Slashdot Mirror
Entertainment Software Association Following RIAA?
cavis writes "My organization just received an e-mail from the Intellectual Property enforcement division of the Entertainment Software Association. It accuses one particular IP address with 'infringing the copyright rights of one or more ESA members by copying and distributing unauthorized copies of game products (through peer-to-peer or similar software/services).' It goes on to name the filename and the application: Limewire. Has anyone had any contact with this group? Are they following the RIAA's lead and pursuing litigation for peer-to-peer piracy? I'm just trying to evaluate what I am in for as I try to battle P2P within my network."
Read on for more details.
The letter reads in part (with my redactions):
The Entertainment Software Association ("ESA") is a US trade association that represents the intellectual property interests of numerous companies that publish interactive games for video game consoles, personal computers, handheld devices and the Internet(hereinafter collectively referred to as "ESA members"). ESA is authorized to act on behalf of ESA members whose copyright and other intellectual property rights it believes to be infringed as described herein.
Based on the information at its disposal on 24 Nov 2008 01:09:08 GMT, ESA has a good faith belief that the subscriber using the IP address [IP address] infringing the copyright rights of one or more ESA members by copying and distributing unauthorized copies of game products (through peer-to-peer or similar software/services), in violation of applicable copyright laws, through internet access that [agency name] provides directly to the [IP address] or through a downstream provider that purchases this access for [IP address].
The Entertainment Software Association ("ESA") is a US trade association that represents the intellectual property interests of numerous companies that publish interactive games for video game consoles, personal computers, handheld devices and the Internet(hereinafter collectively referred to as "ESA members"). ESA is authorized to act on behalf of ESA members whose copyright and other intellectual property rights it believes to be infringed as described herein.
Based on the information at its disposal on 24 Nov 2008 01:09:08 GMT, ESA has a good faith belief that the subscriber using the IP address [IP address] infringing the copyright rights of one or more ESA members by copying and distributing unauthorized copies of game products (through peer-to-peer or similar software/services), in violation of applicable copyright laws, through internet access that [agency name] provides directly to the [IP address] or through a downstream provider that purchases this access for [IP address].
Well, at least they're speedy!
Slashdot is fine too; asking can't hurt, but don't neglect your lawyer.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
"Read More"?
Make sure this gets mainstream press coverage. Be sure to sensationalize it and compare it to the RIAA. Watch them back down quickly.
Nope, just missing. Perhaps you should click read more yourself.
My Babylon
Maybe they are finally getting around to busting you for making copies of Leisure Suit Larry and giving them to your friends.
No, I mean that that is the link. From the initial summary:
Click the link below to read part of their letter.
Sure enough, clicking on the link gives you part of the letter.
the riaa's extortion model is under legal attack
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Great. And what do you expect me to do about it?"
You are not liable for anything your users do on the network. If you are operating a service like youtube, you'd have a DMCA takedown request. Taking down the allegedly infringing content puts you in the clear. End of story. If you aren't, then you really don't have to comply with anything they say. The RIAA doesn't sue ISPs for damages. They sue the person doing the infringing.
A court proceeding would be limited to requiring you to divulge who owned the equipment associated with that IP address. That's about it. Neither you nor your organization have anything to worry about.
It's effectively an Ask Slashdot. No link required.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Are they merely asking for the infringement to stop, are they threatening to take you court and asking for an out-of-court settlement, are they asking for the identity of the person with the IP address?
If it's the first option then it's easy, find the person who might be infringing and deal with it. Perhaps even block the Limewire service on your network. Setup guidelines for accepted computer usage within your organization. Then ignore the letter unless it demands some form of communication back to them, or threatens legal action if something isn't done about it. If it does ask for a response or you get a second letter, then refer to legal advice on how to deal with it.
The other two scenarios may require legal opinions and official responses.
Well, it's an interesting letter, but there are some questions I'd want the answers to before moving forward in any capacity:
1. What copyrights exactly are they claiming have been infringed?
2. Who are they saying has infringed them?
3. What exactly do they want you to do about it?
I'd also repeat what has been mentioned here by more than one person - consult a lawyer about this, and find out what your liability is, and the best way to proceed. One thing you have to consider is that they could have come across something that is indeed a copyright infringement, and in a case like that, it is better to work with them than against them.
It is also quite possible that they got caught by a rotating IP address, and while there may have been something questionable going on at that IP address, that IP address now belongs to somebody completely different. In that case, you want your lawyer to write them a polite but firm letter explaining all of this, and that should, in theory, make them go away.
The only way you're going to figure out what to do, though, is get answers to those questions.
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
Assuming the poster works for the government of the state of West Virginia (chris.l.avis@wv.gov is what his username link translates to) I'd suggest the first thing to do is to talk to whoever was using that IP address and suggest they stop using file sharing on the government network.
