Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Would You Handle A Bogus Copyright Infringement Notice?
Very long-time Slashdot reader Andy Smith writes:
Yesterday I received an email from my ISP telling me that I had illegally downloaded an animated film called Cubo and the Two Strings. I'd never heard of the film and hadn't downloaded it. The accusation came from a government-approved group called Get It Right From a Genuine Site. I contacted that group and was directed to their FAQ. Worryingly, there's no way to correct a false report. The entire FAQ is written from the position that either you, or someone on your network, definitely downloaded what you're accused of downloading.
Their advice to avoid any problems with your ISP is simply to not download anything illegally again. But if they can get it wrong once, then surely they can get it wrong again. How widespread is this problem? What safeguards are in place to ensure that people aren't falsely accused? Why has the government allowed this scheme to operate without the accused having some right to defend themselves?
After advising users to check their wifi password -- and confront all the network's users about whether they've downloaded Cubo and the Two Strings -- the site concludes simply that "If there is no further activity identified for an IP address associated with your account, you will NOT receive further Educational Emails." Six weeks ago the U.K. government reported that "The campaign has now reached 21% of the population and, whilst piracy levels remain constant, it has decreased significantly among those exposed to the campaign."
Have any other Slashdot users experienced problems with bogus copyright infringement notifications? And if so, how did you handle it?
Their advice to avoid any problems with your ISP is simply to not download anything illegally again. But if they can get it wrong once, then surely they can get it wrong again. How widespread is this problem? What safeguards are in place to ensure that people aren't falsely accused? Why has the government allowed this scheme to operate without the accused having some right to defend themselves?
After advising users to check their wifi password -- and confront all the network's users about whether they've downloaded Cubo and the Two Strings -- the site concludes simply that "If there is no further activity identified for an IP address associated with your account, you will NOT receive further Educational Emails." Six weeks ago the U.K. government reported that "The campaign has now reached 21% of the population and, whilst piracy levels remain constant, it has decreased significantly among those exposed to the campaign."
Have any other Slashdot users experienced problems with bogus copyright infringement notifications? And if so, how did you handle it?
Even if you think you can not pay the costs.
Get a lawyer.
Even if you think you have good advice or can read the law.
Get a lawyer.
You pay likely 10 times more in the end if you have none. And chances are: if you are "in the right" and have a lawyer, the other side pays the bills.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Kubo and the Two Strings is from Laika, which produced Coraline, ParaNorman, Corpse Bride and The Boxtrolls. If you enjoy the same animation style and sensitivity to the characters as their other productions, you'll likely enjoy it, although it is aimed at a younger audience.
On the other hand, I wouldn't download it. I would buy it (and I have) to support the studio, which is a private company based in Oregon.
And yeah, I know that read a bit like a shill post, and yes, I'm posting AC. All I can say is that I'm genuinely not, not even US based.
There's an image of the letter that the submitter received (first link in TFS), in which it is spelled with a K. It is the submitter himself who misspelled it.
Slightly off-topic, but: Over here in Holland, the latest scamming technique is for criminals to send generic 'illegal download copyright infringement notices' (without specifying any particular download) letters to people via snail mail, claiming to be from 'DutchFilmWorks (DFW)', which clearly is not the sender of the letters. However, the company does exist, and is one of the largest (independent) movie distributors in Holland, which helps to make it seem like legitimate notice. The letters claim the fine is 100,- euro per illegally downloaded movie, but that the fine can be prevented by paying 50,- euro within eight days to the bank account number of the criminals. How many people have fallen for the scam is currently unclear.
In the UK such infringement is a civil matter, not a crime. The slander angle probably wouldn't work as you could not show any material loss from the email, unless maybe somehow your partner saw it and left you or something equally improbable.
The best option would seem to be to send them a letter saying that you did not pirate the film, and that any further accusations which require you to send them corrections will be billed at your standard hourly rate. I charge £120/hour, minimum 1 hour, for that sort of letter. Works great with other pests like TV Licencing too.
