Would You Believe Copyright Infringement Notices Are Based On Faulty Information?
from the and-that's-against-the-law... dept
This has been pointed out before, but never by an academic study: it turns out that many of the infringement notices that get sent by the big entertainment companies are based on incorrect information, often accusing perfectly legitimate content of being infringing. The study, by some professors at the University of Washington, proved that the notices are sent, rather haphazardly based on whether or not an IP address participates on a file sharing network -- and not whether or not it actually uploads or downloads any content. Specifically, these researchers set about to monitor file sharing networks themselves, and introduced a software agent that watched over what was happening -- but which did not actively upload or download anything itself. But what happened? The researchers received 400 notices claiming that their IP address had participated in unauthorized file sharing. Basically, as suspected, the industry watchdogs merely list out (easily faked) IP addresses, and use that as their entire body of evidence to file a claim.So, while this isn't that surprising, it's even more proof of just how flimsy the RIAA/MPAA evidence is when they file these suits. Even worse, when this information is the basis of DMCA takedown notices, it's potentially a violation of the law -- as part of filing a DMCA takedown is swearing that you have proof that infringement occurred. The scary thing is that all of this has been pointed out to the industry before -- and yet the folks involved still seem to think that they are above the law. For all their moralizing about "pirates" not obeying the law, you would think that they would be careful about making sure they weren't breaking the law themselves. Apparently not.
Update: Realizing I left out the best part. In showing how the IP addresses can be easily faked, the researchers used the IP address of three laser printers who were then accused of "making available" unauthorized material. Somehow, I get the feeling this particular research paper is going to find its way into a variety of legal battles in the near future.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dmca, file sharing, flimsy evidence, infringement, mpaa, notices, riaa, university of washington
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop Bullying People, K?
You know..stop coercing and bullying people in general.
We need a revolution! I call for anachro-capitalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm shocked and dismayed
When will someone put a stop to this ?
Laser printers, please think of the artists for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was the infamous case where a Professor Usher was threatened because something mistook a recording of one of his lectures for a new pop single by the artist of the same name. In the same period, a ZX Spectrum website was threatened because they had a copy of the game "Soldier Of Fortune" - the 1987 Spectrum game (I believe legally with the blessing of its author), of course, not the new game of that title.
The only real change here is that the DMCA is being used as the basis for the threat. A decade later, and they're still not double checking who they're making threats against, let alone what's actually being "stolen". Yet, of course, anyone they sue is still a "pirate" and any life-destroying fine *must* be paid "for the good of the artist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File Sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File Sharing
After all, it is highly unlikely that a laser printer is downloading and uploading two hour movies, is it not?
And it's not likely that even such a study as you suggest would be believed as, should it find something your world view can't handle, you would reject it as flawed somehow.
It's always dangerous when a lawyer claims the moral high ground.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File Sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: File Sharing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
travel aroudn NZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]