That e-mail sounds pretty friendly all things considered. No threat of a lawsuit or anything similar, just letting you know that one of your users may have violated the copyright of a work under their protection.
What do you mean, your "organization"? Is this letter directed at an ISP or are you the network admin for a company? Have you checked the machine with the corresponding IP to see if Limewire is installed?
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
Get a lawyer.
There may be many people in the /. crowd who, rightly or wrongly think any system where lawyers are needed is bad. That's besides the point. You need legal advice. Lawyers provide legal advice.
Get a lawyer.
It's all well and good to ask for input from /. and Groklaw etc., but get competent, professional, legal advice and trust it over what anyone says here. Nobody here is a lawyer. (And if they are, then they're not being contracted by you to get legal advice, and so are not liable; moreover, they don't have the full details of the letter you got.
An example: Someone said 'take it to the press.' Ask a lawyer before you do that. There are all sorts of procedural reasons why doing that could make a court rule against you. What sort of reasons? IANAL.
So before anything else, get a lawyer to sit down with you and go over the letter, have them research and follow up on the letter, and see what your legal obligations are. Is the ESA asking for a name to go with that IP address? Is this a C&D letter of some kind? Are they threatening your company with legal action? Heck, for that matter, does this organization actually exist? (Someone could be pulling an elaborate joe job. Unlikely, but possible.)
In short, get a lawyer.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
http://www.theesa.com/
For awhile there, I thought, "Oh, great. Another person whose parents couldn't spell Theresa."
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Ridiculous isn't it. The RIAA are one of the most despised groups in North America now (I want to say the world, but don't know how true that would be), and it's like the software industry looked and thought "WOW! We MUST get a slice of that juicy animosity pie!"
Idiocy.
They haven't made a request for takedown, haven't cited the applicable laws for the aforementioned, and do not mention the specific instance of the infraction. What you've got here is a bullshit takedown notice. It's a scare tactic. Send back to your ISP that it is not a valid DMCA notification and no action is necessary. Also, it takes more than an IP address to prove infringement -- they also have to prove it was you, on a computer that was using that IP address, at that time. Short of a forensic search of the computer in question, they have nothing.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
http://www.theesa.com/
http://www.theesa.com/policy/antipiracy.asp
Next time href it.
-=Bang Bang=-
Ridiculous isn't it. The RIAA or local variant (in the case of Australia this would be the government) are one of the most despised groups in the world now, and it's like the software industry looked and thought "WOW! We MUST get a slice of that juicy animosity pie!"
Idiocy.
There you go, that should cover it.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
If their mailing address is in Nigeria, I'd settle immediately. There could be big $$$ in it for you.
Yes, we've been contacted by them (I work for a large university). We got a DMCA takedown notice. However no they aren't acting like the RIAA, they seem to be working like the MPAA. That is to say they send a notice saying "Please remover this shit and yell at the user." We say "Ok we did," and that's the last we ever hear from them. They don't seem to be suing people, they just seem to be trying to get the ISPs to take down the content.
You are in a pitch-black room. A warm glow is coming from a nearby window.
You turn right and are confronted by a man in a suite.
He hands you a slip of paper.
You have been sued by a grue.
I thought it was Jar-Jar's website.
Are these kinds of investigations really inherently bad in and of themselves or is it just the way the RIAA has handled the court procedings after the fact?
Personally, I think that if you can sanely, rationaly, and beyond a reasonable doubt prove that someone has violated the copyright, you have the right to make them stop and seek some amount of damages. The problem with the RIAA is that they almost never prove beyond any kind of doubt, they violate laws in their investigations, and they seek damages many times what the actual damages are.
Seriously, thousands of people make their living producing the games that I love to play. I see no problem in them charging me to play them and no problem in them punishing people who try get out of paying. You can argue that they are too expensive, or that there are no good demos available, and even that priracy doesn't really affect sales. But that doesn't really change the facts. Yes, people will take what they can without paying but companies should have the right to deter them from doing so.
I got one of those passed on to me via my ISP once. Turns out I'd picked up a virus and someone had installed filesharing onto one of my PCs. Thanked the ISP, cleaned up the machine, never heard another thing about it.
So clean up your network, thank them for letting you know, and I'd assume as long as it doesn't happen again, you're okay.
Reply with a letter stating "That IP address is a Dynamic DHCP address handed out by an open Wireless Access Point, so I have no idea who was using it at the time. However, we are now putting in place measures to limit access." Then, if you can actually track down the IP to a specific user, beat them about the head and shoulders with a stout cluestick while repeating the mantra "Inappropriate or unauthorized use of the network will be result in severe consequences up to and including termination." Sounds like they're being reasonable here, which means if you can convince them that you are policing yourself, they won't feel the need to come barging in with lawyers to do your policing for you.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
As i got one of these takedown notices sent to my home isp last weekend.. for apparently downloading and sharing a torrent of a game that i actually own in hardcopy.
