Slashdot Mirror
Sony Sends DMCA Takedown Notice To GitHub
Plombo writes "Sony's war against PS3 hacking continues. On January 27, Sony Computer Entertainment America sent a DMCA takedown notice to GitHub demanding the removal of 6 repositories under the 'circumvention device' clause of the DMCA. All of the repositories in question were related to jailbreaking or homebrew development for the PS3."
They should file a counter-notice, citing the interoperability clauses :)
On the other hand, as a response to Sony's takedown notice, they started posting all of their DMCA takedown notices publicly. That's what enabled me to find this information in the first place.
Basically what's going on is that Sony had their attorneys file a fraudulent take down request. Github will look at it and probably put the materials back online in the near future. Right now they're pretty clearly commiting perjury
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?
Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:
The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.
All right --- Sony appears to be guilty of perjury after filing a takedown notice for someone else's work.
Who is going to do something about it? Selective enforcement is wonderful, isn't it? If Sony succeeds in this, it'll embolden others to file takedown notices against anything they dislike for any reason whatsoever.
Yes, but they don't have a leg to stand on otherwise. It's been settled since all that DeCSS stuff that code is protected by the 1st amendment. So the only way that they could file a takedown notice here would be if they owned the copyright to it.
Sony can't legally file the takedown as they have to state under penalty of perjury that there is no legal use for the software that they want taken down.
Back in the day, Sony was a pretty cool company. They made affordable audio equipment with decent performance for the price; through high school and college, my turntable (vinyl LPs... remember them?) was a Sony. I also remember my first Sony Walkman cassette portable (early 1980s) and CD DiscMan with great fondness; Sony pretty much single-handedly invented the portable audio industry. My first camcorder was a Sony too, and I enjoyed the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 immensely.
Somewhere along the line, they lost their way. Maybe it had something to do with their transformation into a combination of consumer electronics giant and content provider; I'm not sure. But the CD rootkit fiasco was an indication of where they were heading. My opinion of them also took a nosedive when my second Sony camcorder (purchased around 6 years ago) turned out to be a piece of crap.
These days, they are solidly on my "avoid" list. I used to consider a Sony nameplate to be a badge of quality; now it is more of a warning label.
It's not a real takedown. It's a normal cease-and-desist letter, and even if it were a real takedown notice, it's only perjury if the person submitting it isn't authorized to act on behalf of the person claiming ownership of a work being infringed. Neither the copyright holder or his lawyer are guilty of perjury if the copyright holder lies to his lawyer (or is mistaken) and thus causes a frivolous takedown notice to be sent.