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?
I, also, had never heard of Cubo and the Two Strings but, now, I'm going to go pirate it to see what it's about.
In fact, a quick googling reveals that Cubo and the Two Strings doe, in fact, not exist. Therefore, you could not have downloaded it. Kubo and the Two Strings, on the other hand... well, it looks kind of lame; perhaps I won't pirate it after all.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The term "Educational Emails" gives the game away. Presumably those emails have no legal status, and are just intended to warn the recipient that someone thinks they have done something wrong.
I would suggest adding them to your spam blacklist.
If anyone wishes to argue that you have broken a law, let them produce evidence. Otherwise, let them shut up and mind their own business.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Apparently Americans aren't the only people who do things and ask questions later, because if you had so much as read the summary, you'd see it's a UK website. British mate, 'ith a pot of tea. Unless you are a dual citizen and somehow grant the UK jurisdiction over your ISP service, I see no way in which an American citizen would need to care about these emails.
You say "Cubo and the Two Strings"? I am watching it now, I downloaded it last I was visiting you, uncle.
I promise to never do it again.
-Your beloved nephew
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
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.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
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.
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.
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.
And keep them busy. Call, and call, and call again. Clog them with calls.
It's time ISPs learn it's LESS hassle to deal with bogus claims than to wave them through.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Could you cite the case? If it went to Federal court, we should be able to look it up. It is public record, after all.
I think most of us would like to see the details.
Write to your ISP making a formal complaint. Highlight that this is unsolicited spam advertising a film in which you have no interest, a libellous false accusation, a breach of your privacy and harassment.
Demand that they cease with immediate effect, request an apology and suggest politely that they improve their processes to prevent re-occurrence.
Ask them to confirm in writing that they have done so.
The ISP need to both recognise that this is damaging their business and exposing them to legal countermeasures, but also build the case log that they can use to demonstrate this to the government. Your letter will fulfil both aims.
I think you're confused. It's brits who like to sue. E.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs...
That's just one example. You can google and find lots of other examples..
For another example of Brits "doing first and asking questions later" see Brexit.
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.))
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?...
If the campaign has reached 21% of the people, and piracy has dropped among everyone the campaign reached, how can the overall piracy level not have changed? Is the campaign SOLELY targeting/reaching people who don't pirate at all?
Demand a static IP address from your ISP. I work for a small ISP who employed a reckless infrastructure manager. Internet time sync was set incorrectly on several servers. When we received infringement complaints, our IP assignment logs were useless. That didn't stop them from sending the notices to 90-year-olds, or other customers who were obviously not downloading infringing material.
Most of those "emails" are just automated scripts that send thousand of emails without any effort and surely with many false positives.
Why do have the ISPs and their customers have to lose time handling them, and being the ones that are guilty until proven innocence, and doing the work of debugging the situation.
I propose that they are fined $5000 USD per false positive. Let them do the work of sorting out their own mess.
... if you had so much as read the summary,
Read the summary - that's adorable. From what I've read, not even Trump reads the Summary. These days, 140 chars is the attention span limi
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
ignore it like it was spam
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
If you know that you didn't download it and you know nobody else did on your network, then you personally already have a reason to believe that the accusation is a blind one, coming from somebody who is hoping that the recipient will be ignorant enough to think that they have been caught doing something wrong. If the email is directly from the accuser, you can ignore it... it is baseless and not worth responding to.
If, however, the email is from your ISP, then it may be prudent to give the ISP sufficient basis to doubt the credibility of the accusation as well. Most notable in this regard is that the alleged movie you downloaded is not even spelled correctly, making the apparent claim that this accusation may be coming from some kind of official avenue at least somewhat suspect. Assure your ISP that you did not download any illegal content, and express your concern to your ISP that you suspect that this allegation is coming from an organization that has no authority to be issuing such notices in the first place, and that they may be hoping that if they send out enough of these kinds of notices randomly, they may get lucky and stumble across somebody who is wanting to quickly reach some kind of quiet out-of-court settlement.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'