Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop Disaster Draws DMCA Notice For Boing Boing
Pickens writes: "Cory Doctorow writes that Ralph Lauren issued a DMCA takedown notice after Boing Boing republished the Photoshop disaster contained in a Ralph Lauren advertisement in which a model's proportions appear to have been altered to give her an impossibly skinny body with the model's head larger than her pelvis. Doctorow says that one of the things that makes their ISP Priority Colo so awesome is that they don't automatically act on DMCA takedowns and proceeded to dare Lauren to sue. 'This is classic fair use: a reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting," etc,' writes Doctorow. 'Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings.' Doctorow adds that every time Lauren threatens to sue he will 'reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it,' 'publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery,' and 'offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.'"
to their ISP, all the comments on that article mean something, but its the people with at least a fair amount of money behind them (such as mid-size ISP's, in fact) that can make a real difference. Not only in hilarious copyright battles such as this, but pretty much everything. Good on them for actually making a difference
That Boing Boing was able to get us the skinny on this.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
It is kind of sad to think that some people will think she looks perfectly normal. Event though they have never seen someone like that, just other adds, tv, etc.
The DMCA needs to be updated to have two points in it:
1) Filing a claim that isn't supported by copyright law is fraudulent under the good faith premise of the filing process
2) No guilty intent on the part of the filer is necessary for it to be civilly or criminally actionable.
If you're some dumbass who files a report that is incompatible with the law, without knowing what the law says, no matter how right you thought you were, you should be guilty.
This is one of the few areas where my instinct says that a guilty mind should not be necessary at all to punish someone.
Boing boing doesn't seem to have any criticism of the image on their site other than "Lookit the funny picture." They link to another site, which apparently has taken their criticism down.
I seriously can't understand how someone could even photoshop that and go 'Well, looks like my work is done here' or the marketing guy who ok'd the final product...sheesh
...these morons are going to figure out the whole Streisand Effect thing. Keep screwing yourselves, fellas.
I know when light refracts and such that the differing dimensions would only be apparent of the camera position and lens configuration.
I learned this truth on the recent NASA moon-landing hoax video, where asstronaughts actually thought they could fool the world of their billion dollar investment being far out of earth's orbit by bending light with a bubble-glass lens over the shuttle rear-porthole (directed at Planet Earth) to make it appear they were farther away than they actually were.
This photo shoot used the opposite. So, perhaps anyone want to come forward of photography credibility to state the obvious trivia: is the lense convex? :-)
The fact that anyone so much as had the idea to butcher the female form to that extent makes me want to raise any daughters I might have on some deserted island somewhere. That they actually went through with it... well, I'm speechless.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I'm sure there's some medical/advertising standards authority that'd like to rip them a new orifice for popularising morbid anorexia in this way.
One of the BB posts, noted that falsely issuing DMCA notices might be construed as abuse of process. If any real lawyers are lurking out there, could this be used as a counter tactic? What is the likely hood that you could make such a charge stick to the plantif or their counsel?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Maybe Ralph Lauren can shift their ad campaign to something more like this. The photoshop job just needs to be a little more cartoon-y.
1. Who writes these Slashdot titles? Talks about damn catchy! ... get someone else to double check his work.
2. If your Photoshop guru has glasses thicker than a quarter inch, smells of last night's alcohol or has blood-shot eyes
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
The ISP is in Canada? Why should they comply with a US law?
No sig for you!!
Of course the really funny is that is the image is *advertisement* which presumably means Ralph Lauren *pays* people to display that image.
Someone page Sir Mix-a-Lot.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
blind obedience to words written by the social elite only keeps the populace oppressed.
Exactly what did they expect a Canadian ISP to do with a DMCA takedown notice?
Even if we discount "fair use", BoingBoing and it's ISP have enough reason to ignore a DMCA takedown notice: BoingBoing is "authored" by a Canadian, who uses a Canadian co-location ISP (in Toronto, Ontario, CANADA) to host his site. The DMCA is a law in the United States of America, and does not apply outside the borders of the USA and it's territories. Canada is definitely outside the borders of the USA.
I was, however, surprised to find that Rob Liefeld was now working for Ralph Lauren.
