Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government United States News

Automated DMCA Notices Still Full of Lies 513

Posted by michael
from the dmca-veterans-for-truth dept.
dbaker writes "The MPAA filed a DMCA takedown notice against Superconnect, a software company. The letter is available here that demands the removal of roughly 120K of open-source TCL code that they believe to be a 'copyrighted motion pictures.' This is definitely a surprising case of the guilty until proven innocent world that the DMCA provides." And yet another: enrico_suave writes "The Entertainment Software Association falsely accuses the Interactive Fiction archive of pirating Doom 3. doom3.zip is a 114kb freeware DOS game from 1988. Reminiscent of when the RIAA sent C & D's to a Professor Usher who had an usher.mp3 file posted on his website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Automated DMCA Notices Still Full of Lies

Comments Filter:
  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by OverlordQ (264228) * on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:32PM (#10152734) Journal
    Infringement Detail:

    Infringing Work: X-FILES, THE Season 1-7
    Filepath: /pub/tcl/sorted/file/X-Files1.21b/
    Filename: X-Files1.21b.tar.gz
    First Found: 2 Sep 2004 07:29:7 EDT (GMT -0400)
    Last Found: 2 Sep 2004 07:29:7 EDT (GMT -0400)
    Filesize: 113k


    Damn that's some nice gzip compression, where can I get some of that?!
    • Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Brian Boitano (514508) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:36PM (#10152787) Journal
      maybe they've converted the episodes to ASCII or something...
    • we hereby state... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by robochan (706488) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:37PM (#10152800) Homepage
      "Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, und
      er penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owner
      s of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification..."

      Is ANYONE that's gotten one of these ever going to call them on this bullshit and have them sent to jail for perjury?
      • by ahsile (187881)
        Nope. I got one... but I'm from Canada, so the DMCA doesn't pertain to me. I did try to scare my GF with the letter though, but it didn't work.
      • by fishbowl (7759)

        "Is ANYONE that's gotten one of these ever going to call them on this bullshit and have them sent to jail for perjury?"

        The problem with that strategy is that there will be no perjury, because the whole claim will be dismissed at the first hearing.
      • by ackthpt (218170) * on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:57PM (#10153018) Homepage Journal
        Is ANYONE that's gotten one of these ever going to call them on this bullshit and have them sent to jail for perjury?

        I'm actually pretty jealous they get these kinds of things. I should put up a page on my site with some old junk files, like resumees or code from old projects tar'd and gz'd and see if I can attract one of these fine letters. I feel it's important to be the first one on my block to receive and frame one of these masterpieces, before all you other weasels realize what fun this could be and set up your own web pages with likenamed and structured directories and files.

        Suppose after they've spun tens of thousands of these things they might realize they're on the wrong track with automating such a lame process?

        /pub/downloads/iron/giant.tar.gz
        /pub/downloads/lotr.tar.gz
        /pub/downloads/space/balls.tar.gz
        /pub/downloads/fahrenheit/911.tar.gz

        • by gregmac (629064) on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:02PM (#10153067) Homepage
          Suppose after they've spun tens of thousands of these things they might realize they're on the wrong track with automating such a lame process?

          That would be an interesting protest. If a whole crapload of people were to setup file structures like that on ie, free hosting providers, isp webspace accounts, whatever, it would act as kind of a DDoS attack against their process, with the two pronged effect of getting the ISPs completely irritated at having to deal with hundreds or thousands of C&D's that are all groundless - which would hopefully lead to the ISPs either ignoring them, or lobbying for some kind of law that restricts their behaviour
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:03PM (#10153078)
        This has been answered on slashdot before:

        http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03 /0 7/24/1326224&tid=123&tid=95&tid=11

        Your question raises an important point. We feel strongly that everyone should comply with the requirements of all laws. Legal process under the DMCA or any other provision of law should be undertaken with the utmost care and good faith. Failure to do so undermines the credibility and effectiveness of our legal system.

        Having said that, it appears your interpretation of the language in 512 (c)(3)(vi) is in error. The phrase "under penalty of perjury," applies to the representation that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. It does not apply to the accuracy of the information about the alleged infringement. Quoting federal district Judge Bates in Verizon v. RIAA, The DMCA also requires a person seeking a subpoena to state, under penalty of perjury, that he is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner, 257 F. Supp.2d 244, at 262. In other words, the perjury clause may be violated if you seek a DMCA subpoena without the authorization of the copyright owner.

