide a copy of the counter-notification to the alleged copyright holder, thereby providing the alleged infringer's identity. Of course, they could probably get a subpoena easily enough anyway, so that's not a huge issue, but it does make it easier for the alleged copyright owner to find out who put the stuff up.

Another seeming potential issue is that if the alleged copyright holder does file a lawsuit, then the counter-notification has no effect and the material stays offline. However this is another case where the plaintiff could get the same effect without the DMCA, though maybe not quite as quickly. If they filed suit (probably naming the ISP as a defendant), all they'd have to do is prove to the judge that they do own the copyright in question and the judge would almost certainly issue an injunction requiring the material to be taken down. So the DMCA doesn't substantially change the scenario, just makes it move a bit faster.

All in all, I think it's a fairly reasonable law, which is equally usable by big media and individuals (as evidenced by TFA). It still leaves the table tilted in favor of big corporations, but it was already very tilted. IMO, this part of the DMCA actually levels things just a bit. Most importantly, it keeps the fight where it belongs -- between the publisher of the material and the purported owner of the material. The ISP doesn't have to get involved in the court proceedings.

Re:Encouraging result

[Hyperspite]

As far as my understanding goes, to post a take down notice, all you need to do is state that you are the copyright holder under penalty of perjury. Well the one thing I think is missing is verification that someone is in fact the copyright holder. Yes there is currently the perjury threat, but what we need is a way for the ISPs or content hosts like Youtube to retain their safe harbor while still requiring some sort of proof of identity before they are forced to act. If that was in place, then I think it would be fine provided you make sure the proof of ID you use isn't too easily gamed.

The difference between the two approaches is that with the verification, the speech stays public until someone with known authority asks for it to be brought down rather than it automatically coming down and someone else has to object. I admit I may be confused and it may be a case of overzealous ISPs trying to protect their asses, but if that is the case, just make it law that they must verify it is in fact the rights holder.

Re:Encouraging result

[Alsee]

You went and got the text of the law, you went and got the exact clause with the perjury text in it, you copy/pasted it, and you cut it in half! Chuckle.

Even cut in half like that you still need to remove the comma after 'accurate' in order to get the sentence to construct as: 'a statement accurate-and-under-perjury' as you suggest. And anyway doing that that would leave the missing half of the clause as a fragment, dangling non-grammatically.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

A, and under penalty of perjury, B.
Perjury is modifying B.
"Under penalty of perjury, A and B." would be both, or even "A and B, under penalty of perjury." would be both, but the arrangement of commas and the perjury in the middle, it is clearly modifying what follows it.

There have been tons of takedown notices with flagrantly inaccurate information, and none of them are ever prosecuted for perjury.

-

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

I see your point. It would be interesting to get an attorney's comment on it.

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

This was bugging me this morning, so I went back to take another look. Would you like to comment on your interpretation of 512 (f)?

Re:Encouraging result

[Alsee]

I'm half asleep, but it does't seem too complicated so I'll take a stab at it now.

I'd say the first thing to note is that it doesn't apply in cases of "flagrant carelessness", which is pretty much the running standard for filing such notices :D

For example Universal Studios did a web search firing off takedown notices in relation to their movie U-571. They sent takedowns to someone with 1948 public domain video files, for the sole reason that the name of the files had "571" in it. They never bothered to look at the files they wanted taken down, beyond the 571 being a piece of the name. That would not be covered by that section.

It only applies to knowing deliberate fraud and abuse of the law. It only applies to essentially "deliberate criminal activity". And the consequence of that deliberate abusive illegal act? No penalty, you merely pay the material expenses of the victim you screwed over. I can deliberately lie and abuse and harrass you and drag you to court and waste god-knows how much of your time, and of course having your stuff yanked down off the web for whatever time period... I just have to pay your layer for you and you're still screwed in all the other ways.

If I were trying to patchwork fix the DMCA process, I'd say that sort of DELIBERATE fraud should carry some significant damages or penalty. In fact it might not be unreasonable to place knowing misrepresentations under the "erjury" clause. I would also say a takedown exhibiting flagrant disregard of any reasonable due care (such as the U-571 example above *not bothering* to look at the online file in question) should absolutely cover at least cover the victim's court costs, and it's sorely tempting to add some sort of damages or penalty to dissuade such carelessness. In the case of a good faith takedown notice that ends up not being upheld by a court I'm sorely tempted to want them to cover the victim's costs, but unfortunately that would be contrary to the general legal standard that good-faith lawsuits are not penalized and that the victim of a good faith legal action gets screwed eating the cost of his legal expenses defending himself.

Oh, and I just noticed something that might not be clear. (f)(1) is in reference to the takedown notice, (f)(2) is in reference to the counter notice. So the (f)(2) text about about "mistake or misidentification" isn't directly conntected to the takedown notice. That "mistake or misidentification" thing is about the counternotice party saying they think the original notice was a mistake or misidentification. So the 512 (f)(2) part would only trigger on a counternotice willfully lying that they thought the original notice was a mistake or misidentification.

Blahhh... need sleep, brain melting. Chuckle. Hopefully that last part was clear - though it was a rather messy tangle of intent of the claim in the countrclaim referring to the original notice's claim. Ok I'm going to quit now and if it made sense great and if it didn't I assume you'll say so and I'll reply to it when I can think straight.

-

Re:Encouraging result

[swillden]

A, and under penalty of perjury, B. Perjury is modifying B. "Under penalty of perjury, A and B." would be both, or even "A and B, under penalty of perjury." would be both, but the arrangement of commas and the perjury in the middle, it is clearly modifying what follows it.

I discussed your interpretation with my sister in-law, who is an attorney, and she says there's no way any reasonable court would construe it this way, for multiple reasons.

First, your interpretation is way too broad, effectively giving any copyright holder the opportunity to issue a takedown notice over anything. Courts don't like broad interpretations and always try to interpret as narrowly as possible.

Second, she commented that my interpretation "is bolstered by 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(i) which requires a "physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." This section does not allow for a signature from someone who owns a copyright that is not being infringed."

Third, she says that courts would frown on someone applying your interpretation as an abuse of process, possibly causing the courts to have to waste time on a situation where the plaintiff has no standing.

Finally, I looked up a handful of real takedown notices that have been delivered to people and all of them state quite clearly that the whole notification is under penalty of perjury. Even if your interpretation were correct, and the notices weren't required to state any more than ownership of some infringed copyright under perjury, it doesn't appear that those who are issuing the notices actually try to use this "loophole". Typical language is this:

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information in this notice is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the NFL

No waffling there -- the certification is that the whole notice is accurate.

There have been tons of takedown notices with flagrantly inaccurate information, and none of them are ever prosecuted for perjury.

