Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US
from the strike-one? dept
TorrentFreak has discovered that the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), better known as the company running the whole "six strikes" scheme in the US, somehow had its company status revoked last year for reasons unknown. However, this could have serious consequences:“If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.
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: business, cas, cci, copyright alert systems, registration, six strikes
Companies: ccia, center for copyright information
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They never produced the review of the review by Stroz.
They never addressed the serious issues of Dtecnet's absolute failure of valid DMCA notices.
Corporate law need only heed itself after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe that's why, to the glee of its supporters, they haven't had false strikes. Can't send a false strike if you're not allowed to.
Copyright enforcement at its finest, ladies and gentlemen. Maybe they can consult John Steele for tips on how to operate when you're not supposed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say it isn't so.
Did Texas just execute a corporation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's called Susan Combs. You don't mess with the Texas Comptroller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deliberate anomaly to distract Mike.
Another of Mike's characteristic "dunno what this means" pieces.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Some of Mike's typical boilerplate text: "Honestly, this whole thing has left me really confused."
16:51:51[r-602-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deliberate anomaly to distract Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deliberate anomaly to distract Mike.
Continuing using your own threads of logic (such as they are), relocating won't matter. The CCI would still be doing business with customers in the US (RIAA, MPAA and American ISPs), just as Dotcom was with Megaupload. By those qualifications as copyright maximialists have consistently insisted, should this actually be what CCI is doing, it wouldn't help them. Any company doing business with the US is still subject to US law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deliberate anomaly to distract Mike.
Funny how those "anomalies" happen to happen so frequently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Deliberate anomaly to distract Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anomaly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deliberate anomaly to distract Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're talking about organizations that have their own incomprehensible understanding of basic mathematics, it comes as no surprise their understanding understanding of basic grammar is just as defective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll tell you why they didn't dot their t's and cross their i's
They also know that real copyright enforcement would give them a PR disaster. They want to enforce their rights, but they don't want to enforce their rights. They know deep down that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hope that helps.
Source:
http://home.paulschou.net/tools/xlate/
ps: Works with javascript disabled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup.
What was the other one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup.
> I have eight different computers, each with different user profiles
> and multiple browsers. Whether I log in depends on which computer,
> which user profile, and which browser I use. Although sometimes
> I log in or out just because I feel like it.
Wow. That doesn't suggest unclean hands, or a guilty mind. Not at all. Nosiree. You're not acting like you have anything to hide.
Real grown ups can engage in real conversation and debate without ad hom attacks. Even when their POV is unpopular. But you don't want to face that fact that the world is changing. You are locked in to the mid 20th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup.
The technical term for this is "sock puppet." Something you have been accusing Mike of doing - falsely - for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup.
When I said "different user profiles," I was referring to user profiles in the operating system. Sometimes I hop on a computer, and it's signed into to Windows as my wife. Sometimes I bother to switch over to my user profile, and sometimes I don't. Sockpuppet implies that I have multiple accounts on TD that I use so that I can agree with my own posts. I don't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yup.
I meant "another one of his favorites," not another one that was shown to be illegal.
Take note, however, that he did also defend Righthaven (by claiming the Silvers court was "wrong"). Though, to his credit, he did say "the lawsuits border on vexatious." So, calling them one of his "favorites" would not be accurate.
I'm sure Hart is your hero. He ran Copyhype while he was still in law school, and obviously attracted the attention of the "Big Content" copyright holders. Because, soon after passing the Pennsylvania bar exam, he became Director of Legal Policy for the Copyright Alliance. All without ever stepping foot in a courtroom, or even (so far as I know) without ever having worked for any law firm.
So, keep it up, and soon the MPAA and RIAA will be signing your checks, too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup.
Sweet! I hope so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An answer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really big deal
Desperate much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really big deal
Sure, you say, "just refile and p[ay the fees". But that isn't really the point. It's a massive own-goal to not even check the paperwork on your contractors, then find out that they technically don't exist.
You and AJ kept saying that "the law is the law". If that is the case, then this company's contracts should be legally void and they should get nothing...under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not really big deal
Ouch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not really big deal
Yes, they should (and will) have to pay the extra fees for forgetting to renew with the Secretary of State (or whatever the equivalent is in DC). Just like every other business that does this. You guys sure are desperate with this stuff. I'd love to hear how you think this voids all of their contracts. Which contracts of theirs does it affect? What precedent or statute are you relying on in making this claim? I'm sure you've got these answers and aren't just spouting faith-based FUD. Oh wait, of course you are. This is Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
I do not fear anything as a result of reading said comments.
I do not have any uncertainty resulting from same.
And I do not doubt anything as a result of said comments.
Oh and "faith-based FUD" ... oooooo that's the worst kind.
Because it is not based upon science? - lol sort of redundant, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
For example, the Memorandum of Understanding and its amendments are not affected: http://www.copyrightinformation.org/resources-faq/ Those went into effect before the CCI was even created. In fact, part of the MOU was that the parties would thereafter create the CCI for the following purposes:See http://www.copyrightinformation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Memorandum-of-Understanding.pdf
No thing about the CCI, once created, entering into contracts that would have become voided. So again, I'll ask, which contracts have been voided? No one has that answer, hence it's total faith-based FUD (Mike's bread & butter). This is so dumb, it hurts. If you guys (Mike especially) spent even 1/100th of the time and effort actually discussing things that mattered rather than pumping out brainless FUD, you would actually be participating in the debate in a productive manner. Too bad that will never happen. Seriously. It's too bad Mike can't have a nice discussion about anything that matters on the merits. What a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
We see "bad faith" notices all the time that are not punished. Can you name any case other than Diebold (which is the only one this not-a-law-student can name)? I don't see you advocating for penalties to be enforced on the thousands that are sent and you disagree any time Techdirt decides to highlight a few.
