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?

Comments

I tell them to basically fuck off

[Indy1]

in more technical terms, on the rare occasions my ISP forwards me these sorts of bullshit grams...

My response is tell my isp that accusing me of a felony crime without proof is slander, and that multiple US Federal Courts have ruled that an IP address downloading something does NOT equal a particular person downloading something.

I close my response by telling the idiots that if the Hollywood shit for brains lawyer at the other end has any REAL proof of me committing a crime, he's welcome to notify the sheriff's office or local DA. And, if I hear further shitty threats and accusations of slander from Hollywood shit for brains lawyer, I'll file complaints with the appropriate state bars.

Interestingly enough, they don't seem to bother me anymore.

Re:I tell them to basically fuck off

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky for your ISP, even if you did tell them that, you're a moron and don't know the definition of slander. Because them sending you said letter isn't slander.

They don't bother you anymore because they are fearful of getting sued because you're a retard and they're afraid of discrimination.

Sue them Immediately

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA sent me a threatening letter back in 2000 regarding alleged downloads using Napster. I'd never installed Napster nor ever downloaded any illegal music.

In response to their threatening letter, I demanded to know the name of the individual accusing me and to see the alleged evidence. When they refused, I sued them in Federal court under Title 42 section 1983 of the civil rights code. After all, I had been accused of a criminal act and was therefore entitled a) to confront my accuser and b) to see the evidence against me.

The violation of my civil rights cost them. Looking back I almost wish I hadn't settled out of court, because I might have been able to set a landmark precedent about the practice they still use today of sending threatening letters while at the same time refusing to provide the information people accused of a criminal act are entitled to.

Re:Sue them Immediately

[Theaetetus]

Oh.. for the lack of mod points.

Good for you!! people need to stand up, our rights are slowly being eroded and we are rapidly turning into a "rental" society.

Take the AC's story with a grain of salt. A complaint under 42 USC 1983 for that would be laughed out of court, because (i) no, he hadn't been accused of a criminal act, but a civil infringement; and (ii) even if he had been, he hadn't been charged with anything yet, and therefore hadn't been denied his rights to confront his accuser or see evidence against him. It's like if I hired you to paint my house and claimed you did a lousy job and therefore owed me $500 off the price; and you sued me in Federal Court because "I've violated your civil rights, because you're entitled to confront your accuser." I've never stopped you from doing so, and in fact, the fact that you're suing me is an assertion of those civil rights.
Basically, it might sound reasonable to someone who's legal education comes from television, but in reality, it would be immediately dismissed and there would be no settlement. I think the AC is just making up a cool story, bro.

Pretty much anything you read here is useless

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

I have been in a similar same situation except that the film was a porno and I was accused of sharing it. Lawyers claiming to represent the owners wanted money from me.
You are in Scotland, so UK or Scottish law applies. Most of the people here are from different countries so their experiences and ideas have very little relevance to you.
fwiw I got a lawyer specialised in this area and they crafted an appropriate response. Eventually the "enemy's" lawyer sold the complaint to another legal practice, they sent another threatening letter but my lawyer told me any rights they had had expired so I could ignore them. There has been nothing from those parasites for a couple of years now. The original threats were six years ago.
My WLAN had a 63-character random WPA+ password and was blocking unknown MAC addresses back then, a bootable virus-scanner CD showed no trojans so I am sure the claim was bogus.