She also commented that perjury prosecution in this context would be difficult and, in practice, would only ever be pursued in the event that other issues brought the matter to court. I think this is where the breakdown occurs. If UMG issues a fraudulent takedown notice, they *are* guilty of perjury, but getting them penalized for it requires getting the issue before a court. If UMG actually files a lawsuit, then you can toss the perjury in as a counter-claim, fine. But if they don't file suit, unless you have deep pockets you're not going to file a suit just to press the perjury.

However, if you issue a counter-notification, and they don't file suit, then the issue of perjury is largely moot, because the ISP is required to put the material back up.

In practice, the real breakdown, if there is one, is that many individuals will be insufficiently sure of their position to submit a counter-notification, and risk being dragged into an expensive court battle. Even though the law says that the issuer of a fraudulent takedown notice is both guilty of perjury (or it was an invalid notice) and is likely to be liable for the defendant's legal expenses, it's risky.

He should also sue...

[gillbates]

for copyright infringement as well.

Now that would be poetic justice.

Re:He should also sue...

[sc0ob5]

Everyone that has GPL code in xubuntu and the tools that come on the CD should file copyright violation for $9250 per line of code shared.

Re:He should also sue...

[jamesh]

Now that would be justice!

Well actually it wouldn't... but it would be funny.

Re:He should also sue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they should sue for every line of code NOT shared.

Subtle but important difference.

Re:He should also sue...

[DustyShadow]

What's the point of the GPL if no one is going to enforce it? Pretty much makes it useless eh?

Re:He should also sue...

[Myopic]

Yeah, but imagine if the developers won -- they'd suddenly have to deal with payment in the form of fifty thousand copies of Gigli. I shudder at the thought.

(Or even more poetic, fifty thousand copies of some movie that's in the public domain.)

I bet he didn't do it right

[QuantumG]

The ISP will probably receive a nastygram from an MPAA lawyer soon and put the material back up. Then the fireworks will really begin.

Re:I bet he didn't do it right

[Bob(TM)]

Indeed ... though the fireworks begin before the material is restored. Under the DMCA, a counter-notice starts the clock on a lawsuit filing deadline. If a lawsuit isn't filed in district court within 14 days, the material must be restored.

Re:I bet he didn't do it right

[Sancho]

The material must be restored, but that doesn't mean that a lawsuit cannot still be filed.

Re:I bet he didn't do it right

[Bob(TM)]

FYI: Chilling Effects

If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

Re:I bet he didn't do it right

[Sancho]

I don't think that refutes my statement.

Here's the order of events as I see it.

1. Party A puts content on a site, say Youtube for example.
   
2. Party B notices content, sends DMCA takedown notice to Youtube.
   
3. Party A is notified that his content was removed due to a DMCA takedown notice. Being a good American, he knows the law. He files a counter-notice.
   
4. Party B takes a two week vacation, comes back to find that the content was restored.
   

At this point, Party B still has every right to sue Party A. What has effectively been lost is the ability to have the content removed without a court order. If Party B hadn't gone to the Bahamas, a suit could have been filed. In that case, the service provider would not have been required to restore the material. Regardless of the timing of the notices, Party B can file a lawsuit against Party A.

The counter-notice isn't a tactic to keep from getting sued, it's a means for someone to fight bogus DMCA takedown notices. The idea is that someone filing a false notice with a service provider probably won't go to court with a false copyright claim. Unfortunately, filing a false notice still guarantees that the content will be down for 14 days.

"Simple email"

[ucblockhead]

DMCA takedown notice is exactly the legal action you are supposed to take in these situations. It is not "social engineering". He has every legal right to do it.

Re:"Simple email"

[GroeFaZ]

Then let me ask in a different way. Was invoking the DMCA the only tool to achieve the goal? If not, then it was at least not a bad choice tactically, because it got the job done. But then it was also a bad strategic choice, because it honored the tool merely by using it.

Re:"Simple email"

[ucblockhead]

Yes, and if instead he sued the MPAA and won damages in court, he'd be validating the MPAA tactic of suing individual users for posting copyrighted movies for damages.

Re:"Simple email"

[happyslayer]

Yes...but the irony would be absolutely unbeatable!

On a more personal note, my Magic 8-Ball(tm) wins again! MWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA...*hack*..*cough*..

Re:"Simple email"

[DustyShadow]

Don't be ridiculous. If the GPL is never enforced or threatened to be enforced in court, you will continue to see violations such as this.

Re:"Simple email"

[Spy der Mann]

And the difference is that GPL lawsuits are used to enforce COPYLEFT, while **AA lawsuits are used to enforce COPYRIGHT.

Re:"Simple email"

[foobat]

from wikipedia "Copyleft is a play on the word copyright and is the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies....."

or, it's the same thing

Re:"Simple email"

[StringBlade]

No, that is quite different. He is (we assume) provably the original copyright owner of the content in question, has proof that the MPAA has violated his rights with respect to the GPL and he would be rightfully using the law to protect his work. The RI/MPAA use the law to protect copyrights they claim on works that they did not create with no proof of violation of the accused. They use threats to extort money from people and bail (if they can) before they get thwacked in court (though you can see lately how well that tactic is working).

This guy has a legitimate claim and bringing a lawsuit would not be condoning the RI/MPAA's actions of bringing frivolous lawsuits against people to extort money.

The law is what it is and we'd like to think was originally drafted to help our society maintain equitable balance. Some have abused the law by finding loopholes or gaming the system, but his use of it here would not be one of those times.

Re:"Simple email"

[SendBot]

The DMCA is simply an available tool, put to good use in this case. Invoking the DMCA like this does nothing to prolong it or popularize it any more than I'm endorsing waterboarding by paying taxes. Fixing or aggravating the absolute disaster of extended copyright is well beyond the scope of this guy's situation. Think of it as a jujitsu tactic to disable an opponent with the weapon they intend to use against your clan, rather than an escalating arms race.

Had he lobbied to get the DMCA passed for abusing powers of the ubuntu monopoly, then there might be a discussion about bad strategy.

Re:"Simple email"

[mpe]

Yes, and if instead he sued the MPAA and won damages in court, he'd be validating the MPAA tactic of suing individual users for posting copyrighted movies for damages.

How often to the MPAA actually sue people? It's also unlikely to be hard to find out how many downloads took place. The fact that the MPAA effectivly put out a "press release" about what they were doing dosn't help their case either.

Actually

[p3d0]

Even if you don't change a line of code, you still have to distribute (or offer to distribute) source if you're distributing the binaries.

Re:Actually

[faedle]

They actually are "distributing the source", granted via the Ubuntu package system. You could argue in court (and probably get traction with the argument) that you were obeying the "spirit" of the license agreement.

Where that breaks is when you change the code (like they did with ncat), and then not distribute the changes in the form of a diff. That's not a minor "technicality:" that's the whole purpose of the GPL, is to require that if you make those kinds of changes you distribute your code changes.

