Ask Slashdot: How Would You Handle A Bogus Copyright Infringement Notice? 206
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?
Streisand Effect (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The misspelling is a pretty good misdirect.
"See!?! I don't even know how to spell Kubo! Clearly I didn't download that movie!"
Re: (Score:2)
The pirates could be posting with an intentional misspelling, like "fake books" in the music publishing industry - it's not an exact copy, so....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Kubo and the Two Strings is from Laika, which produced Coraline, ParaNorman, Corpse Bride and The Boxtrolls. If you enjoy the same animation style and sensitivity to the characters as their other productions, you'll likely enjoy it, although it is aimed at a younger audience.
On the other hand, I wouldn't download it. I would buy it (and I have) to support the studio, which is a private company based in Oregon.
And yeah, I know that read a bit like a shill post, and yes, I'm posting AC. All I can say is that
Re: (Score:3)
There are these things called DVDs that actually contain the entire movie and work without an internet connection....
Re: (Score:2)
Do they even make DVDs anymore?
Re: Streisand Effect (Score:2)
I have exactly one device in my house that can read these so-called Deee Veee Deeeezz, and it's no where near my TV.
It's in my office Computer, and I honestly do not know if it still works. The last time I used it was to burn a Win XP ISO with some special drivers slipstreamed in. Wow, that was quite a while ago.
Re:Streisand Effect (Score:5, Informative)
There are these things called DVD players that connect to a television set and don't require a computer or an internet connection...
Re: Streisand Effect (Score:2)
Mine has two, one is actually a bluray writer. The one i use at work has one. My notebook has one in the docking station. My home server has one, although it might be replaced with another hotswap bay in the future.
Re:Streisand Effect (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In all reality, though, I was making a joke; moderators seem to have gotten it. It would have been interesting AF if the letter spelled it with a C, though, no?
Re: (Score:2)
The piracy "educational" messages could be 100% bogus and still yield the observed effect of reduction in pirate activity among the "educated" IP addresses. Note that the summary said piracy overall remains constant, but a significant reduction has been observed among the educated. From my perspective, this could mean that the educated secured their WiFi and quit using their own traceable IP addresses for pirate activity, while the uneducated have not secured their WiFi and are now hosting increased pirac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Kubo and the Two Strings is fucking awesome. Highly recommended. Also, it's primarily stop-motion, not CG (although I'm sure some was used).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the 3rd guy who missed the joke got a reply as well, but that's because his comment added information from TFA so we don't have to go read it.
Re: (Score:2)
well, it looks kind of lame; perhaps I won't pirate it after all.
It's actually a really good movie. Fantastic critical reviews, and nearly 90% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.
I would pirate it just on principle, and then enjoy it afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I read the article and the letter and whoops, the heading is a great big fat fucking lie. From the letter "it looks like someone has been 'SHARING' copyrighted material"(my emphasis) and from the heading "I had illegally downloaded". For once and for all, downloading is not uploading. Downloading to your computer is not sharing. You are in no way liable for the actions of others. They are claiming legal ownership of the content and distributing it to your in exchange for exposure to their paying ad
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keh? the comment was about the article, your comment is just the nearest logical attachment point to the article thread, why for you upset? The story is wrong and your comment is a joke and what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kubo and the Two Strings, on the other hand... well, it looks kind of lame
It's really good.
Just more spam (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I would suggest adding them to your spam blacklist.
I would also suggest, that if you get mail or e-mail of a similar type to not visit their web site from any computer or IP address that can be traced to you. That confirms that you've received and read it, and the onus is then on you to refute the claim.
If this goes to court, and the claimant can show that you received and read the claim and did not protest it at the time, it won't improve your case.
Keeping connection logs from your router is also always a good idea for establishing the truth. Decent route
Re: (Score:2)
Because everyone has the space to store 500Mb to 2Gb per day of logs? How long should the logs be retained? Three years until a trial?
You don't need to log every packet. Logging new connections is enough, and isn't that much data. I log around 1-3 MB/day. At that rate, a 16 GB memory stick should last a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably wouldn't be able to submit your own router logs as evidence, as they can't be verified. Who's to say you didn't go in and strip out the offending logs before submitting them to a court?
Unless you know the IP of who you downloaded from, you can't easily strip that without scrubbing a large amount of data, which looks suspicious.
Re: (Score:3)
I received a few similar emails from my own ISP. They said they were obliged to pass on infringement claim notices but would not release any of my personal data. I knew they were bogus and queried them with the ISP, who said that the best thing to do is ignore them.
After getting a few I contacted them again and asked them to stop sending them, which they did and that was the last I heard of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry uncle.... (Score:3)
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
I tell them to basically fuck off (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lucky for your ISP, even if you did tell them that, you're a moron and don't know the definition of slander. Because them sending you said letter isn't slander.
They don't bother you anymore because they are fearful of getting sued because you're a retard and they're afraid of discrimination.