        We are unaware of any prosecutions for violating this provision of the DMCA at this time.
        • by crucini (98210) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:38PM (#10154683)
          I love the fact that this comment is at zero, while those ignorantly claiming the opposite are modded up to "+5 insightful". Attention slashdotters: pandering to your prejudices is not insightful, especially when it's incorrect.

          When you amplify the voices that tell you what you want to hear, you end up in a deceptive coccoon of illusions. You are like toddlers wandering into the path of a freight train, immersed in your play and fantasy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:32PM (#10152741)
    Oh, wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:33PM (#10152753)
    Why don't all the geeks in a collective act of corporate law disobediance just start using files with the names of copyrighted music/movies/literature/software and force the record and movie labels to waste tons of their financial resources sending out worthless legal letters?
  • by xmorg (718633) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:34PM (#10152758) Homepage
    That they are not as smart as you think. They probably dont even read or listen the content or compare the size.

    WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.
    • WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.

      Somehow, that argument doesn't sound right to me:

      WE'RE LITIGATING AGAINST YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are litigating.

      WE'RE SHOOTING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are shooting.

    • by ultranova (717540) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:52PM (#10152968)

      That they are not as smart as you think. They probably dont even read or listen the content or compare the size.

      Why should they ? If these letters are sent automatically, it's much faster to skip any checks and just send the letter whenever there's even the slightest cause of suspicion. After all, the false positives won't hurt the them, just the poor bastard whose ISP gets such a letter and cuts the service.

      WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.

      You aren't scared that you might be punished (your ISP cuts the Internet access, police confiscates your computer, legal fees start piling up, you'll have to settle out of court or go banckrupt...) even if you're not guilty and there's no real evidence against you, just on some third-rate AIs word ? I would be, were I an American...

    • WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.

      No, it's scarier if they are willing to prosecute, or even simply threaten prosectution, on such grounds.

      Not to mention what amounts to the power to have your internet account shut down on such grounds with it being your responsibility to "prove" noninfringment to get reinstated.

      KFG
  • Newsflash (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zorilla (791636) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:35PM (#10152766)
    The letter is available here that demands the removal of roughly 120K of open-source TCL code that they believe to be a 'copyrighted motion pictures.'

    In other news, proof of life on Alpha Centauri was found on a Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrapper yesterday.

    Yeah, makes just about as much sense as motion pictures in code.
    • by shfted! (600189)
      You mean telnet://towel.blinkenlights.nl doesn't make sense to you? I've never though I'd watch a full feature film over my modem.
  • Another thing (Score:5, Informative)

    by iamdrscience (541136) <michaelmtripp@g m a i l . com> on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:35PM (#10152767) Homepage
    This also reminds me of when the BSA tried to get a university to take down unlicensed copies of MS Office that were, in fact, copies of Open Office [openoffice.org]. Link here [theinquirer.net].

    Seriously, you'd think these people would bother to at least give files a once over before sending out cease-and-desist letters.
  • Experiment... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IronMagnus (777535) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:35PM (#10152768)
    I'm half tempted to go putting up nonsence zip files with movie names just for the hell of it, see if I get any emails.
  • Harassment? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Groovus (537954) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:35PM (#10152773)
    At what point can wrongfully accused parties level countersuits for harassment (if at all)?

    INAL to the extreme, so I may be way off base here, but it seems like wasting peoples' time and resources like this should make you open to such suits.
  • Overseas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Albanach (527650) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:35PM (#10152774) Homepage
    Overseas, at least here in the UK, if you lose a court case you generally have to pay the other parties court costs. I can understand why you want people to be free to sue, but it seems that these days this is more a tool in favour of the big boys rather than a safety net for the little guy. Not that I expect the law to change, just making an observation.
  • Sue (Score:5, Interesting)

    by josh3736 (745265) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:35PM (#10152778) Homepage
    As much as I hate advocating yet another lawsuit, I'd sue the bastards.

    This is ridiculous. The MPAA is sending off threatening legal letters to anyone who might even look suspicious.

    Thank you, DMCA!

  • Unexpected ??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik (635988) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:37PM (#10152801)
    The collective neural network of the entertainment industry seems to have its feedback and error inputs turned off for a very long time. Exactly how much intelligence does it take to realize randomly harrasing customers alienates them ?