While my ISP did what they needed to do to indemnify themselves, and then gave me my access back (the process felt automated and took about 5 minutes), i was pretty pissed off that someone could just assert that my ip was associated with a torrent and have my access removed like that.. Don't get me wrong, i'd still be annoyed if i was actually doing it and they removed my access, but the fact that i hadn't actually shared the torrent in question made consider switching isp on the spot, even though i know it's not really their fault.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
Change that last line to "You have been served by a grue." and it's more accurate, AND you have an awesome double-entendre!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I read the title and thought: "@esa is now following @riaa?" ...
I need to get out more.
Seriously, though, the letter does not mention any action to be taken, it's just a notification basically saying "we think you're doing this..." and nothing more.
Is this scare tactics or is it kudos for doing it? Doesn't say.
http://www.letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=the+Esa
Next you'll tell me that they have libraries and schools or something crazy like that ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I was going to buy Fallout 3, but I wanted to see if it would run on my computer. But damn, no PC demo! What ever should I do? Buy the game and risk wasting $50 on a game that won't run? Or download it, verify it runs, delete it, and go buy it?
Usually, I use option #2, but if the ESA are going to be that much of a bitch about this, I just won't bother buying any PC games that don't have demos. Who looses the money there?
Or, since I am considered a criminal and liable to legal action for simply downloading the game, playing it for 10 minutes to make sure it will run, deleting it, then LEGALLY buying the game at a store, why don't I just download all my games and NOT legally buy them? Then the game companies STILL loose money.
They think these shitty scare tactics will work, but I, for one, am not an idiot.
I think this guy just wants to know about the ESA and its modus operandi; not what they have to do legally. Obviously, you need a lawyer for that.
That said, I haven't heard of them suing people en masse, though the ESA has been sending takedown notices for a long time now. I seem to recall that you can see a bit of their work on the Pirate Bay's legal complaints page, for example.
Another poster mentions something about removing the files and then hitting the user with a cluestick and having them go away. That pretty much sums up the rumors I've heard on the Internet, but I haven't dealt with them personally. Because it's Limewire, you just have to figure out who has that installed and make them stop (you might be able to block ports, but I have to believe that people would get around that). But you don't necessarily have to offer them up to the ESA as a sacrifice unless they start making legal demands. Obviously, you should be looking for a lawyer whenever they mention any demands.
It might be even safer not to contact them at all, but merely to cut off Limewire access at the source (i.e. the user). They do send a lot of DMCA notices and whatnot. Even if it's not a proper DMCA notice (or intended to be one), sending a letter documenting the infringement is standard practice for copyright disputes. But they send a lot, so you may never hear back so long as you cut off the user.
Just be careful. If you start getting phone calls, follow-ups, or something more personal than a form letter you need to contact the company lawyer (and you might want to, anyhow). None of this should be considered legal advice. The best I have are second-hand rumors about other people's experiences with the ESA which I got from news sites like TorrentFreak.
Good luck.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Its how large conglomerates operate today. Accuse your customers of theft, get draconian anti freedom laws passed and profit off the fines and governmental subsides ( 'media tax' )
And here is a new flash: WE ALLOW IT.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
To make sure that it wasn't one of your printers [PDF warning].
Sig this!
Maybe my perceptions on this are skewed, but it seems to me that a few years ago, most games had downloadable demos to try. I've been noticing in the last 2 or 3 years that more and more games are being released with no demos.
Personally, I've decided to, generally, not buy any games without demos. The only exception I make is when I have a friend who has the game in question, where I can use his/her copy of the game to try it on my PC first (I did that with Mass Effect, and did go buy ME once I'd verified it worked on my PC and that I generally liked it).
But, I'm with the parent - game companies really are costing themselves opportunities by not releasing demos, because as a buyer of video games, I just can't *afford* to buy a game without trying a demo first. I don't have money to waste on titles that won't work for me or which I don't find sufficiently entertaining, and because of the very *wide* range of hardware in PC systems, there is a very real risk the game *won't* run (or at least won't run right) on my computer.
So he gives her one.
Hold on I'll grab you a tall one.
Yes
A three-piece suite? Armchairs and all?
Someone is still using limewire???
zosxavius photography
I give you a hamburger.
I have nothing to say.
The Australian Government are a bag of dickheads for playing along with Conroy's filtering BS to save face (yes, the main reason Kevin747 hasn't axed the filtering scheme yet is because Conroy said it would work. They know it doesn't.) Their actions, whilst fucked up and inexcusable, are not even vaguely comparable to the RIAA's in either style or function. Now, ARIA, on the other hand, I believe has been waging their own 'digital rights' campaign for some time now, but that's another issue. I'm not sure if they're suing people or not.