Re:Actually

[poopdeville]

I saw no indication that the MPAA was hosting their own apt repositories with source. If you mean that sources.list was pointing at Ubuntu's servers, that's not good enough. That's Ubuntu doing the distribution.

Re:Actually

[faedle]

That theory has never been argued in a court of law, AFAIK.

You could argue that, provided you do nothing to hinder the user from accessing it, that providing a URL to somebody who hosts the code IS distribution.

That might not be the FSF's reasoning, mind you.

But, I'm quite sure that the court would at least hear the argument: "While we personally didn't distribute the source code, we made arrangements for the source code to be obtained free of charge on the Internet through a third-party."

In brief, you're making a "Item 1" claim of violation. I'm stating that the "Item 2" violation would hold more weight with the court, and is considerably more insidious.

Re:Actually

[Chandon Seldon]

In order to comply with GPLv2, you *must* do one of the following when you distribute binaries:

• Include complete source with the binaries. Generally posting the source right next to the binary for download is considered good enough - but even off server links are questionable, and if the binary distribution was on physical media then only offering the source for download doesn't cut it.
• Provide a written offer to provide the source by mail order.

Re:Actually

[Tokerat]

Well, wouldn't that make a mirror that only hosted binaries illegal?

Not that is has any bearing on the MPAA's case, as they made modifications.

Re:Actually

[iamacat]

Which brings up a question - can I get around every GPL violation by patching the binary rather than the source? Let's say RIAA posted the binary and matching source of Ubuntu on their web site. They could then post an additional closed source program that converts the binary ISO to the "University Toolkit". That closed source patch program would not contain any GPLed code per se - only a small number of offsets into the ISO file that are to be patched. Such a minor dependancy (say less than 1KB in total size) would easily qualify as fair use. After all, CDDB never got into legal trouble. While significant technological challenges would need to be overcome, this is clearly not an impossible problem and developing the necessary technology would be easier than rewriting the functionality equivalent to Ubuntu from scratch or getting a license for Windows or, say, VxWorks, for every user of a successful commercial application. What say closet lawyers?

Re:Actually

[PeterBrett]

That closed source patch program would not contain any GPLed code per se - only a small number of offsets into the ISO file that are to be patched.

But it would be a derivative work of the entire GPL source code: code -> binary -> patch.

Re:Actually

[Antibozo]

Interesting theory--is an MD5 digest of the source tarball for a GPL work a "derivative work"? If not, where do you draw the line, and on what legal pretext?

Re:Actually

[AvitarX]

You could argue that, provided you do nothing to hinder the user from accessing it, that providing a URL to somebody who hosts the code IS distribution. Well, the MPAA will defiantly argue that, it would be completely consistent with their stance on linking as a mater of fact.

Re:Actually

[jonbryce]

Yes, which is why all the mirrors I've seen host the source packages as well.

Re:Actually

[jonbryce]

The GPL is quite clear on this

You must do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

[with the further clarification that: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."]

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

c) doesn't apply here because it is a commercial distribution. Also they don't have a three year contract with Canonical to host the source code, and in any case, they modified some of it.

So, in summary, you must either host the source code on the same server as the binaries, have a contract in place to host the source code for the next three years, or make an offer to supply the source for no more than the cost of burning a CD and mailing it to you.

There have been previous court cases on the GPL, and in every case, the courts have ruled that the terms are perfectly valid and enforceable.

Re:Actually

[jonbryce]

An MD5 sum would almost certainly be covered by fair use.

Re:Actually

[Antibozo]

So you're saying an MD5 sum is, in fact, a "derivative work", in your opinion? How about the parity of an MD5 sum? Is that derivative? At what legal threshold does a computational abstract from a copyrighted work attain the freedoms conferred by fair use?

Re:Actually

[kaidadragonfly]

I believe the FSF was selling source code with their binaries. (And perhaps even only source.) So, no, they would not have been in violation of their own license.

MPAA Pwned by DMCA Takedown Notice

[Esion Modnar]

Now THAT is the (accurate) headline I want to read!

Possible deterrent?

[sessamoid]

IANAL, but why don't OSS developers offer a GPL-free version of their software for some really high price. That way, when big-media tries to steal (their words, not mine) their creative works, the developers can sue them for legitimate damages, citing a stratospheric market price per copy, then multiply the number of CDs they've distributed by their stratospheric market price to get damages from them?

"The MPAA/RIAA has distributed 1500 copies of my work. I offer that software at $50,000 per copy. They owe me 75 million dollars in damages!"

That's basically what they big media is trying to do to the consumers, isn't it?

Re:Possible deterrent?

[Endymion]

Now, if you could only pull the money-exchange game that big-business likes to pull, I'd think this strategy would actually work. (well, at least as well as the MPAA's version)

With a lot of "IP" issues, big business loves to sell these highly-priced items (patents, probably) back and forth. In the end, it's not actually any significant profit for any one player, but a lot of money changes hands making "sales" of their stuff.

So... if you could somehow get two Free Software groups to buy this commercial high-priced license from each other (net gain: $0), you'd be able to add "See? I have legitimate commercial sales!" as justification for those multi-million dollar damages.

Live by the sword, Die by the sword...
Or as we like to call those swords in modern times, "Copyright".

Re:Possible deterrent?

[forkazoo]

You don't really need "actual damages" because you can go for statutory damages. If you can prove willfull infringement, you can get 150,000 per offense. If you skip proving willfullness, I think this is the section that applies:

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

$30,000 a pop ain't bad money if you can swing it. I'm not sure exactly what the result would be if you claimed "actual damages" on a zillion dollar price tag despite never having had an "actual sale." Judge might throw out the claim, I suppose. AFAICT, worst case would just be to get laughed at with the huge price tag and then just fall back to statutory damages instead.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[d34thm0nk3y]

IANAL, but why don't OSS developers offer a GPL-free version of their software for some really high price. That way, when big-media tries to steal (their words, not mine) their creative works, the developers can sue them for legitimate damages, citing a stratospheric market price per copy, then multiply the number of CDs they've distributed by their stratospheric market price to get damages from them?

You jest, but the damages they arrive at are statutory. The ruse, technically, is unnecessary.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[Michael Woodhams]

"two Free Software groups to buy this commercial high-priced license from each other (net gain: $0)..."

Or possibly net loss $30,000 in taxes on two $50,000 sales. Check with your tax accountant before trying this.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[syousef]

Do this anyway. They sue for thousands of dollars per song downloaded and I've never seen a song being sold for that much per copy.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[syousef]

Sorry MPAA not RIAA, so per movie, not per song. Same argument though.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[arashi no garou]

I don't know, something about "higher moral ground" or "don't stoop to their level" keeps going through my head when I read your post. Maybe it's just me though.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[deblau]

The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.

