Slashdot Log In
Automated DMCA Notices Still Full of Lies
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 03, 2004 03:30 PM
from the dmca-veterans-for-truth dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 513 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 15 2007, @08:00PM)
Damn that's some nice gzip compression, where can I get some of that?!
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 22 2002, @07:42AM)
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday September 15 2006, @01:59AM)
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Interesting)
we hereby state... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.cnycomputerservice.com/)
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?
Re:we hereby state... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:we hereby state... (Score:4, Insightful)
". .
The people they represent are not the owners and have no such exclusive rights.
KFG
Re:we hereby state... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Yes, and they claim that the material in question belongs to those people.
They are NOT claiming that the rights of the person they are contacting are being infringed.
Because the person whom they are contacting is, in fact the owner of the rights, and they say that the person they are contacting is infringing those rights, then they are *by definition* lying.
Just because they are incorrect
Being "incorrect" has nothing to do with it.
They saw something they thought belonged to someone else, and instead of investigating to see if it *really was* what they thought it was, they sent a takedown notice. In this notice, they stated under penalty of perjury *THAT THEY REPRESENTED THE OWNER* - which they didn't.
They made two mistakes. First, they didn't check that the file was what they thought. Second, they made an assertion that they were representing the legitimate owner. (Note, they *DID NOT* say "we think these files belong to Fox" - if they had, they would be off the hook.)
They lied, get over it.
Re:we hereby state... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
There is an intentional bug in the DMCA. Otherwise known as an intentional feature. The DMCA was literally written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. They intentionally drafted it such that they could fire off such notices with total impunity. It was a mistake to assume there was anything fair, balanced, or reasonable about the DMCA. It is purely a tool/weapon placed in the hands of copyright holders.
The perjury clause only applies to to the rights aledgedly infringed, not to the claim that there is genuine infringment or that there is any connection at all between the target of the notice and the asserted copyrights.
They do in fact represent the owners of the copyrights that they alledge are being infringed, thus no perjury.
-
Re:we hereby state... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://homestarrunner.com/)
Actually I think it COULD be seen as purjury (Score:5, Interesting)
The MPAA also states in their letter (in the excerpt shown in the grandparent to this post) that they are authorised to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights to the material in question. The material in question really belongs to Mr. Kiviniemi, and I really doubt he authorised the MPAA on his behalf, so that assertion is also false.
I think that if they can't be charged with purjury then at the very least some or all of the recipients of these letters should pursue a court order to forbid the MPAA from sending legally threatening letters with blatantly flase information to innocent people. In any case, the MPAA should be banned from using a computerised system to scan file repositories and automatically issue such threats. The MPAA should be required to MANUALLY EXAMINE EVERY FILE they discover by automated means before making such bold assertions to minimise false accusations.
Re:Actually I think it COULD be seen as purjury (Score:4, Interesting)
Whoever signs these notices has to also include the following under the DMCA:
Automated systems do not have 'good faith beliefs', and the person/entity signing is opening themselves up to a lawsuit/countersuit if they rely solely on automated systems.Re:Actually I think it COULD be seen as purjury (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I think it's actually pretty funny. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 05, @07:35PM)
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?
Re:Well, I think it's actually pretty funny. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://groogs.com/)
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
Re:we hereby state... (Score:5, Informative)
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0
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.
Re:we hereby state... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
MPAA should compare MD5SUMs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MPAA should compare MD5SUMs (Score:5, Funny)
Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Brilliant! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.splunge.net/)
Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.geekinformed.com/)
Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.rotten.com/ | Last Journal: Monday April 10 2006, @06:14PM)
Two reasons. First, the letters are sent out automatically to people who are flagged during their internet robots' scans across the internet. There isn't a guy typing these up and spending time looking for warez. Secondly, I like to know what my files are, and how I keep track of that is with understandable file names. So it makes no point to start labeling all my files "starcraft.zip".
Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this is a great idea, I will begin post the files.
Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://tru7h.org)
http://www.xzzy.org/warez/
When in reality, each of them are jpegs of kittens!
Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey... Thats my kitten! You thieving bastard!
IT just goes to show you.... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.cooperlabs.net/)
WE'RE WATCHING YOU - doesnt sound as scary, especially if they really dont know what they are seeing.
Re:IT just goes to show you.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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...
Re:Lies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Newsflash (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Another thing (Score:5, Informative)
(http://itsbeenconfirmed.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 04 2003, @02:33AM)
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)
(http://ironmagn.us/)
Harassment? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
(http://albanach.com/)
Sue (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://josh3736.net/)
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)
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 ?
Where did the Season 1-7 come from? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Doom3 is a dupe! (Score:3, Funny)
OT (Score:3, Interesting)
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.)
Re:OT (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Let us hope... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let us hope... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.splunge.net/)
Re:Let us hope... (Score:5, Funny)
I think SCO's already got that one covered.
Are we ready for a 'loser pays' system yet? (Score:4, Interesting)
But they said "Own it now!" (Score:4, Insightful)
DMCA Honeypot (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
You mean the RIAA Pit of Confusion? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://wiki.stodge.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday April 11 2004, @06:20PM)
http://wiki.stodge.org/index.php?page=RIAA+Pit+
You can see an example here:
http://usher.nico.music.stodge.org/
Good Faith? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.nsrealm.com/)
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)
(http://www.cyberknet.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 01 2004, @02:41PM)
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.
Under Penalty of Perjery ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://carlhoward.org/)
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.
They should send a reply like this... (Score:5, Funny)
The reply letter [thepiratebay.org] included these gems:
Re:They should send a reply like this... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://--/ | Last Journal: Monday December 09 2002, @05:12PM)
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.
Re:They should send a reply like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday October 08 2005, @03:57AM)
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
All this talk about the DMCA... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:All this talk about the DMCA... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://future.wikicities.com/)
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.
Is it really automated?? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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)
3. Sue MPAA for unlawfully accessing your FTP server. (profit)
Forget bogus file names (Score:3, Funny)
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!
RIAA Tarpit of Confusion: Source available (Score:3, Informative)
(http://wiki.stodge.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday April 11 2004, @06:20PM)
Re:Libel (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://paul-robinson.us/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 25, @07:28AM)
Then when a takedown notice comes along from one of these organizations, and the MP3 is played in a court case showing it isn't one of their songs, it becomes a bad faith takedown notice under 17 USC 512(f) for which the party demanding takedown is liable for damages due to any injury caused by the takedown as well as costs and attorney's fees. If it can be shown that all that would have been necessary to show it wasn't infringing was to examine the file and see (say by file size, or by playing it) then it is obvious bad faith and actionable.
penalty for false claim... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.speakeasy.org/~dunl/public/)
A different response (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.silverglass.org/)
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)
(http://scovetta.blogspot.com/)
Take that, MPAA!
http://www.scovetta.com/projects/mpaa-trap/index.
Just sent an email to MPAA@copyright.org (Score:3, Funny)
http://sc.com/~dbaker/dmca.html
You're all stupid.
Affectionately,
Charles"
Get out of jail free card (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.clydelewis.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 31, @07:59PM)
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.
Re:May be violating the law (Score:5, Informative)
(http://keithkris.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 26 2003, @11:47AM)
Re:I have seen this before (Score:3, Funny)