Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Automated DMCA Notices Still Full of Lies

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the dmca-veterans-for-truth dept.

The Courts 513

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."

cancel ×

513 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No lies here: Ceren RULES! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152725)

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Please show your support [calcgames.org] for Ceren in this poll of Geek Babes!

Is it any wonder people think Linux [debian.org] users are a bunch of flaming homosexuals [lemonparty.org] when its fronted by obviously gay losers [nylug.org] like these?! BSD [dragonflybsd.org] has a mascot [freebsd.org] who leaves us in no doubt that this is the OS for real men! If Linux had more hot chicks [hope-2000.org] and gorgeous babes [hope-2000.org] then maybe it would be able to compete with BSD [openbsd.org] ! Hell this girl [electricrain.com] should be a model!

Linux [gentoo.org] is a joke as long as it continues to lack sexy girls like her [dis.org] ! I mean just look at this girl [dis.org] ! Doesn't she [dis.org] excite you? I know this little hottie [dis.org] puts me in need of a cold shower! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox [spilth.org] . As you can see, no man can resist this sexy [spilth.org] little minx [dis.org] . Don't you wish the guy in this [wigen.net] pic was you? Are you telling me you wouldn't like to get your hands on this ass [dis.org] ?! Wouldn't this [electricrain.com] just make your Christmas?! Yes doctor, this uber babe [electricrain.com] definitely gets my pulse racing! Oh how I envy the lucky girl in this [electricrain.com] shot! Linux [suse.com] has nothing that can possibly compete. Come on, you must admit she [imagewhore.com] is better than an overweight penguin [tamu.edu] or a gay looking goat [gnu.org] ! Wouldn't this [electricrain.com] be more liklely to influence your choice of OS?

With sexy chicks [minions.com] like the lovely Ceren [dis.org] you could have people queuing up to buy open source products. Could you really refuse to buy a copy of BSD [netbsd.org] if she [dis.org] told you to? Personally I know I would give my right arm to get this close [dis.org] to such a divine beauty [czarina.org] !

Don't be a fag [gay-sex-access.com] ! Join the campaign [slashdot.org] for more cute [wigen.net] open source babes [wigen.net] today!

$Id: ceren.html,v 9.0 2004/08/01 16:01:34 ceren_rocks Exp $

Wow! (4, Funny)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152734)

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! (5, Funny)

Brian Boitano (514508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152787)

maybe they've converted the episodes to ASCII or something...

we hereby state... (5, Insightful)

robochan (706488) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152800)

"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?

Re:we hereby state... (1, Insightful)

drudd (43032) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152880)

How are they purjuring themselves? They ARE authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

That has nothing to with whether or not their action has merit.

Doug

Re:we hereby state... (4, Insightful)

Patrick Lewis (30844) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152908)

They aren't the owner of the TCL code. Thus, they are commiting perjury.

Re:we hereby state... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152923)

nor are they authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the TCL code.

Re:we hereby state... (4, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152928)

They ARE authorized to act on behalf of the owner.

". . .of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification..."

The people they represent are not the owners and have no such exclusive rights.

KFG

Re:we hereby state... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152969)

who mods this insightful?

it's WRONG.

Re:we hereby state... (4, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152977)

How do you figure? Was the RIAA authorized to act on behalf of Professor Usher when demanding that he remove usher.mp3? That is literally what they are claiming.

Re:we hereby state... (3, Interesting)

ahsile (187881) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152890)

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.

Re:we hereby state... (1)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152939)

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

If one were to do that, imagine what you would go through. They would try to get a warrant to search though all your past ISP records, trying to determine if you ever did download or redistribute anything. They would have your personal equipment seized, and we all know how easy it is to get that stuff back based on the BBS raids of old.

What else would you have to do to prepare to pick this fight?

Re:we hereby state... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152962)

This has been brought up before. Some lawyer in an ask slashdot story answered it (but I'm too lazy to find it). This line just means that the copyright owner of the work they are claming to have been infringed has authorized them to send out these notices (which is true). You might have a point if at the end it didn't say "as set forth in this notification" and instead said "in reality."