Look at it. Body parts which were obviously mixed and matched from several different mannequins, a spine that has to travel through another dimension to reach her pelvis, and no feet. Throw in a couple belts covered with pouches and you've got every Liefeld girl ever drawn.
s/tap/snap/ig
Touched By His Noodley Appendage.
Ralph, I'd like you to meet Barbara...
I'd tap it, photoshopped or not!
Word of warning: you break it, you bought it. And judging by the look of that pelvis, a tap would shatter it. She looks so top heavy a gust of wind would bring 'er down. I wonder when they'll get around to advertisements for Ralph Lauren hip casts? What, not chic enough?
My work here is dung.
Found the link in a BoingBoing comment
http://www.ralphlauren.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3558821&camp=affiliate_k108283
She looks more human here.
It was all too easy for a Canadian company to ignore an American law and RL has to be careful about the dilemma of limiting the distribution of their advertisements. Are they claiming that this ad should not be seen?
don't work for anything fashion related, but in the same area in NYC. i see some of the models going in and out of the building and i swear in real life it's like they are auditioning for Schindler's List 2
You actually mean that this misformed picture was used in an actual published advertisement by Ralph Lauren, and is not a 'mock-up' made up by a third party to criticize the industry ? What a fuck-up by Ralph Lauren...
Nah, she looks anorexic. And those girls won't put anything in their mouths, so really, what's the point?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
That's a horrible Photoshop paste job. Does that head even go with that body?
There's a wry New Yorker article about Pascal Dangin, the leading photo retoucher for the New York fashion industry. The print version of that article has before and after pictures. He's much better than whomever did that botched Ralph Lauren ad.
Dangin is much more subtle. Although he's been criticized for slimming down Madonna's arm muscles.
All I have to do is produce a Photoshop disaster and then DMCA request the blogosphere when they make fun of me?
SWEET!
I thought it was a viral ad for the sequel to Nightmare Before Christmas, Jana Skeleton Strkes Back!
there are a few comments saying the photo is fake. It certainly looks fake, and no one has found a source.
Here she is for real.
I have always considered RL to be one of the greatest American designers and I am impartial to some of his stuff. However, this law suit makes me question my beliefs. And if you want to avoid prosecution next time, take a screen shot of the desktop that shows the ad.
Which makes me look marvelous.
Do propel actually find such a figure attractive?
I'm asking because I'm disgusted by it more than anything. It's right smack dab in the middle of the uncanny valley in my eyes.
Here you go.
"But this one goes to 11!"
For example I went onto istockphoto last year trying to find a picture of a bikini babe to use on one of my websites. It was impossible to find any pictures of a woman who was not so skinny that ribs were showing. I felt like being a troll and posting reviews on all the pictures saying "feed your models" ... but I wimped out.
So, hopefully this controversy will spur ad agencies to realize that the 10 year-old boy look is not the most attractive look to every guy. There are a lot of us out there who like the look of the normal-sized adult woman.
Yes, the DMCA is stupid.
Now, can I ask WHY people buy T-Shirts, undies, etc from big designers?
I just don't see why you would buy something for $100 from a designer label when you can buy something without a name on it for $4. I mean, the amount of marketing that has to go into this must be insane! It would be one thing if the big fancy labels used legitimate, well-paid, non-sweatshop labor to make these things, but I don't see that happening.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
Okay, seriously. Not everything is the fucking Streisand Effect. In fact, this appears to be even the opposite. Streisand wanted to preserve her privacy and it backfired by drawing attention to her house and the photo. There's no way you can tell me that people talking about an advertisement isn't publicity for the brand.
/. but a lot of people are too quick to pull the trigger on labeling something as the Streisand Effect.
We may be mocking them, but you know how the saying goes...any publicity is good publicity.
I don't know know what it is about
Not fair use because it is the entire ad, so DMCA notice is valid. Fair use is for selected excerpts of copyrighted material. Fair use almost never protects the copying of an entire piece of copyrighted material They could have cropped. Also, Boing Boing now admits ad is fake, so there is retransmission liability for libel and business disparagement. Boing Boing is clearly in the wrong here. It appears it is trying to embarrass and disparage Ralph Lauren.