    The curious thing here is the dog that isn't barking. Where is the legal action against these companies for consistently, repeatedly and in the face of overwhelming evidence perpetrating the practice of harrasing legitimate users ?
  • by erick99 (743982) <homerun@gmail.com> on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:38PM (#10152804)
    Okay, I can *almost* understand the xfiles part, though why they don't check themselves before sending these letters out is beyond me. But the part about the season?:

    Infringement Detail: Infringing Work: X-FILES, THE Season 1-7

    There is nothing on their website that I could see that discusses an "xfile" as anything other than some organization software and certainly not any "seasons." These folks are very arrogant in their assumptions that the word "xfile" will always mean the tv show of the same name.

    Cheers,

    Erick

    • But the part about the season?:

      The filename cited was X-Files1.21b.tar.gz, and the directory containing it had a similar naming convention. It's almost certainly the "1.21" in the filename that triggered the season, and maybe even made their software think it was so likely to be an X Files episode.

      In common TV series terminology among studios and fans, "1.21" would often translate to season 1, episode 21. Their spidering script, or whatever it is, probably looks for patterns in a filename that

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:41PM (#10152834)
    doom3.zip is a 114kb freeware DOS game from 1988 I knew Doom3 was a dupe!
  • OT (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DugzDC (671410) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:42PM (#10152843)
    If i record covers (I play bass, my friends play guitar and sing), and then post them on my website, am I breaking the law?
    OK, I'm in the UK. What about now?
    I think I know the answers - but it's a cheap way to get some insight. And a good way to start a discussion. And hopefully a fight. (It's Friday night here, but I'm indoors cos I feel like shit.)
    • by clifyt (11768)
      Thats depends,

      Are you paying the appropriate licensing fees?

      Covers are cool as long as Harry Fox, et all, get their share. You would have to count all the downloads / streams of the file and pay accordingly. Just because you aren't getting paid for it, that doesn't mean the songwritters behind the work shouldn't get paid for it -- unless of course they feel like putting the work in the public domain or giving you special permission.

      Regardless, as it sounds like you are trying to start a discussion, rem
      • Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)

        by arkanes (521690) <arkanes@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:27PM (#10153303) Homepage
        I think you're a little confused. In the natural state, there's no such thing as IP or copyright. There's no protection whatsoever. The only way you can keep someone from using your work is not to give to them. This leads to people not being willing to distribute works at all, or to do so only under very limited circumstances. However, society has a lot to gain from the dissemination of art - contrary to the increasingly popular capitalist viewpoint, people are about more than simply subsisting while producing capital. Therefore, in the interest of serving the public interest (not the public _need_ - a healthy society and a healthy person is based on a lot more than food, air, and water), we have IP law with provides you with certain protections _in return_ for publishing your work where other people can see it. The important part of copyright is not the protection it grants, it's the reason for those protections. There's no such thing as "artists rights". If someone wants his works to be copyrighted for eternity, he can fuck the hell off. He doesn't need to be part of our society. He's getting a certain amount of consideration from society in return for his being willing to publish his works and allow others to build off of them. The gimme gimme grabby attitude of the big copyright holders is sickening and downright immoral. It's given us total crap like "subconcious infringment".
  • by Zorilla (791636) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:42PM (#10152845)
    ...that no upcoming movie becomes named "stdio.h" or we're all screwed.
  • by jlowery (47102) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:44PM (#10152873)
    Although there are disadvantages to a 'loser pays' system, it has the one big advantage of reducing frivolous lawsuits.

  • by Datagod (613152) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:44PM (#10152881)
    How come all the posters at the movie store say "Own it now on DVD?" If I own it, I can do what I want with it. I guess the posters should say "Own the licence to view the material in the privacy of your own home without making any sort of archival copy...on DVD!"
  • Can't the MPAA be sued for hacking? The MPAA was not given specific permission to enter another person's computer. Why can't anyone who's been sued by the MPAA countersue using the DMCA against them?
  • DMCA Honeypot (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:46PM (#10152902)
    This almost makes me want to start a DMCA honeypot. I could put a whole bunch of small meaningless non infringing files with names chosen to attract what appears to be a spider run by the MPAA.

    Then I could see just how many automated C&D letters I could generate!

    That would be fun. If only I had the time to deal with deluge of C&D letters.

  • Good Faith? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joranbelar (567325) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:47PM (#10152913) Homepage
    Quoth the beast (emph. mine):
    On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyright ed material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digit al Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.

    Anyone know how loosely interpretable the term "good faith belief" is? It seems like it would be trivial to prove (say, in court) that they obviously do NOT have any good faith belief, and that this is simply the result of some mindless spidering program. In a perfect world, you'd be able to force them into spending a little more money policing themselves, and every little bit counts, right?