Anyone setting up a system that automates the sending of notices on the basis of keywords has to know that there will be false positives. So, under the same legal theory that holds the creator of a website liable for user submitted infringing content, why wouldn't someone operating such an automated system be operating under de facto bad faith?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really big deal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really big deal
Now that you're here, I'd like a question answered that you so gleefully evaded. Have you been to China? Have you lived for a sufficiently lengthy period of time in China? Have you associated with enough people from Mainland China? Have you accumulated sufficient experience to correctly insinuate in your loaded question to Glyn Moody that his assertions in said linked article are wrong?
See, even the resident trolls try to have some degree of standard. average_joe claims he's a functioning lawyer (I don't disagree he's a lawyer; what most people might disagree is whether he's actually a properly functioning one). out_of_the_lube tries to be moderately consistent over the whole anti-corporate thing while he sings the praises of the great RIAA phallus. darryl, in all his unhingedness, still manages to claim he's a solar panel engineer. You? You don't cite; you don't support; your arguments are little more than slightly subtly executed versions of sticking fingers in your ears and throwing a tantrum. You rant that Judge Otis Wright overstepped his bounds and extol the glorious "conquests" that was the Prenda disaster. You rant about anonymity online, and yet, you quite proudly bear the moniker "horse with no name". Really? You've sunken so low, if not for the fact that China was in the way, you've have dug yourself a hole deep and fast enough to achieve escape velocity and dig yourself into outer space.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TF: According to the Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA), the company leading the six-strikes program has had its status revoked. This pretty much means that the company is unable to conduct any official business anywhere in the United States.
Um, CCI is NOT incorporated in DC, as the very image TorrentFreak posts shows. It's incorporated in Delaware. I went to see if it's in good standing there, but it cost $10 to find out and I don't care that much. All this means is that their status in DC has been revoked, not that they are unable to operate "anywhere in the United States."
TF: The revocation means that CCI’s articles of organization are void, most likely because the company forgot to file the proper paperwork or pay its fees. “If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.
Wow. Since CCI is a foreign corporation (being incorporated in Delaware), the first half of that sentence ("shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative") doesn't apply. That part only applies to corporations that are incorporated in DC. The second half of that sentence ("the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative") is what applies. DC can't void the articles of incorporation of a foreign corporation--only the foreign jurisdiction where the corporation is incorporated can. DC can only revoke CCI's ability to operate in DC.
TF: It appears that company status was revoked last year which means that other businesses now have the option to take over the name. That would be quite an embarrassment, to say the least, and also presents an opportunity to scammers. "When a Washington DC corporation is revoked by the DCRA, its name is reserved and protected until December 31st of the year the corporation is revoked. After December 31st, other business entities may use the corporations name,” the DCRA explains on its website.
The issue isn't whether the name is available in DC. It's whether it's available in Delaware. I just checked, and "Center for Copyright Information, Inc." is available in Delaware. Only $75. Not sure why it would let me register it if they're in good standing there. Maybe they aren't. If someone else registers it, they can just use something else like "Center for Copyright Information Corp." It's not difficult to change the corporate name with the Secretary of State. All it takes is a simple amendment.
MM: It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.
I've forgotten to pay the Secretary of State before, and all that happened was the renewal that should have cost me $25 ended up costing $100. It's just a "paperwork screwup," as you say. Yes, it's embarrassing--which is why you and TorrentFreak think it's somehow newsworthy--but this happens all the time to lots of businesses. You only think it's hard-hitting news because it's happening to someone you despise. Wouldn't you rather write about things that matter? Wouldn't you rather discuss important issues on the merits? Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. Of course you don't want to have any conversations about anything that actually matters. Nothing scares you more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is this because you work for CCI? Me thinks so!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, I thought six strikes was put in place very reluctantly by older and wiser heads, so as to minimize damage to Those Things Americans Hold Most Dear, like freedom of speech, participation in free markets, access to information, etc etc. I thought six strikes was one of those necessary evil things, regretfully and thoughtfully applied only in the most heinous and obvious of cases.
Also, on a persoal level, it looks like it was designed by a committee. *Six* strikes? That's not baseball, it's not the magic number 3, it's a compromise! And compromises almost always turn out to be bunk, right? Stand on prinnciple!
So, supporting, I can understand. Liking six strinkes, I have to wonder about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's rich. Average Joe's assertions are Obvious To All Concerned, but when someone else makes an assertion, perhaps gainsaying one of Average Joe's, that other person's assertion needs support.
Hypocrisy, Average Joe. Total Hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there any kind of due process or judicial review?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just last week he demanded that there were no allegations of specific criminal infringement against the Mega Conspirators. I pointed out the fact that specific criminal infringement is alleged, and he just ran away rather than admit an obvious truth.
Mike claiming that no specific criminal infringement was alleged: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16142522983/kim-dotcom-files-brief-his-trial-court-public- opinion.shtml#c824
Me pointing out that there was such infringement alleged (over the movie "Taken"): http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130507/16142522983/kim-dotcom-files-brief-his-trial-court-public- opinion.shtml#c878
Crickets. Total fake. Total coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"zealots"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've espoused your support of six strikes for copyright infringement. Would you be in favor of a similar strikes system regarding DMCA notices? Something that included assumption of guilt, limited appeals routes, and little oversight or public scrutiny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says you ... whereas the rest of the world can see reality quite easily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But to like, you still haven't explained that one. Give it up, mate! Belay that corporate double-speak! We can handle the truth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]