Re:we hereby state... (2, Interesting)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152980)


"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.

Well, I think it's actually pretty funny. (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#10153018)

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

May be violating the law (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152736)

These automated DMCA notices may be violating several laws. I don't quite understand the legalese behind it, but the Copyright Reform Center [copyright-reform.info] has a rather through look at this type of case (in light of the news in this story)

Re:May be violating the law, because their Civil. (2, Insightful)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152760)

Like it or not, they can't file "charges" because they have to get a REAL prosecutor to agree with them.

That begs the question, have they EVER filed real charges, like "in-the-ass-prison" charges or just civil suits? Don't they take years to resolve anyway?

Re:May be violating the law, because their Civil. (2, Informative)

cdc179 (561916) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152858)

Like it or not, they can't file "charges" because they have to get a REAL prosecutor to agree with them.

That begs the question, have they EVER filed real charges, like "in-the-ass-prison" charges or just civil suits? Don't they take years to resolve anyway?


Ummm...Ths is total garbage. For one you can't prosecute on copyright disputes. It's a civil issue only.

Re:May be violating the law, because their Civil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152910)

What do you expect from someone who doesn't know what "begs the question" means.

Re:May be violating the law, because their Civil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152922)

Or someone who doesn't know how to punctuate correctly?

Re:May be violating the law (4, Informative)

SirTwitchALot (576315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152796)

Someone with mod points mod this down, and don't go to the link... it's a troll and not safe for work

dpvc-151-196-62-58.balt.east.verizon.net (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152811)

thank you 151.196.62.58

Re:dpvc-151-196-62-58.balt.east.verizon.net (1)

SirTwitchALot (576315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152861)

Not to feed the troll, but you didn't even get a single octet correct. Sorry, try again.

YHBT YHL HAND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152896)

enjoy the mod down

Re:May be violating the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152855)

why would anyone click on a .info website anyways?

MOD DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152978)

Hate to beat a dead horse here, but by making a big deal out of a gross-out troll, you just cause more people to click on the link and give them what they want - attention.

Don't give the trolls attention.

Re:May be violating the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152976)

Wow, that is incredible. I've got popus blocked and all the javascript options turned off, and it still opens up an infinite number of new windows in Firefox. Major troll, but I've got to admire his skillz.

News For Nerds that Slashdot Wont Discuss - Part 2 (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152737)

I thought I'd bring you the "News for Nerds" that the Slashdot editors thought was not appropriate for you to discuss..

Is Linus secretly working for Microsoft? [forbes.com]

Critical security flaws in Kerberos found in Unix, Linux, and Mac OS [com.com] . Windows not affected.

The thing is, that I seem to remember a day when Slashdot was open and honest enough to discuss all sides of the issues. I guess this post will get whacked by an editor and my IP will get banned. Oh well... there are much better blogs out there nowadays anyway.

MPAA should compare MD5SUMs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152741)

Oh, wait.

Re:MPAA should compare MD5SUMs (2, Insightful)

NeoChaosX (778377) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152750)

They'd probably mistake MD5 for a movie or song anyway.

Re:MPAA should compare MD5SUMs (2, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152798)

This is the MPAA. We're going to have to ask you to cease and desist. It sounds too much like ID4.

Re:MPAA should compare MD5SUMs (5, Funny)

Colonel Cholling (715787) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152871)

Yeah dude, I totally remember the MD5s, they had that song "Kick out the Jams," man, it like totally rocked.

wow (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152748)

Now THAT's some compression. seven episodes for 113k.

Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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?

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152794)

Better than that. Aren't there penalties for making false claims? I'm renaming my resume "Christina Aguilera's Greatest Hits" right now. Maybe it'll have the side effect of someone loooking at it, also.

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (2, Funny)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152821)

Maybe it'll have the side effect of someone loooking at it, also.

Then I think you'll have to choose a different artist.

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152814)

Exactly like they do when they "pollute" P2P networks

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152828)

mod parent UP! I was thinkin the same thing.. How much fun would that be?

Brilliant! (3, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152848)

I suggest we all hide random, public domain crap files in hidden or obfuscated links on all of our web pages. That way we can get back at the ??AA and ESA for spoofing files on P2P networks.