    • Re:Good Faith? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CyberKnet (184349) <[slashdot] [at] [cyberknet.net]> on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:10PM (#10153149) Homepage Journal
      There are two ways to get something done about bad (american) laws:

      1) Get congresspeople and senators to add another act to either counter or ammend the law in question.

      2) Get the supreme court to repeal them (or sections thereof)

      The problem is that 1 is almost impossible with the current state of (legal) corruption in congress/the senate.

      The problem with 2 is that in order for it to even get to the Supreme Court, somebody needs to convert it into a constitutional issue. Even then, it takes a terribly huge amount of money to hire attorneys of the caliber required to convince the panel of judges that the law in question really is unconstitutional.

      With regards to the DMCA, you're not in any worse situation than any other law, but you're not in a good situation either... Some of the brightest legal minds in the country have tried to make the DMCA a constitutional issue and get the Supreme court to repeal it or sections of it. It hasn't worked yet... and there is not a lot of hope that it will in the future either.
  • This is definitely a surprising case of the guilty until proven innocent world that the DMCA provides

    Its is neither surprising nor does it have anything to do with "guilty until proven innocent". It is at best stupidity.

    I can send a letter to Cowboyneal stating that I own a copyright on the color green and he should change the color of the slashdot logo. That doesn't mean cowboyneal is guilty of anything. Lawyers have always sent nastygrams around long before the DMCA.

    The only thing new here is that t
  • by Physics Dude (549061) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:50PM (#10152945) Homepage
    "... we hereby state, pursuant to the Digit al Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.

    Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification"

    Any casual look at the content of this 113kb file is enough to determine without a doubt that these are NOT infringing files. There should be a law against this type of harassment without so much as a glance at the facts.

    • Any casual look at the content of this 113kb file is enough to determine without a doubt that these are NOT infringing files. There should be a law against this type of harassment without so much as a glance at the facts.

      Well, there's always Barratry. Who's going to step up for that one?

  • by optimus2861 (760680) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:51PM (#10152957)
    The operators of this [thepiratebay.org] BitTorrent tracker site got hit with a DMCA C&D [thepiratebay.org] from Dreamworks over alleged hosting of a copy of "Shrek 2". One little problem: the site's in Sweden, where the DMCA doesn't apply. (Obviously).

    The reply letter [thepiratebay.org] included these gems:

    As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. (...)

    It is the opinion of us and our lawyers that you are fucking morons, and that you should please go sodomize yourself with retractable batons.

    • Actually, this isn't the case. There was a copyright infringement C&D that included mention of the DMCA to try to scare the ISP (I wasn't aware that the DMCA made ISPs liable -- as a matter of fact, this was a major bone of contention in a lot of attempted legislation.)

      The Berne Convention means that US copyright does apply in other countries, with different time limits (a country can make something public-domain after fifty years, even if it is still copyrighted in the United States). Shrek 2 is def
      • by gl4ss (559668) on Friday September 03, 2004 @06:03PM (#10153602) Homepage Journal
        *he Berne Convention means that US copyright does apply in other countries*

        read again, the letter threatens with DMCA, and was sent as if sweden was just an another state in usa.

        the site itself is just a bittorrent tracker / informer, and they're not hosting any infringing files themselfs.

    • by Soul-Burn666 (574119) on Friday September 03, 2004 @06:19PM (#10153756) Journal
      Reminds me of the ADV vs mirkx case. (ADV = big anime licenser in the US. mirkx = anime torrent site).

      ADV's letter:
      June 22, 2004

      RE: http://mirkx.com

      To Whom It May Concern:

      This office represents A.D. Vision, Inc. (ADV) and its affiliated companies that own and/or are exclusively licensed to use the following protected work (the "Protected Work"):

      Azumanga Daioh
      DN Angel
      Getter Robo Armageddon
      Kaleido Star
      Kimagure Orange Road
      King of Bandit Jing
      Pretear
      Puni Puni Poemy
      RahXephon
      Saint Seiya

      Through our Internet monitoring program, we recently discovered unauthorized use of our Protected Work in connection with your website (mirkx.com) (the "Site"). Specifically, the Protected Work is being offered for Internet download, copying and distribution through a Bit Torrent server, and potentially through a File Transfer Protocol server.