You're doing it wrong.
No, three movements.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Or the RIAA is realizing that they might get backlash for the extremely frivolous lawsuits and is further outsourcing its attacks.
Though this wouldn't be it as it is not under the R in RIAA.
It appears to be a software rather than a sound and/or music recording (RIAA), or movie and/or motion picture recording (MPAA) claim.
Still I am very interested in who the heck these people are and what records can be found about them. Hopefully some slashdotter will do some digging.
Unfortunately, you are in the business of (reactively, not proactively) policing your users. You don't have to watch what they do (and can get into worse trouble if you do), but you do have to respond to these sort of notices. The DMCA provides 'safe harbor' for ISPs that 'act in good faith'; in that it protects ISPs from civil lawsuits, regardless of what their users do, so long as they take action when notified of a problem.
No, three movements.
Like after eating too much high fiber ceral?
I don't know, but it works for me.
http://www.seebs.net/log/archives/000195.html
They sent me a nasty note because a mirror of the Interactive Fiction archive contained a file named "doom3.zip". (It was a many-year old text adventure hosted with the permission of the author.) They felt it was most likely a "retail copy of Doom 3".
According to them:
1. They review every message they send carefully.
2. They send hundreds of thousands of messages a month.
That latter estimate is from 2004 -- I can't imagine it's gone down.
I have no idea what they'd do in the unlikely event that their complaint wasn't stupid on its face; in my case, they backed down while telling me how important the work they do is. I consider them subhuman scum who are working actively to completely destroy the PC gaming industry as best they can. Given a choice between their crazy harassment and unauthorized use of my network, and Brad Wardell's high-quality software with no copy protection and good attitude, I think I can safely say I speak for anyone who has ever worked with, for, or on a video game, or who has ever played a video game and might want to again some day, when I say that I sincerely hope the ESA completely ceases to exist and is not replaced. I think they do a great deal of harm and waste a lot of money that could have been put into something with some kind of benefit.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Ask them for more data. Say you're willing to help track down the offender but need more information to do so such as logs of how much data was transferred from their honeypot and between what times to help you search logs. Ask for a full list of filenames that were being shared, the username they were connected with, the ports they were communicating via etc. etc.
Put the ball in their court, put the burden on them to demonstrate that such an event occured. Call their bluff by offering to be helpful but requesting more information.
Some have pointed out here that companies are responsible for what users do on their network, but the flip side of it is companies can also stand up to legal bullying better than individuals and thus far the cases put forward by the RIAA etc. aren't holding up well in court. The ESA will have to have a pretty strong case to stand any chance in court and if they can't/wont provide the above information they wont win in court either.
An IP address and a time is not suitable evidence of copyright infringement. If they don't have any more evidence then they don't have a case, if they can provide it then you simply need to comply. Using a company network for P2P is stupid anyway so whilst I'd love to see the ESA lose for these kind of tactics, if they have taken the effort to get suitable evidence and if a user really is using P2P at work then I'm a little more sympathetic to them. Don't be like the RIAA yourself however and assume guilt on behalf of your users based on worthless evidence- get more from them.
Perhaps the Righterous Inquisition Army of Autocrats has gone one step further in its lawyer battles and decided to ensure its success by using itself as evidence. Allow me to explain: The RIAA creates a differently named group whose essential goals are the same, attacking P2P software users under the guise of distributing computer software. Taking advantage of the legal system's lack of understanding of the concepts involved and the likeness of materials involved (games and Limewire are both software) they be bewitch, bemused, befuddle, bedazzle and bamboozle the judge into winning a landmark case against a Limewire user or a hundred, and then turn around and point to this specific case as evidence that they should be allowed to juggernaut their way through music traders (guilty or not) like a wood chipper eating through origami cranes.
Well, the RIAA is one of the most hated because they sue people. They abuse the courts and extort money from college students and single mothers. They are a horde of lying POS.
You can't really fault a business from trying to keep their content from being shared though. Based on the letter, it appears that they really just want it off the network. If that's all they want, fine.
Since the trade association hold no IP, it is just a springboard for their lawsharks (who are NOT lawyers, they EMPLOY lawyers). They have no moral or legal right to claim infringement - leave that to the *copyright holder*. If they write again, send both letter to /your/ lawyer and put in a claim for harassment.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
What's the big deal here? This is a standard DMCA Takedown Notice. We get dozens of them a month at my ISP. It's very standard and the proper and legal way for a copyright owner to inform a service provider that a copyright violation has occurred. The service provider is required to take specific actions to maintain their Safe Harbor status. There is nothing unusual about receiving one of these form letters. I've received them from the ESA as well. Not a big deal.