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (5, Funny)

rjelks (635588) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152872)

I'm gonna open a project for a FTP client on sourceforge right now. How does The_Princess_Diaries_2 sound?

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (4, Interesting)

Night Goat (18437) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152906)

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?

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? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152950)

Make a directory of 0 length files called starcraft.zip, brittanysuckingcock.mp3, and DSOTM.mp3.

You don't have to rename your files anything. Just piss them off with false positives on garbage.

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10153007)

You mean like a honeypot...

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152992)

Well then just put some bogus files out there.
4 GB of zeros called "Scary_Movie_3.mpeg" would surely set off an alarm.

I made a file creator way back when that would create HUGE files of zeros and then zip them down to almost nothing to send to "friends" who forwarded chain e-mails to me. When they would un-zip them it would fill up their HDD. Thus proving bad things happen to people who DIDN'T break the chain.

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (5, Interesting)

snoopyjd (665929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10153001)

But they would have to exert effort if you challanged their claim. A letter to their attornies, or a small claims suit would force them spend time reviewing the case. Since you would have nothing to fear, the files are not in fact copyrighted (assuming that you file name is general enough not to infringe their trademarks), you would have very little to risk other than your time.

I think this is a great idea, I will begin post the files.

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (3, Interesting)

mutewinter (688449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152911)

Its just like sharing fake files on P2P apps but with a completely opposite intention ;)

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (1)

fej64 (804064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152942)

Not only this, someone needs to write a program to automatically do this. the program could run a loop and make giant files on the server, and create names from a list of recent movies. Then we could report these to the MPAA. Think of it, 100+ phony submissions a day that appear very legitimate. They would have to spend hours downloading the files, which should be ecrypted with secret .zip passwords to further tease them. It would tie them up for weeks!

Re:Why Not Try To Screw The RIAA/MPAA? (4, Funny)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10153003)

Already on it:

http://www.xzzy.org/warez/

When in reality, each of them are jpegs of kittens!

IT just goes to show you.... (4, Insightful)

xmorg (718633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152758)

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.

Re: Not scary (1)

Macrobat (318224) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152894)

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.

Re:IT just goes to show you.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152956)

That they are not as smart as you think.

Grasshopper, they are much much smarter than that. They've got the government wrapped around their fingers so tightly they don't have to act smart.

Re:IT just goes to show you.... (4, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 9 years ago | (#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...

Re:IT just goes to show you.... (2, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10153016)

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

Lies? (1, Insightful)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152761)

More like mistakes.

Re:Lies? (2, Insightful)

HexRei (515117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152808)

Mistakes? Fine. It's still fucked up to send threatening letters to people and companies who have done no wrong.
The fact that their poorly-designed automated pirate-hunter software made the mistake doesn't alleviate them of responsibility.

It's the liberal version of lies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152809)

Just like the whole WMD debacle.

Re:Lies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152852)

How about more like perjury?

Re:Lies? (4, Insightful)

ralphart (70342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152958)

I usually operate on the "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" principle, but here I'm thinking "Malice AND Stupidity"

Newsflash (4, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Newsflash (2, Funny)

shfted! (600189) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152895)

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 (5, Informative)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152767)

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.

Re:Another thing (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152904)

They will, after the first time they lose a counterclaim over defamation and damages.

Is it their fault nobody chooses to stand up to them?

Experiment... (5, Interesting)

IronMagnus (777535) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Experiment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152966)

Then go after them because they're purjuring themselves.

Harassment? (4, Interesting)

Groovus (537954) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Harassment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152850)

From the DMCA:

"Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider s designated agent."

Re:Harassment? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152973)

It's easier than that; you can just call their bluff and file a counter-notification.

Re:Harassment? (1)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152988)

I am not a lawyer either, but harassment is very similar to frivilous lawsuits, which isn't illegal in the United States but is elsewhere (can some Euroasians/Canadians help me out here?)

Overseas (5, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152774)

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.

Re:Overseas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152797)

Congratulations. that's why the US is the land of Big Business.

Re:Overseas (-1, Troll)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152879)

In the USA, people get really tired of hearing what a great Utopia of individual liberty the UK is.