Some info here: http://tv-licensing.blogspot.n...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
With apologies for my own ineptitude, this time with some html:
1) Check whether it could possibly be traffic from your network. Do friends have access? Children? Poor Wi-Fi security? Open proxy server?
2) Subject access request (s7 Data Protection Act 1998) to BT, for the record which Get it Right sent to them. You want the IP address, port number and UTC timestamp, which enabled BT to do the matching to identify your account. It might cost you £10.
3) If you are willing to identify yourself to Get it Right (more so than you have done by posting the letter online, I suppose), a SAR to GiR, asking for the information which they hold on you, which led them to send the notice to BT. If they quibble about whether they hold your personal data, point out the case of Breyer, dealing with IP addresses and personal data.
4) If you are sure that it was not you, once you've seen GiR's record, consider complaining to them about inaccurate processing of your personal data. Ask for rectification under the Data Protection Act. If they refuse, complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. They may not do anything but, the more complaints, the higher the likelihood.
5) You might even consider a small claims court action for the distress caused by their processing, if you can demonstrate inaccuracy. But I'd talk to a solicitor first at that point as, while the SCC generally shields from paying the other party's legal fees, that is at the discretion of the court.
6) Vote with your wallet, and switch to an ISP which has not voluntarily entered into this scheme. If you do this, tell BT that you've moved and why.
7) Ignore it, notwithstanding the frustration of its inaccuracy / inappropriateness.
(The last one I saw was a speculative invoice for a pornographic film. My advice in that case was to simply ignore it. Nothing further was heard. (YMMV etc.))
Here is a case where that statue was applied, http://caught.net/prose/STATE%...
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPERIOR COURT---PROVIDENCE, SC.
THOMAS P. SEYMOUR [Pro Se],
Plaintiff
COUNT II-- VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE
14. Defendants actions created a type of malicious prosecution based on "guilt by association," which violated Mr. Seymour's Due Process rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [under 42 U.S.C. 1983] and Article I, sections 2, 6, 10 and 14 of the Rhode Island Constitution, on or about 6/28/02 and 11/28/02 to the present. See United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 266 (1967). Mr. Seymour was denied notice of accusation, the right to confront his [would be] accusers, and of his presumption of innocence. See Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 480 (1974)[citing Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960)][notice of accusation]; Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 447-8 (1966)[illegal police procedures]; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404 (1965) and State v. Brown, 706 A.2d 465, 473 (R.I. 1998)[citing Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974)][right to confront accusers/witnesses]. The Plaintiff is being deprived of significant liberty and property interests under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (i.e., the ability to decide who may visit or enter his home). See L.A. Ray Realty v. Town of Cumberland, 698 A.2d 202, 210-11 (R.I. 1997)[citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 (1990)][Substantive Due Process]; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 481-6 [cited in Lawrence v. Texas, Case No. 02-102 (USSC, 6/26/2003)], and Aurelio v. R.I. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 985 F.Supp. 48, 56-57 (D.R.I. 1997)[Procedural Due Process].
First, I should point out that the letter says the submitter was "sharing" (uploading) the material via a file sharing network. The submitter said "downloaded", but it's the uploading part of torrent, gnutella, etc that is a bigger concern.
The submitter isn't in the US, but people in the US who receive an incorrect notice forwarded by an ISP (including a web host) should respond by writing back a statement that the the received notice is incorrect. This is called a "counter-notice" under the DMCA and basically an ISP must treat the counter-notice as true.
To oversimplify a bit, the DMCA basically says that:
The ISP should cut off the upload / distribution of the material (possibly by cutting off internet access) UNLESS
The accused sends back a "counter-notice" saying "no, I didn't do that".
Once they receive a counter-notice, the ISP is no longer involved and if the copyright holder wants to pursue it further they have to sue in federal court.
The counter-notice needs to include certain information, so using a template makes sense.
https://www.google.com/search?...
There are these things called DVD players that connect to a television set and don't require a computer or an internet connection...