In a few years, when this is forgotten, Ralphy will remember this as one of the skeletons in his closet.
I am the lawn!
While they're at it, how about creating a "truth in News reporting" law. .. no obligation to report truthfully, and the First Amendment protects their right to lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#In_USA
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
the original idea of intellectual property is to reward creators for creating
how quaint
you tell me what the legal concept is used for mostly nowadays. what i see is corporate entities using their larger legal stable to bully and intimidate smaller cultural entities. i see weapons of control, in the hands of distributors, and not creators. i see end-run agreements by large entities handing over control of creative output, away from true creators: professors, musicians, researchers and the like. to ensure that pesky notion that the creator deserves credit is preemptively routed around and destroyed and falls into corporate hands instead
such that innovation is stifled, not encouraged. or at least not encouraged in the way intellectual property intended. corporate slaves with all of their intellectual property rights signed away up front are true innovators? if you say so
and those who oppose intellectual property are called communists, maoists (and socialists, i guess, since that's the new definition-less dirty epithet you use to hurl at anyone you are told by your propaganda to oppose blindly)
hey, last i understood, monopolies are a destructive force in capitalism, right?
and not that any of this is even new: just read up on farnsworth and rca. the little guy gets screwed, the big corporation profits, and the whole legal edifice of intellectual property is completely warped and absurdified to serve entrenched power, rather than genuine creative progress
there is no moral and philosphical intelligence meant to safeguard progress and novelty in the legal codes surrounding intellectual property today. and the legal perpetrators of this travesty, this sham are too entrenched to do anything about it, to move back towards common sense on the issue of what intellectual property is supposed to be about. such that the whole ridiculous edicifice of intellectual property needs to be fought in the name of prosperous and just modern societies that are prosperous and just because they are based on concepts of liberal tolerant values
you've come a long way baby (that's an attempt at a pun in relation to this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Slims#Marketing)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I thought it was kind of ugly...
I'm glad Doctorow had the spine to stand up to this. I really couldn't stomach another battle of talking heads.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
oh damn she is hot for real!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The sad thing is that the famous blogger above has both every right to criticize the ad, and also he may gain further popularity in doing this. The only way for him to avoid being a pawn in the game is to ignore the whole argument, and that gains him nothing. It's an almost self-sustaining system, be prepared for more in the future.
Here's one of her in another RL ad where she doesn't hover so close to the uncanny valley.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
All the sammich jokes in the BB thread are ironic considering that the obvious photoshop means that the actual model, y'know, *isn't* that thin.
Baby Got Jack
I like small butts and I cannot lie,
You honkies can't deny,
When a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
and a big thing in your face I get Sick,
cuz I like a toothpick
I'll beat that booty with a stick
Even the jeans she's wearing, her pants
are almost tearing
No, baby I want a flat booty,
That's tootie fruitie, while honkies tried to warn me
that butt you've got is, oh, so corny ooh Chicken
smooth skin you say you wanna get my olds,
well peck me,
peck me, cuz you ain't that average chickadee.
Hell with romancin', I'll take her wallet dancin'
Rich. Bitch. I'll dig for her money ditch
So tired of ebony, Big butts are not my theme
if you ask me what my
flavour is I'll tell you vanilla ice cream
So honkies
(yeah) honkies(yeah) does your girlfriend have a derriere?
(Hell yeah!)
Well shrink it, shrink it, so I can get right down
and dink it,
Chorus:
Baby got Jack (wh-white honkies with the real small boot-wh-white honkies with the real small booty)
Baby got Jack (wh-white honkies with the real
small boot-wh-white honkies with the real small booty)
I like 'em flat and small, and when I'm in the mall,
I just can't help myself
I'm doing the dog pund
call (woo woo woo woo)
Don't like a sister, who farts
while playing Twister.
I wish those beans did miss her,
even Uncle Ben would fist her
I like my booties real
slender and tender,
And if I see a big booty, I'll
put it in the blender
Don't want a rear fender.
I get into my Honda
What the hell is an anaconda?
All I know is that I like Jayne Fonda's, better than Yolanda's.