See here. If you charge a gazillion bucks for your non-GPL software and no one buys it, you'll have a hell of a time proving in court that you suffered any actual damages. You have to price it competitively, and then you might as well be selling it for real. That's the difference with music: people still buy CDs for $20 (lord knows why). If the RIAA can make a plausible argument that they lost 10,000 sales because you were filesharing, at $750 a pop (statutory minimum) that adds up. More likely they just claim they lost 4 sales and demand a $3000 settlement.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[Spy der Mann]

IANAL, but why don't OSS developers offer a GPL-free version of their software for some really high price.

Ever heard of MYSQL?

Re:Possible deterrent?

[ascendant]

[...]for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000[...]
Except for the "any one work" part, I'm pretty sure that it means $30,000 total. Maybe you can say that different binaries in the distro are different works, but isn't the takedown for the one distro? Maybe it's just late.

Re:Possible deterrent?

[mdmkolbe]

IIRC, statutory damages can only be invoked when the copyright has been registered. Since registration only applies to a specific revision of the code, registration isn't practical for most developers who are constantly making little changes.

Re:aww...

[budgenator]

they still distributed in violation of the license and therefor copyright law! You can't make stuff up this funny, the MPAA in violation of copyright, LOL. The FSF can still go after them if they want to.

Nomenclature, please

[Trailer Trash]

Instead of saying they "violated the GPL", let's keep this simple. They violated copyright law. By their own definition, they're "pirates". They stole. Etc.

Re:Nomenclature, please

[DustyShadow]

The breached the license and violated the copyright.

Re:Nomenclature, please

[The Evil Couch]

They breached the license and violated the copyright.

Sounds like an awful porno.

Re:Nomenclature, please

[KIAaze]

About your signature:
ESP=Extra-sensory perception?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception

Is there a logic your game here?: http://www.whohasesp.com/cross.php
Or is it completely random?

I managed to get 10 correct by continuously hitting the refresh button. ^^
Guesses: 66
Correct: 10
Score: 15.2%
Average: 20%

Re:Nomenclature, please

[Trailer Trash]

Yes, extra-sensory perception. If anyone does have ESP, they haven't found the site. I leave it at that.

By the way, your score, were you to keep hitting refresh, would average at 20% in time.

Stop talking shit

[Chuck Chunder]

You do not have to distribute "changes in the form of a diff", or "distribute your code changes" in particular.

You must distribute (or offer to) the complete source code corresponding to the binaries you distribute. The whole purpose of the GPL is that someone getting a binary can get the full source for the binary.

Re:Stop talking shit

[ajs]

You do not have to distribute "changes in the form of a diff", or "distribute your code changes" in particular.

You must distribute (or offer to) the complete source code corresponding to the binaries you distribute. The whole purpose of the GPL is that someone getting a binary can get the full source for the binary. Yes, you're correct, but as others pointed out, you already get that via the package system that comes with the CD. You don't need the MPAA to provide you what the CD already does.

The problem was that they modified something. Providing the diffs for that something, given that you're already providing the source to the original would more than satisfy the GPL, as I read it.

Re:Stop talking shit

[Raphael]

Yes, you're correct, but as others pointed out, you already get that via the package system that comes with the CD. You don't need the MPAA to provide you what the CD already does.

This is only partially true. The software distributed by the MPAA uses specific versions of each package, while the Ubuntu repositories usually carry the latest version, which may be different than the one needed to rebuild the same versions of the packages as provided on the live CD. Many mirrors try to carry as many old versions as possible, but they do not have to.

The GPLv2 requires you to make the source code available "from the same place" as the binaries and it must be the exact same version as the one used to build the binaries. Unless they have made a deal with some Ubuntu mirrors to ensure that the version of the packages they are using will never be removed from the mirrors, then they are in violation of the GPL by not distributing the sources from their site.

For more information, see this section of the old GPL FAQ.

Re:Stop talking shit

[Rogerborg]

I don't need the MPAA to provide what the CD already does; it's the license that requires that. I think you need to go and read what the GPL version 2 actually says, without prejudice as to what you expect it to say, or to how it's commonly interpreted. The majority of distributors violate it, IME.

Re:Stop talking shit

[ajs]

Its a fair point, but I don't think selective enforcement against ONE live CD distributor is wise, there. Unless you're going to press that issue with all live CD distributors, you're likely to get shot down in court.

Re:Stop talking shit

[mr_mischief]

Every live CD I've seen distributed tells you where to get the sources for the live CD from the distributor's servers. Please let us know which ones don't so we can inform the appropriate copyright holders.

Except in one scenario

[Chuck Chunder]

If you are distributing binaries non-commercially and you got those binaries as is from elsewhere (ie didn't compile it yourself from source) then you can simply pass on the offer that you were given, as per 3c of the GPL.

Otherwise if I were giving a Ubuntu CD to a friend I'd have to be prepared to distribute the source to him too! As it is I can just refer him to the offer Ubuntu gave me.

That may even apply to most of the packages aggregated on the Xubuntu CD the MPAA were distributing (I haven't seen a package by package comparison, ie whether they built their own packages ot just used xubuntu's wholesale).

For the changed packages it would be interesting to know what the changes were, to the extent that can be determined without the source.

Re:Except in one scenario

[Kadin2048]

For the changed packages it would be interesting to know what the changes were, to the extent that can be determined without the source. It would be interesting, I suppose, from an academic point of view, but it doesn't really matter. As long as they changed them, even the slightest bit, they're required to distribute (or offer / provide a method for users to obtain) the complete sources to the modified components -- specifically not diffs -- or they're in violation of the GPL.

Even if all they did was change a few strings or customize an interface, they have to distribute the changed components in source form along with the binaries.

Re:Except in one scenario

[Chuck Chunder]

It would be interesting, I suppose, from an academic point of view, but it doesn't really matter.

It might matter. I don't know what they did (and there seems surprisingly little public analysis) but it's feasible to imagine a scenario where someone got the functionality they wanted by merely changing configuration files relating to the binary package rather than changing the actual source and recompiling.

If that were the case I'm not sure that they would necessarily have to distribute because of the GPL.

I'm not suggesting that is the case here, merely that it's a possible scenario.

Re:Except in one scenario

[dwater]

Well, it depends on what they changed. If they added code to phone home a lot with lots of personal information....that would be interesting from more than a purely academic point of view (IMO).

Re:Except in one scenario

[Sancho]

If you are distributing binaries non-commercially and you got those binaries as is from elsewhere (ie didn't compile it yourself from source) then you can simply pass on the offer that you were given, as per 3c of the GPL.

Otherwise if I were giving a Ubuntu CD to a friend I'd have to be prepared to distribute the source to him too! As it is I can just refer him to the offer Ubuntu gave me. Interestingly, if you weren't given an offer of the source (because you were given the source itself), you'd be in violation if you just handed them the CD.

Although it seems to me that the doctrine of first-sale should apply here. You should be free to give or sell the unmodified source to anyone you please, under this doctrine.