Re: (Score:3)
If I understand the situation correctly, it is not them that send the letter, but the ISP. The copyright group is the one who told the ISP that he is infringing. If that's the case, then it is, likely, not slander, but it is libel.
Also, if you're eager to go to court for some reason, you can sue them for a declaratory judgment that says you're not infringing.
Usual disclaimers: I am not a lawyer. This is not a legal advice. Even if I were a lawyer, you'd be crazy to take legal advice from some random schmo o
Re:I tell them to basically fuck off (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK such infringement is a civil matter, not a crime. The slander angle probably wouldn't work as you could not show any material loss from the email, unless maybe somehow your partner saw it and left you or something equally improbable.
The best option would seem to be to send them a letter saying that you did not pirate the film, and that any further accusations which require you to send them corrections will be billed at your standard hourly rate. I charge £120/hour, minimum 1 hour, for that sort of letter. Works great with other pests like TV Licencing too.
Some info here: http://tv-licensing.blogspot.n... [blogspot.nl]
Re: I tell them to basically fuck off (Score:2)
Re: I tell them to basically fuck off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damages are hard to determine exactly, but for example the court will look at things like reputation damage and how it might affect any business interests you have and, based on prior cases and any legal arguments you make, award a sum of money it thinks is reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I tell them to basically fuck off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Since the accusation is in writing, it is actually libel and not slander. And since it's not a public accusation, your damages may be somewhat limited. If they throttle or block internet services due to this letter, then you'd have more recourse. Either way, I agree with you that the best option is to warn the ISP that such an accusation is not to be taken lightly and that they have no evidence that it was you personally. There's always the possibility that someone cracked your WPA password and is on yo
Get a lawyer! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I forget to say: get a competent lawyer. As in this case, one who is familiar with copyright. Don't hire your "lawyer friend" who is specialized in divorces or crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Or better still, don't do anything. These notices are dime a dozend. Wait until you're contacted directly by someone claiming you infringed something. Ignore your ISP.
Sue them Immediately (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Oh.. for the lack of mod points.
Good for you!! people need to stand up, our rights are slowly being eroded and we are rapidly turning into a "rental" society.
They send out these blanket "settle or else" statements and a lot of people just settle vs the hastle/financial burden..
Sort of reminds me of the "419" scams.. email as many as you can and hope for positive results.
Re:Sue them Immediately (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh.. for the lack of mod points.
Good for you!! people need to stand up, our rights are slowly being eroded and we are rapidly turning into a "rental" society.
Take the AC's story with a grain of salt. A complaint under 42 USC 1983 for that would be laughed out of court, because (i) no, he hadn't been accused of a criminal act, but a civil infringement; and (ii) even if he had been, he hadn't been charged with anything yet, and therefore hadn't been denied his rights to confront his accuser or see evidence against him. It's like if I hired you to paint my house and claimed you did a lousy job and therefore owed me $500 off the price; and you sued me in Federal Court because "I've violated your civil rights, because you're entitled to confront your accuser." I've never stopped you from doing so, and in fact, the fact that you're suing me is an assertion of those civil rights.
Basically, it might sound reasonable to someone who's legal education comes from television, but in reality, it would be immediately dismissed and there would be no settlement. I think the AC is just making up a cool story, bro.
Great! Cite the case. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sue them Immediately (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a case where that statue was applied, http://caught.net/prose/STATE%... [caught.net]
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].
Data protection act (Score:2)
If they hold incorrect information about you (such as this bogus claim) you can demand they correct or delete it under the data protection act. That applies to the ISP and the group making the claim. I appreciate that doesn't answer the question of how you do that, but sending a few emails to their respective legal departments should get a response. If you don't get any joy you can take them to the office of the information commissioner, they have all sorts of powers to punish people who don't comply with t
Re: (Score:2)
How were you accused of a criminal act? Copyright infringement is civil.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is civil.
Depends on the nature of the infringement. There are criminal codes that apply to it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright infringement is civil.
Depends on the nature of the infringement. There are criminal codes that apply to it too.
If they were accusing him of criminal copyright infringement, they wouldn't send him a nastygram. They'd send the cops, probably with an Anton Pillar order to seize his computers to prevent destruction of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind you're right, if they accused him of downloading then it's not criminal one way or the other. Only if they accused him of uploading could it be considered criminal, and it's your right to face your accuser.
If you took me to court saying I punched you, this would still apply since assault can be taken as a civil or criminal claim. Remember he's only going after the accusation here, it doesn't matter that it wasn't made by the cops.
Hacked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New Scamming Technique (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't they trace the money to the bank account? Find out who's bank account it is, etc?
Well I am not familiar with the details in this specific case, but judging by past scams I assume that they are using multiple bank accounts, and setting up other people in vulnerable groups (drug addicts, homeless people, etc.) to use their accounts for them. Then when you 'follow the money', you end up at the people that have been used by the scammers, and not the scammers themselves.