Chorus
Yeah, baby, when it
comes to females, Comso knows everything what they're talking about
36, 24, 36... haa haa, only if she's 7'8"
Flat on the bottom, and I like it like that,
Flat on the bottom, and I like it like that.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
According to her online profile, unphotoshopped that model is 5'8" and wears a size 6, measuring 33-24-35. No need to alter those proportions at all.
I had a
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2009/legalcommunity012909.htm
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
She's not particularly attractive in that photo either.
Nah, she looks like a crackwhore or needle junkie. And those girls will put anything in their mouths.
Free Martian Whores!
The ISP in question is Canadian.
I attended a talk by Michael Geist, where he said that 30% of Canadian ISPs comply with DMCA takedowns. This figure was presented by some pro-copyright lobby as "shocking" evidence that Canada is a lawless place where copyright isn't respected.
Geist agreed that it was shocking - but for a different reason. He said it was shocking that 30% of our ISPs caved to a law from a foreign country, and complied with a request they had no legal requirement or authority to obey.
This never was an ad. It was instead an artist's fashion industry critique.
Given that, Ralph wanted to set the record straight and tell people "Don't put my name on that, it has nothing to do with my company." And to stem some of the damage, maybe force takedowns on the grounds that Ralph's TRADEMARK is on it in an unauthorized use.
Perhaps ignoring it would be wiser, but doesn't he get to decide that his name can't be used in this manner (going as it does against his business interests)?
I'm not affiliated with RL and I hate thin women (too much boring conversation about dieting plus they never smile), but this one is not as cut and dried as some would believe.
I would have when I was young, but these days I like a little padding.
And what moron modded the above post offtopic, anyway? Am I the only one over 21 here today? If so, get off my lawn!
Free Martian Whores!
It appears that generating propoganda that there ever was a disputed Photosh-op/oot is better advertising than the event itself.
4chan does this all the time;
http://zip.4chan.org/toy/src/1254982630434.jpg
http://zip.4chan.org/g/src/1255019256522.jpg
http://zip.4chan.org/fit/src/1255024855797.jpg
http://zip.4chan.org/toy/src/1255012942037.jpg
hubris has been an aspect of society since the dawn of man, and will continue for as long as we are psychologically human
people are constantly overestimating their power over their environment and getting stung in the ass for that overestimation
the streisand effect is but the natural human psychological response to censorship: as soon as someone tells you you can't read/ look at something, you automatically want to read/ look at it
that will never ever stop someone from telling you you can't read/ look at something (though it should stop them, just as you say) because people in hubristic chest thumping situations are in a blind state of mind that doesn't consider that there can be any negative fallout from their naked power grabs
its a form of drunkenness, drunk on power, and it always has its sobering up period afterwards, after the fall from power
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The proportions on the model in that picture are in the range that makes her disturbingly repulsive.
:O===|
She is totally in the bottom of "Uncanny Valley" looking up and waving from her picnic there. Ick.
I wouldn't have sex with her even if I used a 10' condom and your penis.
Not even in a dark room with blindfolds, 2 paper bags and a wetsuit.
I guess the only way to end this is to just say, Eeewwwwww
Personally, I come here for the funnies.
Mod: Please mod this up so I can read it. Thanks.
.. the world would be a much better place.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
I disagree.
This reminds me of an article at the Consumerist web site about Nigerian internet scams. It's not a particularly enlightening article, so I was confused at first why Stumble Upon took me there.
And then I started to read the comments and realized why the page was of interest. You see, the article included an image of a black man holding a box. Surely a Nigerian holding stolen goods! Nope. It was a Getty stock photo. At Getty the caption is 'delivery man holding a package'. While I was looking at the image at Getty a live-chat box popped up asking if I needed help, so what the heck, I asked them if it was OK to use Getty stock photos like that. They said, No, that it is actually a crime and that the model can sue the Consumerist if they want for portraying them as a criminal.
Anyways, I'm sure fashion models have signed away all rights against making them look deformed, but as these PS disasters pile up there has got to be some sort of push back from the models.
Here's the next meme: Can I haz a sammich? A site with photoshoped women like this with lolcats-style captions.
