Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

MPAA Is Sending Out Letters Again 16

Posted by michael from the perl-for-fun-and-profit dept.
rbb writes "The MPAA is sending out new cease-and-desist letters to people who apparently did not remove DeCSS from their site. The (obviously script-powered) letter they sent out is hilarious!" Wording appears to be stronger than previous letters.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA is sending out letters again More

MPAA is sending out letters again

Comments Filter:
  • I thought the court delivered cease and desist letters, not the company involved......
  • (2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS.

    Therefore, most if not all search engines are violating the DMCA, as are any sites that link to search engines, etc. So did the MPAA send these letters to half the internet?

    -----

  • Before people make a big deal out of this, realize that an e-mail is not a legal document. If you receive one, by all means get legal counsel, but do not reply to the letter as you can plausibly claim that you never received it.

    The only way a cease and desist letter can be legally acknowledged as delivered to you is if the MPAA sends it by certified mail and you sign for it.

  • Since when is is a "crime" to make backups of your movies. As far as I know, federal law provides the right to make backups of the software/digital media you own. So, doesn't this ruling seem to be breaking federal law?
  • that and the fact that they could probably check your ISP server logs. "yes that particular message was sent as somebody checked their mail" so somebody would have had to recieved it. Two people that it can only hurt yourself lying too:pigs(cops) and a judge.
  • The district court granted a permanent injunction against (1) posting on any Internet site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS or any other technology primarily designed to circumvent CSS, and (2) linking any Internet web site, either directly or through a series of links, to any other Internet web site containing DeCSS.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the injunction against 2600 only? They seem to be saying in this letter that the injunction was against all sites everywhere. Wouldn't they have to go through the same legal proceedings for every site?
  • Is there ANYTHING in the DMCA that requires the recipient of this letter to carry out item #3 (Advise us (MPAA) of the name and physical address of the account holder)? Working for multiple ISP's in the US, I've never been asked for that when someone traces some "foul play" from one of my IP's, and I haven't asked someone else for the same.
  • Before people make a big deal out of this, realize that an e-mail is not a legal document. If you receive one, by all means get legal counsel, but do not reply to the letter as you can plausibly claim that you never received it.

    I'd be careful about that. If you receive an e-mail, and someone asks you directly if you have received it (and asks you under oath), the best you can do is say something like "I don't recall." If you say "No", you have just perjured yourself. And that is both illegal AND unethical.
  • Thanks, Masem. Though working for a big corporate media outlet feels a little funny sometimes (and not funny like "when we used to climb the rope in gym class"), I think that the distribution reach these companies have can really help broaden the debate on these issues. And that's what's needed. Sam
  • I didn't see that article the first time through, but reading it now, and it's great. I wish we had more people in the media that understood that cases like deCSS can affect everyone, even though the media themselves might be owned at some upper level by the MPAA, RIAA, or the corporate despot of the week.

  • Too bad that the MPAA was not forbidden from sending out letters like this until the appeal is heard.

    I am still at a loss as to how a decypher routine, that does not play or copy anything by itself, can be a "pirating device", or whatever that Amish judge said.

    Somehow, the rights of the individual make no difference to anybody any more (except for that individual of course). How on earth can it be *wrong* for me to give my own instructions to my own equipment to play files that I purchased? If I am doing something like copying DVDs, then by all means, prosecute me.

    In this case, the MPAA obviously does not care about piracy, because they are harassing everybody that they can find *except* the pirates.

    Let's see, if Chrysler decided to provide a *licensed* map with every vehicle that they sell, and by their own decree that map was some sort of "safety equipment", then some person went into a gas station and was handed a "free" map for a fillup, then was *caught* by Chrysler in posession of that map, would any court bother to hear a criminal case against the gas station for giving away "circumvention devices"? Also, add that the gas station was aiding "counterfiters" of automobile products, with the map being a key component in the counterfiting.

    Sadly, in this day and age, I believe that the answer would be yes and the above example is identical to what happened to 2600 magazine.

    Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
  • There is an ongoing discussion on one of my email lists (well, it gives us something to talk about now the RIP bill has been stamped into law)
    It appears Demon Internet (a largish ISP here in the UK) received the letter [cryptome.org] too, and was sufficiently paniced by it to sent out a "prove you are innocent or else" letter to it's customer.
    --
  • What i want to know, is how do they think they have the right to affect people in other countries, the DMCA is a U.S. law, not worldwide, the MPAA has no right to use that law against anybody else in the world!
    ...Particularly as the US was late in the game to recognise Copyright at all...
    --
  • I am still at a loss as to how a decypher routine, that does not play or copy anything by itself, can be a "pirating device"

    As far as I can tell, the MPAA managed to convince the judge that an encrpyted file can't be copied at all whereas a decrypted file can be. (The docs have various comments along the lines of "decrypted...and copied just like any other file"

    Meanwhile, 2600 didn't seem to realise that anyone could be so stupid as to assume this, and 2600's legal experts didn't have the technical knowledge to understand that an encrypted file could still be copied.
  • No need for correction there. You're right. The injunction does only apply to 2600. Even the MPAA admits it. However, they're counting on Kaplan's decision as being a precedent that other courts will rely on. Also, they say just because there is not a specific law against DeCSS (which they contend, due to Kaplan's ruling, is illegal)doesn't make it legal to post it. If you want, check out this story I wrote [cnn.com] about the situation a while back, which contains some observations from lawyers about these exact actions and the MPAA's responses. Does anyone know if there has been a court date set for the appeal? Sam

  • Re:It's been said before, but... (Score:3)

    by SamCostello ( 233310 ) on Tuesday September 26, 2000 @07:10AM (#754236)
    C'mon...the DeCSS decision Kaplan handed down explicitly requires that there be intent to circumvent CSS for the links to be illegal. He put that in there specifically to safeguard search engines and ISPs and free home page providers, etc. So, yes, the MPAA's claims do threaten the basis of the 'net (links), and yes, it is scary, but get off the "why aren't they suing the search engines?" soap box? It's just factually wrong. Sam

Slashdot Top Deals

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Close