Re:Except in one scenario

[Michael Hunt]

Except that if you hand an original got-it-from-Ubuntu (or whatever) CD to a friend, you're not 'distributing' anything (in the context of copyright law,) otherwise used-CD and used-book shops, as well as libraries, would have been MPAAd to death years ago for copyright violation.

Were you to copy the Ubuntu CD for your friend, on the other hand, that would be distribution (and as such, legally actionable by the copyright holder in the absence of the GPL; remember, the GPL /adds/ to your freedom to distribute.) In this case, all that the GPL says is 'if you distribute the software, hand out the source also', as opposed to 'do not make illegal copies of this CD.'

Re:Except in one scenario

[Chuck Chunder]

If you got a CD from Ubuntu Shipit then you could probably just pass it on, as you don't need any additional rights that the GPL grants to be allowed to do pass it on.

However if you download an iso and burn it yourself then you probably do need the GPL granted right to copy before you can distribute it and therefore would be bound.

In any case the Ubuntu CD's don't actually come with source on them do they?

Re:Except in one scenario

[mpe]

As long as they changed them, even the slightest bit, they're required to distribute (or offer / provide a method for users to obtain) the complete sources to the modified components -- specifically not diffs

Either the modified source or the original source together with diffs is ok, just the diffs isn't.

or they're in violation of the GPL.

Which means any distribution they do is a copyright violation unless they have an an alternative permission from all relevent copyright holders.
Since they got their software taken down they self evidently didn't. Thus in order to fight movie piracy they enguaged in software piracy. Which weakens any case they may want to bring to court in future due to "unclean hands".

Re:Except in one scenario

[mr_mischief]

Ubuntu makes an offer to provide the sources, then provides them. They are within the rights granted by the license.

Re:aww...

[Jarjarthejedi]

Naw, the FSF explained to them what they believe is right, that the principle is that stealing code is stealing code. Frankly, right is right and wrong is wrong, particularly when a government agency is talking to an extremely powerful corporation. A bright line around moral responsibility is very important. They can assure you the RIAA no longer does that.

Don't think that's true.

[Kadin2048]

If you are, in fact, a lawyer, I'll happily defer, but in my layman's opinion I don't think that's the correct conclusion.

If you violate one of the GPL terms, your license to use the software is terminated. Fine. However, as long as the software is still being offered to anyone under the GPL, you can just go, conform to every part of the GPL, and use it again. You can think of it as one license being terminated, but then going and getting a new one; the GPL is an "infinite stack" of licenses: all you need to do to get a new one is to play by the rules.

There's nothing in the GPL that says 'if you violate this once, you're out for good,' although I'm not sure that would be an entirely terrible idea. But that license-termination clause doesn't necessarily imply that.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[EvanED]

IANAL, that would be my argument too.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[despisethesun]

For the record, the GPL has nothing to do with the use of software licensed under it, only distribution. From the license (v.2):

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

There is effectively no way for them to stop you from using the software if you don't comply with the license, you just can't give it to other people, or modify it and then distribute your modified version unless you offer the source. I don't know about permanent license termination, though. That's definitely something that I'd prefer a lawyer's opinion on.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. The GPL isn't an infinite stack of licenses where you can just help yourself to a new one every time you want; in fact, it seems that you are confused as to what the term "license" really means here.

It does not refer to the right to modify or distribute a piece of software, it refers to the developer's decision to grant you that right. It's not an automatic right in copyright law, so it needs to be granted; without a license (that is, the developer's granting of this right), you don't have it. So if the developer decides to not allow you to do this anymore, you can't do anything: you can't "take a new license", because the developer simply isn't granting you this right anymore.

Now, of course, you might say that once you've been granted a right, the developer can't arbitrarily take it away again whenever it suits them. That's true. However, the restrictions to your granted right to distribute and modify is subject to are explicitely spelled out in the GPL, so you know about them right away; you know right away what you can't do and what will happen if you do it anyway.

So, yes, the GPL *does* say "if you violate this once, you're out for good" - unless/until the developer decides to grant you these rights again after all, something that is neither automatic nor guaranteed (even though most developers - notably, the FSF - will probably do so if you start complying with the license and show an understanding of why this is important).

Finally, allow me to say that you seem pretty confused about the GPL in general, anyway: you talk about a "license to use the software", yet no such thing exists. In fact, the GPL specifically does not apply to mere *use* of the software, and you do not have the accept it in order to do so. You don't even have to accept it to modify the software (at least in the GPLv2); you only have to accept it if you want to *distribute* the software, modified or unmodified.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[91degrees]

If I subsequently receive permission from you to redistribute, I have the right to do so. Downloading comes with permission. It's also not clear whether this particular clause applies to future downloads or not Furthermore, the GPL allows other people to grant you the right under the licence. But most importantly, almost all GPL authors have always been okay with people once they are in compliance, and the ones that can't really can't be bothered suing someone who is in compliance over a subtle piece of legalese.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[Michael Woodhams]

IANAL, I'm just parroting what someone said on Groklaw who seemed to know what they were talking about.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[dfghjk]

Since when is only the first issuance of a GPL license "automatic" or "guaranteed"? The GPL does not say that it grants rights only if such rights haven't been revoked in the past. It grants them only with the restrictions it states. Obtaining a new license certainly could reverse the revocation of a previous one, so it appears to me that the GPL could be, in fact, an infinite stack of licenses. The GPL could have just as easily been written differently, so I'd have to assume that they wrote it the way they intended. The outcome would be interesting should this be tested in court.

In what way would denying rights that the GPL otherwise grants, given full compliance with GPL terms, further the cause of FSF ideals or represent the spirit of the community? Attitudes such as this would suggest that it's not enough that you comply with the license, you must believe in it as well.

Re:Don't think that's true.

[Alsee]

Both interpretations are floating around, both interpretations appear to have some merit, and no court court has ruled on the issue.

And unfortunately both interpretations have problems. Under one interpretation you can just go out and grab a new copy and obtain a new license, making the termination clause effectively meaningless... and a judge might be inclined to reject that interpretation exactly because it does make the revocation clause meaningless. However on the other hand the alternate interpretation is potentially worse - the interpretation where the copyright holder needs to explicitly grant the the former violator a new license. Imagine someone at IBM carelessly distributes Linux with no source, and ANY Linux contributor decides to take it directly to court and a verdict. The LESSER problem here is that that one person could then refuse to ever relicense IBM. IBM, the biggest supporter of Linux, would be unable to use or support or participate in Linux at all unless and until the entire Linux community stripped out all source from that contributor and re-wrote the necessary parts of Linux. But there's a far bigger problem. Even if that author *did* personally relicense IBM, the fact that IBM infringed Linux would mean that IBM infringed the copyright of EVERY person with code in Linux. It would mean ALL of those individual copyright licenses had been terminated. It would be literally impossible to ever remedy the situation. It would be literally impossible to identify every single contributor much less track down all of them, doubtless some of them dead by now. Impossible to have each and every one of them individually and personally relicense IBM.