Anybody have any my ideas?
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
A fashion company publishes a provocative ad.
A blogger picks it up and republishes it. This is free exposure.
The fashion company issues a takedown notice.
Boom! The Streisand effect gets the ad published everywhere for free.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Had Ralph Lauren's lawyers just ignored the original post, it would have been lost on me. Thanks to their legal threat, I've now heard of and seen the bad ad, and think slightly less of the company for their shenanigans
She looks disturbingly sexy!
Yeah, that'll happen right after the Big Mac that I order ends up looking just like the one in the commercial.
Hey, you know - a few key advancements in the field of edible films and dyes and this could happen... Granted, this would mean every part of the burger would need to be manufactured via this process, probably not grilled at the restaurant, and assembled with greater consistency than is done now - but there's no reason the burger components couldn't come pre-coated with a thick layer of edible film manufactured to reproduce the desired texture and flavor, and prepainted to provide the desired color and reflectivity... They could probably bill it as some kind of nutritional enhancement (same great greasy flavor without all that grease!) in order to get people to accept it...
Bow-ties are cool.
That woman is a SERIOUS ectomorph. Her waistline is not disproportionate to the rest of her body. It is quite possible that she is just that thin, and probably not helping with a restricted diet and heavy exercise.
This is slashdot where real discussions are hoped for
You must be new here.
You can tell that picture is Photoshopped as well, look at the beach line and the blurriness of her sides compared to the crisp lines elsewhere in the same depth of field.
Lighten up, Francis
Would it be possible for the model to sue Ralph Lauren for defamation, even if she's signed her entire life away? Here is the thought behind the question:
By making her look so ridiculously stupid (and I mean, really, woman, they have made a total ass of your image...), the company has no doubt hurt her chances of being hired again, or at least sullied her image, quite substantially. If image quality is the modeling equivalent of character, then hasn't Ralph just defamed her (physical) character?
Yes, no doubt she signed her life away. But let's suppose they used photoshop to dress her up like a Nazi, or a baby killer and put her image in some snuff film. At some point can't you say "This does NOT represent *me*!".
IANAL, but damn it seems like a better legal case than the takedown itself...no? Better watch out Ralph. Streisand, yes. Boomerang? Maybe not so good.
... begs for more photoshopping. Perhaps a Halloween theme or scarecrow effects. Or a contest that ends on October 31st?
I didn't even read the article; I just came to this discussion because someone said there would be soup and sandwiches.
That's Barbara Streisand in the ad? Wow, you're right, they really DID do a lot of retouching!
Obviously you think this line of jokes is wearing.... out (oh come on you didn't really think I was going to say 'wearing thin" did you).. but I'm afraid that around here people like to lay it on thick... asking for this to stop might turn heads in other forums but around here its just going to lead to a long drawn out conversation where whatever the original subject was gets stretched and mangled to the point that the end result hardly resembles the starting point. You are going to have to get your head around the fact that trying to draw some 'line in the sand' about endlessly long digressions into bad jokes is hipless...er hopeless, we crossed that line long long long ago.
-jon
"Disaster," as written by submitter, seems a little strong. 1,000's of people starving in a refugee camp is a disaster. This is just foolish.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
According to this:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/ralph-lauren-admits-responsibility-for-distorted-ad_article_23976
it is not a fake ad.
Actually DMCA takedown notice is a benign part of that act, unlike anti-circumvention provisions.
So what? It is NOT the law in Canada. We have laws guaranteeing public access to healthcare which are benign - does that mean that the US should be required to follow Canadian law? The correct response from the Canadian ISP should be to mail back an elementary school book explaining about how countries are different with a suggestion that they read it and learn something.
I would also dispute how benign it actually is because it can be used to intimidate people into taking down material that they are legally entitled to show such as the case here.
Heh, I read that link as "instant trim shot", and was worried about clicking it at work.
...on a that mythical deserted island as you say, they WOULD end up looking like that due to lack of food!
Wasn't there a case reported here a while ago in which a law firm tried to prevent this by copyrighting their cease-and-desist order, thereby making it an offense to reproduce it?
This tactic was in response to a large number of bloggers attempting to ridicule take-down notices by publishing all correspondence.
