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].
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.
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.
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."
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.
Make sure this gets mainstream press coverage. Be sure to sensationalize it and compare it to the RIAA. Watch them back down quickly.
So far it looks like they're being very diplomatic about it. It's somewhat disturbing that they're actually monitoring Limewire for copyright infringement, but as far as possible responses go, sending a letter that essentially says "We tracked someone to your network, we'd appreciate if you'd do something about it." is one of the better ones. It would have been nice if they actually asked for something to be done, instead of leaving it open with the implication of possible legal action, but it's a lot better than saying pay up or we'll see you in court (which is no doubt what the RIAA would do). This approach is similar to the one that the MPAA has adopted in which they send a letter that essentially says "We know you're violating our copyright, we have records of you transferring such and such movie on such and such time from such and such IP. This is a warning, please stop now or we'll pursue legal avenues." (friend of mine received such a letter). Notice that the ESA isn't asking for money, and no where in the letter (at least the portion we're provided) does it say anything about a lawsuit.
Personally, I'd start by tracking down the moron running Limewire on a company system and have a chat with them. Then I'd block Limewire (no reason to be running that period, bittorrent is defensible, but Limewire is just an excuse to get a trojan on your system), and circulate a memo explaining that it's unacceptable to be running unapproved P2P software (to allow for possible valid uses of bittorrent). In the memo I'd make sure to stress the security implications and strong risk of virus infection possible from downloading off a P2P network. In particular make sure to point out that anti-virus software really only defends against well known threats and that it's trivially easy to create a trojan or virus that can go undetected and then distribute it through a P2P network for weeks or longer before AV software becomes aware of it. This nicely sidesteps the whole copyright infringement argument while still pointing our the very real security concern these apps pose for a commercial (or government as the case may be) intranet.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.