The first option opens a pretty lame loophole for violators to exploit, but the second option is potentially DISASTROUS and unfixable.

If it were up to me, I'd gag on it and take the first option.

-

Re:Don't think that's true.

[duyn]

The point may be moot, as the MPAA can always get another licence in a roundabout way.
1. Get a third party to redistribute the software in question. Make sure that third party complies with the GPL.
2. License the software from that third party (i.e. claim that the MPAA's software was based off that third party's distribution).
3. As long as that third party remains in compliance with the GPL, the fact that the MPAA's original licence to distribute the software was revoked becomes irrelevant.[1] They are now licensing the right to redistribute from the third party.

The MPAA could even provide the resources for the third party. They only need somebody to stand up as a figurehead and say "I grant MPAA a licence to use my redistribution of this software".

-------
[1] At least, until the third party's licence to the software gets revoked. As long as the third party complies with the GPL, revoking their licence opens up a whole different bunch of issues which I won't go into.

see also

[Chuck Chunder]

this chaps comment.

It would be nice to know precisely what went on. Obviously we don't have to be told, but if "MPAA don't fuck with my shit" is going to be splashed around the kernel/Debian/Ubuntu planets I think it's reasonable for people to be interested in the details.

Perhaps this story can get even wierder and the MPAA will post the DMCA notice on Chilling Effects

Re:aww...

[wish bot]

You wouldn't steal a purse! You wouldn't steal a car! GPL software distribution without following the license - IT'S STEALING!!!

Re:No GPL Violation

[budword]

Read the GPL. They do need to supply the code or offer to at a nominal price even if they make no changes. If they distribute the binaries, they are on the hook to distribute the source for every single program they provide a binary for. There was a guy in Tennessee who rolled his own distro, first with Mandriva then he switched to Ubuntu as a base. He had to provide the source for every program in Ubuntu to comply with the GPL. He was a little grumpy about it, but he did it. He just offered 2 DVD's with the full source via snail mail for $20 I think it was. I'm sorry I can't remember the name of the distro just now.

You're right, $9250 is far too greedy

[commodoresloat]

Lower the damages to $699, the cost of a license from SCO to use the code in the first place...

Re:No GPL Violation

[dido]

None of what this AC says is true. It doesn't matter if the MPAA never changed any code, the fact remains that they were distributing the code, changed or not. Now, if you want to distribute GPLed code, either you comply with the license and provide source code, or you find yourself just as guilty of copyright infringement as these people torrenting movies that they are so quick to prosecute. What happened was the latter. As for suing them for copyright violation, the fact that no one lost any money is also immaterial. There is such a thing as statutory damages, which would be at minimum US$750 for each copyrighted work thus violated, and could be as high as US$30,000. They would thus theoretically be on the hook for statutory damages for every GPLed package in the Xubuntu distribution, just like Ms. Jammie Thomas. There are hundreds of GPLed packages in Xubuntu... You do the math.

i like the post article

[Tsiangkun]

quote ">Seriously?
No, this is all just a joke. Really.

>I don't nor does the Slashdotters posting here except the rabid, fanatical F/OSS fanboys.
How can you assert that? Did you do a survey?

>This is not a victory.
Then tell us what it is.

>Silly kids, go trim your neck beards and worship Stallman some more.
How do you know "kids" are responsible for this? What backs up your suggestion that if they are kids that they are silly? How old do you think Matthew Garrett is? Go google it.

Maybe you should take a chill pill and leave this topic alone if you aren't interested in it. You are making baseless assertions just to try and stir shit.

You come across as a dumb ass.

Re:i like the post article

[Adambomb]

Careful, your chill pill will be countered by his get off my lawn. Maybe if you play a take it easy gramps, he wont have to bust out the cane shaking of ultimate exasperation.

Not that they don't have it coming...

[Xenographic]

Well, I'll go with you in saying that, if the allegations are true, they appear to have violated copyright law by breeching their license to distribute (i.e. the GPL), but I don't like distorting my speech to say that they "stole" anything, even if they do have that coming. Though you did say by "their own definition," it's still not a definition I can accept.

That said, I think that'd make the blaggards filthy copyright infringers who deserve to walk the plank. I also think they are hypocrites who obviously don't respect the Imaginary Property rights of others the way they want their own to be respected.

But that's about the best I can do without stooping to their level.

I just can't go that low, sorry :]

Yes, everyone has to provide their own source copy

[MichaelCrawford]

Wait, last I checked, you merely had to tell people where to get the source.

No, each organization that distributes GPL binaries has to supply their own copy of the source. It's not sufficient to point out some other website that has it.

I know this because I subscribe to the Cygwin mailing list, which has discussed this extensively. The Cygwin DLL is a POSIX emulation layer for Windows, and it's quite common for companies to port their *NIX apps to Windows with Cygwin, and then to bundle their app with the DLL but not its source. In particular the Cygwin developers - Red Hat - have made it very clear that just pointing out somebody else's copy of the source doesn't count.

Also, one must provide the exact same source code as was used to build the binary, and to maintain that version of the code for the duration of the license terms (two years after the last ship date I think). So if you upgrade your code, you can't take down the old version of the sources until your obligation under the GPL for that version expires.

The way I'm handling this in my own Free Software project is to roll a release tarball of the source as the first step of making a release, then to unpack it and use that to build the binary. That's the only way I can feel sure I've got a snapshot of the exact source for each binary.

That aside...

[Xenographic]

Not to respond to myself, but I did forget one thing. Wasn't the Linux kernel recently appraised as being worth $1 billion? How would that look in a headline if we did things their way? "MPAA Infringes Upon $1 Billion in Imaginary Property"?

No, that makes it sound like they photocopied Monopoly money. Hard to make it sound menacing unless you distort language the way they do. "MPAA Steals Property Worth $1 Billion" has more punch to it, but it's just not right. It's filled with the same sort of ridiculous hyperbole I dislike them for propagating.

If I may be a geek...

[VeryVito]

I read this post and immediately pictured Ewoks dancing in the forest as the Death Star burned above them. Sure, you know it's not over, but what a nice blow against the Dark Side.

Re:If I may be a geek...

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

You know, that always tweaked me and I never really figured out what it was until recently.

The rebels had just blown up a space station the size of a moon in orbit of a planet, wouldn't there be asteroid sized chunks of the blown up moon sized space station soon impacting on that planet? If I were an Ewok i'd be kinda pissed at those rebels that my home was quite probably about to be squished by lots of impacts from large meteorites.

Of course, it was just a film anyway. So that really didn't happen. At least that's what the rebels want you to think.

please, Please, PLEASE...