I can't recall if it was successful.
You know what they say about opinions. They're all fabulous!
It's readily apparent here that they hold the copyright on all of calculus. By publishing a calculus book, in whole or even just an equation, you are obviously in violation.
And a well-earned copyright that was. People don't just invent a calculus every day.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If worse comes to worse, Boing Boing can just unpublish the whole thing, and it will all just magically go away, like it never even happened.
It's a very dark ride.
Look up "host booting" on YouTube and you see tons of people selling bots to use on Xbox live!
New Economic Perspectives
Not surprisingly the law was written so that it's only a perjury if the one sending a DMCA notice is not the actual copyright holder!
Sending DMCA notices for situations that are clearly fair use is fine...
By some of the pixels. And I've seen quite a few 'shops in my time.
you had me at #!
n/t
you had me at #!
*slow clap*
Somewhat related to this, the biggest german women's magazine announced a couple days ago that they will no longer hire professional models because they are too thin: Article at The Guardian. Money quote: "For years we've had to use Photoshop to fatten the girls up. Especially their thighs, and decolletage. But this is disturbing and perverse and what has it got to do with our real reader?"
> there's no reason the burger components couldn't come pre-coated with a thick layer of edible film
True. The damn things would probably still taste the same.
Bark less. Wag more.
I just realized that the picture is not someones parody but the actual advertisement!
I thought someone was getting sued for photoshopping their advert.
Looks fucking creepy...
No? What a surprise.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You make two innuendos:
1.- That all males involved in fashion are gay, which is clearly a monumental falsehood.
2.- That gay men somehow prefer infantile mates, which is homophobic and prejudiced, and clearly untrue.
I really wonder where some folks leave their moral and logical compass....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Am I the only person to think that the woman is obviously and grotesquely altered and therefore find it far more comical than offensive? Looks like she's standing in front of a carnival mirror.
I find it hard to believe that the intent of the creator was to depict an actual, attractive female.
If I actually met such a person, the first thought through my mind would be "serious thyroid problem." And do my best to make sure they didn't tip over.
Seriously.
My
Limekiller
How would you like to be the lawyer, G. Roxanne Elings, who now sees the Internet circulating her signed statement that she doesn't know Thing One about copyright law? From the takedown notice: "The undersigned has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner described herein is not authorized by PRL USA Holdings, Inc., its agents, or the law."
Thanks... don't we have the tag "BSFW"*?
*barely** safe for work
**pun not completely unintentional
I may have missed an earlier post but...
Wow, that RL legal team is busy and not in a good way.
http://www.owenandemma.com/ralph/ralph.html
I love that Ralph Lauren tried to pull this on Boing Boing. I've been reading Boing Boing for a while and Cory Doctorow is a strong advocate of fair use and sane copyright, so for Ralph Lauren to go after them with a clearly unenforceable DCMA notice is just priceless. Cory's going to bend them over a barrel and spank them until they get it. *grin*
I mean, this ad is getting a lot more attention than it would have had otherwise... just my 3 cents.
So, isn't there a control mechanism in the DMCA legislation that allows hefty penalties for any company that abuses the DMCA? I thought there was some recourse for people who had services turned off due to a bogus DMCA?
If this is the case, anyone receiving these letters should definitely take advantage of it. We might see less of this as a result if companies are made to pay.
Often (as the bigger of the two), the US...
I think you actually mean "as the one with the larger economy". If you care to look at a map you'll find that Canada is actually bigger than the US.
So I take it you would be outraged if a US hospital voluntarily provides free healthcare to a bunch of people?
If the copyright holders had asked the Canadian ISP nicely i.e. not quoting irrelevant foreign laws and demanding their compliance then I would have had no problem - as long as the ISP did not break Canadian law in complying. Being polite doesn't cost anything and is often far more effective which is something the US seems to frequently forget.
I imagine that you would have an issue if I turned up at a US hospital, as a foreigner, demanded free healthcare quoting the relevant act of parliament, and they just capitulated and decided that they had to obey Canadian law. Of course if I asked nicely and they decided to be generous and give it then nobody would have an issue would they? See how manners work?