Re:Overseas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10153008)

Don't worry. We're sick of you too.

I'll never happen (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10153005)

That would bankrupt most of the lawyers in USA. That's like, half the population of United States!

Sue (5, Interesting)

josh3736 (745265) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152778)

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!

Re:Sue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152849)

I see nothing in the DMCA that guarantees you will be held harmless if your actions under the law are not justified. If there are damages due to a DMCA takedown notice, then by all means, seek recourse.

I have seen this before (-1, Flamebait)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152786)

They must be using a similar technology to the Bush administration, who detected 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq.

Of course the 'Mass Destruction' device turned out to be an empty aluminum weigh watchers food tray, but hey, this is hard stuff.

Re:I have seen this before (3, Funny)

JoeBar (546577) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152854)

Yeah, that "master plan" they found was merely an upskirt shot named WMD.jpg

Unexpected ??? (2, Insightful)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 ?

Where did the Season 1-7 come from? (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 9 years ago | (#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

Re:Where did the Season 1-7 come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152927)

My guess is that the company is doing the same thing as a lot of people I know who used to watch the series: they're simply ignoring the last two seasons of the show because it kind of sucked.

Is anyone surprised? (1)

Xxanmorph (654953) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152826)

Raise your hand if you are. Anyone? Anyone? You, you're raising your hand, why? Oh, you couldn't hear. You're not surprised either. Slightly more seriously, the whole purpose behind these campaigns is to scare people so why should they bother getting it right? That would require both effort and some comprehension of technology.

Doom3 is a dupe! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152834)

doom3.zip is a 114kb freeware DOS game from 1988 I knew Doom3 was a dupe!

OT (3, Interesting)

DugzDC (671410) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.)

Re:OT (1)

clifyt (11768) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152997)

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, remember folks should be able to license their work how ever they want to. Art isn't anything that should be considered essential to the public need -- unlike food, water and clean air. As such, if someone wants their work copyrighted for the rest of eternity, this should be their right. if you don't like this, you are just as free to fight against this and put works into the public domain and encourage others to do the same thing.

Let us hope... (5, Funny)

Zorilla (791636) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152845)

...that no upcoming movie becomes named "stdio.h" or we're all screwed.

Re:Let us hope... (4, Funny)

ajlitt (19055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152917)

Probably not, but they're in for a surprise when they try to find 'copies' of The Core.

Re:Let us hope... (5, Funny)

mopslik (688435) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152955)

...that no upcoming movie becomes named "stdio.h" or we're all screwed.

I think SCO's already got that one covered.

I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152862)

Don't takedown notices require sworn statements? I'm sure there must be some legal reprecussion by handing people takedown notices when not really knowing whether or not if they are even true. Maybe purjury or fraud?

Are we ready for a 'loser pays' system yet? (3, Interesting)

jlowery (47102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152873)

Although there are disadvantages to a 'loser pays' system, it has the one big advantage of reducing frivolous lawsuits.

But they said "Own it now!" (5, Insightful)

Datagod (613152) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 this work in reverse? (2, Interesting)

Whatthehellever (93572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152885)

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?

Re:Can't this work in reverse? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152938)

That is their PUBLIC ftp server that the file is hosted on. Its not hacking.

Re:Can't this work in reverse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10152953)

A public FTP server?

DMCA Honeypot (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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? (5, Interesting)

joranbelar (567325) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152913)

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?

Guilty until proven innocent? NOT (1, Insightful)

InfiniteWisdom (530090) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152944)

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 they're sending out threatening letters without even bothering to have a human being take a quick glance at it. Well not new, it has been discussed here a long time ago.

Under Penalty of Perjery ... (5, Insightful)

Physics Dude (549061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152945)

"... 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.

They should send a reply like this... (5, Funny)

optimus2861 (760680) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

I know this would be better suited as a reply but. (2, Interesting)

alex_ware (783764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10152975)

What about claiming dmages for aggressive (and illegal) prosecution.

All this talk about the DMCA... (4, Insightful)

mrgreen4242 (759594) | more than 9 years ago | (#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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>