[hyades1]

I doubt whether the RIAA will be stupid enough to get caught like this twice. I'm desperately hoping that the "infringee" has the inclination and the resources to drag their asses into court and beat the legal crap out of them.

Do NOT let them settle. This needs to be on the public record.

Even if they won, what delicious irony if they had to spend a whack of money on a successful defense, only to have it turned against them in subsequent cases!

Re:Uuuuubunnnntttuuuuuuuu Correction...

[Technician]

Read the article.. it's XuuuuuBuuuuuTTTuuuuuuuuu !!

"The University Toolkit is essentially an operating system (xubuntu) that you can boot up from a CD-ROM. The package bundles some powerful, open-source network monitoring tools, including "Snort," which captures detailed information about all traffic flowing across a network; as well as "ntop," a tool used to take data feeds from tools like Snort and display the data in more user-friendly graphics and charts. "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/11/mpaa_university_toolkit_opens_1.html

Re:aww...

[RobNich]

You wouldn't steal a handbag!

You wouldn't steal a car!

You wouldn't steal a baby!

You wouldn't shoot a policeman

and then steal his helmet.

You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet!

And then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.

And then steal it again!

Ahh the irony...

[Spy der Mann]

MPAA was caught committing a copyright infringement. :)

Re:Ahh the irony...

[aevan]

...and the masses goaded on and cheered the IP owner in defending his property against the infringer. It's backwards-day.

Re:Ahh the irony...

[Mix Master Nixon]

Not even the first time. They got busted violating DMCA when they made illegal copies of a DVD copy of THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED, in total disregard of the director specifically denying them permission to copy it before giving them the copy to be screened for the ratings board. (It got an NC-17, of course.)

Re:Ahh the irony...

[ChaoticLimbs]

It's ironic because the thing they violated copyright with was the very thing they implemented to prevent infringement of their own properties.

FSF has little to do with it.

[gd2shoe]

And why would the FSF be able to chase them down? I was under the impression that Ubuntu (or their developers) held the copyright. Sure the FSF owns the GPL, but they do not own software licenced with it. The FSF can do nothing if the copyright owners do not invite them to be involved.

Re:FSF has little to do with it.

[Entropius]

Are there any GNU tools distributed with Xubuntu?

I'm sure there are -- gcc, emacs, etc.

They own the copyright to those, even if Xubuntu packages it all together.

Re:FSF has little to do with it.

[budgenator]

A surprising number of developers assign their rights to the FSF, that way if they are personally sued the court can't auction off their work ect. also the FSF is large enough that they unlikely to run out of resourses to pursue a matter like an individual might.

Chinese Translation

[SnowZero]

Uuuuubuuuuuuuuuuunnnnnnnnntuuuuuuuuuuuuuu !! Chinese Translation: "GNU Not Want!"

Re:Obvious meme

[Tmack]

But if its in Soviet russia, wouldnt the torrent track them, even before the ISP contracted them?

tM

Re:No GPL Violation

[xtracto]

The funny thing is that, what the MPAA has to do is only stop distributing the programs or just comply by releasing the source code... there is no way they will have to pay 1 cent to anyone.

Idiots

[RAMMS EIN]

It wouldn't be so hard to take these organizations seriously if they didn't use every dirty trick in the book, including breaking the laws they claim to enforce.

I can almost imagine them having fallen into the trap of "open source = public domain, therefore we can do whatever we want"; except that MPAA deals with copyright infringement all the time, so they _should_ know better.

On a side note, this is a good illustration of the difference between open source and Free software: Free software is what requires the MPAA to make the source code available, whereas open source doesn't necessarily impose that requirement.

Re:Idiots

[Myopic]

I can almost imagine them having fallen into the trap of "open source = public domain, therefore we can do whatever we want"; except that MPAA deals with copyright infringement all the time, so they _should_ know better.

Dude, yeah, they know better, they just don't give a flying fuck.

Just like the rest of us.

None of us give a fuck because, more or less, copyright infringement is a minor thing. Not altogether okay, but for things like swapping songs with friends or handing out copies of Linux, it is seriously small beans.

DMCA takedowns...

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'll assume you've read the other comments and now understand that it was a DMCA takedown notice, not "social engineering"...

The real joke for you to get here is that the MPAA has, themselves, issued similar takedown notices in the past. In fact, the RIAA/MPAA are pretty much the whole reason the DMCA exists -- and the takedown notices with it.

I'd gladly give up the takedown notices in order to repeal the rest of the DMCA -- in particular, the anti-circumvention bits, so that libdvdcss becomes legal.

Either or?

[SanityInAnarchy]

D * (200-2000) = A lot of R&D money for open source.

Or a lot of caffeine. Either or.

Can't it be both?

Re:Either or?

[Gazzonyx]

D * (200-2000) = A lot of R&D money for open source.

Or a lot of caffeine. Either or.

Can't it be both?

Aren't they the same?

Re:Either or?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Aren't they the same?

Yes, that is what I meant.

Re:Either or?

[Gazzonyx]

Haha, I got a pic of a mini fridge I had between my two desks just like this (It was literally completely full with Rockstar, RedBull, and Mountain Dew (Code Red and regular), and a Sobe Adrenaline rush here and there - I think it cost about $60 to stock); although, I have to admit, I am a little jealous. I'm guessing the soy milk is from the guys in marketing or something? Friggin' hippies.

Re:Either or?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Actually, no. I work in some kind of wonderful dream -- all marketing, accounting, and purely management-types are five states away.

This office, in the middle of Iowa, is a group of five programmers. Of those five, one is the CTO and my boss, but he does spend a good chunk of his time programming -- that means I can just talk to him, and he gets to do the work of actually making the CEO and marketing guy understand it. Another likes to do design, so he does more of the visually-oriented, real web-facing parts. I know at least four of us (myself included) know enough Gimp/Photoshop to skin the UI in a pinch, or we can outsource it. I'm a Linux geek, so I occasionally play with our servers.

Then again, this town is full of a lot of friggin' hippies anyway, so maybe it's infectuous... I really have no idea where the soy milk came from, or if it's still good, or what the motivation was -- sometimes it's not any Vegan tendencies, but simple lactose intolerance. But it doesn't really take up much space, vs all the caffeine!

Re:No GPL Violation

[dido]

Only because copyright violations are a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Now, if any of the copyright holders of the GPLed packages in Xubuntu were to decide to take the matter to court, then the MPAA would have to pay many red cents in statutory damages should they lose. The only reason why it's never come to this point in the past is that the FSF has always been more interested in compliance than in punishment:

In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.

--from "Enforcing the GPL" by Prof. Eben Moglen, general counsel for the Free Software Foundation. Nothing but this policy prevents the FSF from collecting damages for GPL violations. If they decide to change this policy after encountering an egregious, willful, or stubborn violator, or if a non-FSF copyright holder of GPLed code decides to sue (they could just as easily get their own lawyer), then well, all bets are off.

