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.

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

[Proudrooster]

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].

New Scamming Technique

[lbalbalba]

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.

If it were the US, send a DMCA counter-notice

[raymorris]

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?...