      Our intellectual property rights are our most valuable assets. In order to promote a cooperative and beneficial relationship with fans, ADV prefers to send out written requests such as this first, rather than institute litigation or request that your ISP disable your Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, unauthorized copying and distribution of ADV's protected works (including images) constitutes an infringement of one or more of ADV's rights under the copyright laws of the United States, Canada and other jurisdictions throughout the world. Applicable law provides for substantial penalties for such infringement, including injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and damages. ADV has instituted litigation in the past, and in every such litigation, ADV prevailed. If necessary, ADV will not hesitate to take such action again to insure that its rights are fully protected.

      Therefore, without limiting any right, remedy or defense available to us, ADV MUST ASK THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY:
      1) Delete and cease all further use of the Protected Work, and any other unauthorized ADV works, from the Site.
      2) Remove and delete all copies of the Protected Work, and any other unauthorized ADV titles, from any other distribution channel owned, operated or otherwise controlled or accessible by you or those to whom you grant access including other web sites, FTP servers, web-based storage services, peer-to-peer systems and the like (each of the foregoing being a "Channel").
      3) Remove and delete all references, pointers and hypertext links pertaining to infringing copies of the Protected Work from all such Channels.

      If you are unsure of whether any other titles related with your Site are ADV Protected Works, or you would like to be more pro-active in your awareness of our licensed titles for future reference, please check with the official ADV site www.advfilms.com or our customer service department.
      We also ask that you please advise us in writing within five (5) days from the date of this notice as to whether you will comply with our request so that we can determine whether any additional action will be required beyond this point. I trust this will receive your prompt attention, and if there is anything I can help you with in future, please let me know.

      Sincerely,

      Enforcement Team
      Anti-Piracy Division
      A.D. Vision, Inc.

      And the reply:

      Public reply from mirKx.com: (06.28.2004)
      MirKx.com is not under North American's laws. It is unfortunate that this Site is available in North America, since it has only been made for Comoro Islands' inhabitants, where mirKx.com is acting from. Moreover, the referenced international copyright laws don't apply, since the Comoro Islands:
      - didn't sign the International Berne Convention of 1886
      - is not a state member of the WIPO.

      MirKx.com is acting as an AUTOMATIC index of links, and the Protected Work you make reference to are NOT hosted on this server. If y
  • What about claiming dmages for aggressive (and illegal) prosecution.
  • by mrgreen4242 (759594) on Friday September 03, 2004 @04:55PM (#10153004)
    made me think of something... IANAL, so someone help me out here, but...

    Could I take a VIDEO TAPE (no deCSS, hence no violation of the DCMA) of a movie I own, encode it into , then encrypt it with some sort of trivial method and post it to a website with filename NAME_OF_MOVIE.xxx. Then wait to get a C&D from the MPAA.

    At that point could I demand how they are CERTAIN it is indeed a copy of their IP. If they actually decrypted the file and checked it wouldn't they be in violation of the DCMA? If they didn't wouldn't their claim be baseless, and hence perjurous (sp?) under the DCMA?

    Just a thought I had during my last 5 minutes of work...

    Rob

    • No.

      There are various technical reasons why your scheme wouldn't work. But the main reason really is that, as the saying goes, the law is not an ass. It's not like a set of absolutely hard rules, or a computer or anything, which I find a lot of people around here seem to not understand. Ultimately it's kept running by people, and little games like this tend to get those people pissed off at you. This then makes your life crappy, and tends to result in whatever plan you might have had not working in any resp
    • by danila (69889) on Friday September 03, 2004 @06:17PM (#10153745) Homepage
      The "penalty of perjury" bit only applies to the belief that they represent the copyright holder. It's a common misconception (propagated by the DMCA creators) to think they need to be sure before sending threats.

      I can send a DMCA to any ISP and claim that
      a) I think a particular file contains copyrighted work written (shot/drawn) by my sister
      b) under penalty of perjury I promise that I represent my sister

      The only lie I can be made responsible for in the court is that I don't represent my sister (if I don't). I can always say I was mistaken about that photo/text and get away with it.
  • by dcigary (221160) on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:01PM (#10153052) Homepage
    We had one of these letters once delivered to Postmaster and Webmaster accounts for the company I work for. After a half hour of scurrying around trying to find the offending files on the system and failing, we double-checked the IP address that they said was the server with the offending files, and sure enough, they had made a typo between the time their script found the files, and they did a lookup on the ip address. The offending subnet, completely not owned by our company, was transposed a few digits.