Get your ISPs support busy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Pretty much anything you read here is useless (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the day, ISPes did not care because the different that it made in bandwidth usage could be attributed to background noise, however in this cases it makes a world lot of a difference.
This only reenforces the ruling that the link between an IP address and a
"Educational emails"? (Score:2)
What is this, from the ministry of truth?
easy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No way to correct a false report... (Score:2)
...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. ...
.
The goal for them is the collection of money from people, not the determination of actual guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
submit a formal complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Some thoughts (Score:2)
Re:Some thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
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 [legislation.gov.uk]) 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 [europa.eu], 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.))
Re: (Score:2)
"safeguards" (Score:2)
Those "tracking companies" cant track crap. you can easily spoof your IP in a torrent and that is what happened to you, your IP was randomly chosen by someone running a modified torrent program.
Can it happen again? yep.
Can you do anything about it? Nope.
Should you worry about it? nope.
Why would it bother them? (Score:2)
Why would the film industry or the government be interested in having such safeguards? Are false accusation inconveniencing them in some way?
Why has the government allowed this scheme to operate without the accused having some right to defend themselves?
Well, firstly, there is no evidence that you aren't able to defend yourself. If they actually make an accusation which has some weight (i.e. might actually result in a penal
The usual way (Score:2)
No evidence? No case.
Doesn't seem legit (Score:2)
A lawer doesn't contact you via an unreliable medium like email. Wait for a corresponding letter.
My advice: (Score:2)
Draft a threatening letter to the agency:
--
To: Get it Right ETC ETC
RE: Illegal Download
Subject: Cease and Desist Notification
Dear (Fill in the blank),
This letter constitutes a cease and desist notification for wrongful accusations of copyright violation. Further misuse of copyright violation claims will result in a discussion with (government approving agency that you referenced) to revoke support for your work as a misrepresentation of government interests.
This letter further serves as formal notification
How does the math work on that reduction? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other explanation is: As the casual pirates have obeyed the 'law', the die-hard pirates have increased their quantity of pirating.
This gives the copyright holders a smaller herd to surround and attack with lawyers.
Is this the "invisible hand" I keep hearing about?
Anyways, not saying you're wrong, but, to me, there seems to be something wrong in the supply v. demand equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would some people increase their amount of pirating based on other people pirating less? How would they even know other people were pirating less?
Static IP (Score:3)
I wonder why we all lose time and sleep over this (Score:3)
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.
Registered mail ? (Score:2)
Unless the notification came registered mail, I'd totally ignore it and go on about my business. I certainly would not post it on the Web and provide proof that I'd received such a thing.
the only logical thing to do is (Score:3)
was the email from the isp or accuser? (Score:3)
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.
Ask for a copy of the infringing material (Score:2)
What if I never read my ISP mail account? (Score:2)
I don't use my ISP mail account at all because if I switched ISPs, I'd have tell loads of people my new e-mail address (which is why most people bring along their mobile number when they switch mobile providers). The only e-mail I use is either my work e-mail or Gmail, which is why these e-mail-only notifications - presumably to your ISP mail account - probably won't be read by a lot of people. Also, these warnings seem to be toothless - no legal action is taken even after receiving many warnings.
It's inter
Buttle vs Tuttle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
bazinga!
Re:Sue? (Score:5, Funny)
... 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
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're confused. It's brits who like to sue. E.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs... [dailymail.co.uk]
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.
If it were the US, send a DMCA counter-notice (Score:5, Informative)
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?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
BitTorrent is hosting (Score:2)
With a web site, a person who wants the file (or part of the file) sends a request via tcp and the computer that has the requested data the responds by sending it.
With BitTorrent, a person who wants the file (or part of the file) sends a request via tcp and the computer that has the the requested data responds by sending it.
See if you can spot the difference between the two statements above by reading them carefully.
The sending of the (copyright protected) file is the same in either case, and that's the par
That's a good point. Ascertain if they know, polic (Score:2)
That's a good point. If the complaint itself doesn't already have your name on it, you may not want to give them your name.
Partially that *may* depend on what you can determine about your ISP's policies. What will the ISP do if you don't respond? Also the any demands in the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
procmail.c [apple.com]
Free vomit bags at the exit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, as another poster pointed out. But..maybe, it could be worthwhile auditing yourself and devices. And should it prove that it's a bogus notice, billing them for the time and any other costs associated with said audit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually this sounds like a good idea. In the UK, defamation laws are much stricter, and much easier to use as offensive weapons. Make it hurt very badly to send out false accusations and threats, and these "rights organizations" will suddenly find better things to do with their time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: USA (Score:2)
Right, I'm the nut. Not the idiot(s) who couldn't figure out it was a joke.
If you're so anti-gun that you can't see the humor in what i wrote, I'm pretty sure you're the one who belongs in the loony bin. I also find it quite fantastic that it's your type trying to take away gun rights.