Going to cost a lot...

[SanityInAnarchy]

I'll gladly done to a legal offense fund, if someone wants to throw together a class action. (I have no code in Xubuntu, but now I wish I did.)

Now, who wants to throw together the creative estimate of number of actual downloads?

Re:aww...

[PurPaBOO]

Indeedy. But as has been said before, buying a pirated DVD isn't stealing.

Stealing a pirated DVD is stealing.

Re:aww...

[Builder]

You know, I am SOOO sick of those adverts. I mean, how do they KNOW that I wouldn't steal a purse ? Maybe I'm only in this dark movie theatre to steal some purses, then go outside and steal any cars that they keys in the purses open.

This is slander! Or libel! Or something!

Re:aww...

[J_Darnley]

Do you get that on American DVDs too? DVDs I buy in England have what sounds like an identical 'public safety announcement' brought to us by FACT, the Federation Against Copyright Theft. Fortunately, I haven't seen one on a continental DVD yet.

Re:aww...

[l-ascorbic]

[citation needed] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTbX1aMajow

GPL-free for a price

[Per Abrahamsen]

> IANAL, but why don't OSS developers offer a GPL-free version of their software for some really high price.

Actually, it is a common business model for developing free software. Cygnus did it with Cygwin, at least until they were bought by Red Hat. Alladin did it with GhostScript. TrollTech does it with Qt. I believe MySQL is developed under a similar model.

It mostly works for libraries, because the GPL is not limited by library boundaries. This is also why Alladin later switched to a more restrictive license, as GhostScript was usually called as a stand alone binary, rather than as a library.

University Toolkit?

[zero_offset]

I know it's irrelevant to the GPL violation problem, but what did this "toolkit" supposedly do, anyway?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yes, there was a GPL Violation

[Lost Penguin]

"The MPAA doesn't need to ship source code with GPLed software if they didn't make any modifications"

If the GPL'd code was not modified, the software would not have sent information about the universities network back to the MPAA.

Dan Glickman is that you trolling as an AC?

Re:Yes, there was a GPL Violation

[Antibozo]

If the GPL'd code was not modified, the software would not have sent information about the universities network back to the MPAA.

1. The software did not send information about the universities' network back to the MPAA.

2. The software that did phone home did so to check for updates, and was not GPLed software; it was their own Python code in /usr/local/sbin/peerwatch.py.

3. The update check does not download or install new software on its own; it simply notifies the user if a new version is available for download.

Re:aww...

[Zelucifer]

Citation appreciated, for those of us not in the know, that was hilarious and awesome.

Re:aww...

[R_Dorothy]

You know, I am SOOO sick of those adverts.

Try a pirated version - the ones "my friends" have don't come with any of that.

MPAA: Hypocrites

[EddyPearson]

I suppose laws are for other people...

The sweet sweet irony here is that the MPAA doing, essentially, what they're trying to prevent with this software.

They have, without prior permission, taken a product, released under a specific license and immediatly violated the terms. By violating the license agreement, they have not accepted the authors terms of use, and therefore have violated the his copyright.

It sickens me that a company can quite openly break the very laws that it uses to bash (relativly) innocent people, and still the bigwigs do nothing.

RIAA, MPAA, you've known it for a while, and the latest figures show its not far away, you NEED to change your business modal. Adapt or die.

Re:aww...

[Builder]

I have to sit through these 'ads' when I take my wife to the cinema. I tried to pirate the cinema, but we live in London, so the screen was slightly bigger than the house and wouldn't fit.

On the plus side, these aren't quite so much of a downer as when you're out to see a nice fun escapism movie and have to sit through an ad of a guy dying on his motorcycle because he didn't see the car door. Or the one where the guy is drinking and the next thing the table lurches forward and leaves the waitress as a bloody mess on the floor and it cuts to a car that has killed someone. Road safety ads can really kill the buzz on an evening out!

Re:No GPL Violation

[insomniac8400]

The funny thing is that the ISP took it down after the RIAA ignored the warnings. This means they did not comply. So they may still be liable.

I couldn't let your reply stand alone...

[avronius]

So I added one of my own!

Commenting on the same poster as the parent:

You, sir, appear to be a card carrying member. You are using an open source forum to contribute your comments to the community. Does that not fully embrace the F/OSS model?

Glad to see that you've entered the fold, and look forward to seeing you "grow" some more!

Re:aww...

[andreyvul]

Wow. Post an highly immature joke on /. and you get labelled as a troll.

Smells like...

[KZigurs]

Class Action Suit!

Now, who will take on to fill one?

Re:aww...

[fbartho]

Yeah! Plagiarism is stealing!

Re:Ironic bliss

[abb3w]

If a University is using NAT then all traffic coming from the University will appear as a single IP address.

Not necessarily; the University of Virginia uses NAT for machines connected to their Wireless network, but I believe each class-C chunk of 172.16 Wireless addresses has an individual gateway with its own public IP, and certainly the wired connections all have separate IP addresses.

As for why they went after college students, they figure they ought to have money about for tuition somewhere, as opposed to random schmucks still in their parent's basements.

Re:Uuuuubunnnntttuuuuuuuu Correction...

[bigpicture]

Thank you, do you know how many cute posts I had to read down just to find out what the item is.

The toolkit has NOT been taken down!

[alispguru]

Do a Google search for MPA University Toolkit. You will see lots of copies and caches of the original page, complete with the original link for doing the download:

http://universitytoolkit.org/tkagree.php

... which still works.

Re:The toolkit has NOT been taken down!

[bobbocanfly]

It was up about 20 minutes ago but was down as of 3:56pm GMT

Re:aww...

[Mynorrrr]

It seems to have stopped here in Australia

Re:aww...

[darkpixel2k]

Nope, it's just plain old copyright infringement. Stealing would require that some physical object be intentionally taken from its owner without permission

That's funny--because I thought the *IAA called it *stealing* when someone copied the 0's and 1's that made up a song.
They aren't physically taking anything.

It's 0's and 1's, not someone's car. It's not like you are depriving someone of a few electrons when you download something off TPB.

Re:Uuuuubunnnntttuuuuuuuu Correction...

[Technician]

Thank you, do you know how many cute posts I had to read down just to find out what the item is.

You are welcome. For me instead of reading the cute posts first, I read the article if it isn't Slashdotted.

OMG.. He read the article!

This bears repeating

[p3d0]

Copyright law limits your right to copy things. GPL gives you back some of those rights if you satisfy certain conditions. The GPL is not relevant for activities that don't involve copying.

If you make a copy of a binary, then give it away without source, then you have violated the GPL. If you receive a CD with binaries from someone who has complied with the GPL, then give it away without source code or offer of source code, I don't see how anyone has broken any law. Seems like a bit of a loophole.

ELER comic about this: GPL killed the MPAA star

[edjack]

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/gpl-killed-the-mpaa-star