    So, we replied back to them, told them of their idiocy, and got a somewhat reasonable apology back - but nothing like what it SHOULD have been based on the language and severe tone of their warning.

    This questions what really is automated and what has at least some human intervention. Of course, they should have realized that the entire X-Files series doesn't fit in a 113k file.

  • Profit (Score:4, Funny)

    by Eudial (590661) on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:24PM (#10153278)
    1.
    $apt-get install proftpd
    $cat > /home/ftp/welcome.msg << EOF
    This is a private server, you do /not/ have
    permission to access the information stored
    on this server. Please disconnect immediately
    or face legal countermeasures.
    EOF
    $ mkdir /home/ftp/warez
    $ touch /home/ftp/warez/LOTR.{1,2,3}.divx.avi
    $ touch /home/ftp/warez/Star\ wars\ episode\ III.avi
    2. ???
    3. Sue MPAA for unlawfully accessing your FTP server. (profit)
  • by BeBoxer (14448) on Friday September 03, 2004 @05:29PM (#10153320)
    Let's just start sending C&D letters to the RIAA. Or more specifically their ISP which seems to be Verizon (ironic, eh?)

    After all. I have a copyrighted image file named logo2.gif. Coincidentally, the RIAA seems to be hosting that very image. At least as far as I can tell, right? The filename matches, and I certainly can't be bothered to compare the contents of the file. Just fire off a letter! Damn, I just did some more checking. The FBI stole my banner and put it at http://www.fbi.gov/homeimag/banner.jpg. Bastards! I better send off a letter to their ISP as well!
  • http://madonna.nick.music.stodge.org/ This is a PHP based tarpit of confusion designed to annoy the ??IA enough to stop spidering your server. You need to be able to run apache virtual hosts, but do not need any database (it all runs of config files). You can read all about this tarpit on my wiki. Patches and improvements are welcomed.
  • by jdunlevy (187745) on Friday September 03, 2004 @06:06PM (#10153628) Homepage
    Perhaps there should be a penalty for knowingly or carelessly making a false accusation?
    • Perhaps there should be a penalty for knowingly or carelessly making a false accusation?

      There is:

      Section 512. Limitations on liability relating to material online [ ]

      (f) Misrepresentations. -- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section --
      (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
      (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

      shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by

  • by Todd Knarr (15451) on Friday September 03, 2004 @06:27PM (#10153813) Homepage

    You know, instead of just filing a counter-notice, victims like this should take a different approach. Copyright law has penalties for trying to usurp or interfere with another person's copyrights. When a blatantly false notice like this is filed demanding the material be taken down, the victim should treat it as an ordinary attempt to falsely claim ownership of their copyrighted material and pursue it as such. Put the RIAA and MPAA on the receiving end of a copyright-infringement suit for a change.

  • MPAA Trap Script (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scovetta (632629) on Friday September 03, 2004 @07:24PM (#10154226) Homepage
    I wrote a quick script to make up files filled with garbage (streamed, created on the fly) with names from a text file...

    Take that, MPAA!

    http://www.scovetta.com/projects/mpaa-trap/index.c gi [scovetta.com]
  • by csoto (220540) on Friday September 03, 2004 @08:00PM (#10154449)
    "Dear idiots,

    http://sc.com/~dbaker/dmca.html

    You're all stupid.

    Affectionately,
    Charles"
  • by Anarcho-Goth (701004) on Sunday September 05, 2004 @12:00AM (#10160732) Homepage Journal
    "The Entertainment Software Association falsely accuses the Interactive Fiction archive of pirating Doom 3. doom3.zip is a 114kb freeware DOS game from 1988. Reminiscent of when the RIAA sent C & D's to a Professor Usher who had an usher.mp3 file posted on his website."

    A lot of people have posted comments about nailing the RIAA/MPAA etc. for purgery or liable. I have another idea.

    When "they" repeatedly do stuff like this, it lowers their credibility.
    Does even the spider download the actual files?

    It seems to me that if someone was actually hosting infringing material, after getting a Cease and Desist letter, they can just change the file. Use the same filename, but replace it with something silly, like a tarball of your slashdot journals, or an mp3 of yourself reading the fair use clause of the US Constitution.

    And if lots of people put out files like this that were not infringing in the first place, then it would make it more difficult to determine who actually was infringing and who was acting as a decoy.

    At the very least it would force them to have a human being confirm that a particular person is really infringing, and to save the evidence, before they start sending threatening letters, and I think we can all agree that would be a good thing.

Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8.

Working...