Failed Filmmakers Pretend Piracy Group 'Stole' Film To Try To Get Publicity

from the super-weak dept

We've talked about smart filmmakers learning to embrace file sharing to enlarge their audience and to improve their business model, but it appears that some filmmakers are getting the wrong kind of message. TorrentFreak has the story of how some filmmakers in Denmark, who had a total flop on their hands, pretended that the local Piratgruppen organization literally broke into the studio, stole (used correctly, for once) the film, and were threatening to put it online. Of course, the whole thing was completely made up in a weak attempt to get publicity. Little actually came of it until it was exposed as totally made up -- but it's a pretty serious issue. The studio was blatantly lying and accusing people of out-and-out criminal behavior, knowing that it was false. And this is in Denmark, where the local anti-piracy group has been quite aggressive in going after anyone for copyright infringement. Shameful.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, denmark, film, piracy, stealing

Bogus DMCA Takedown Is Not Copyright Infringement And Not Libel

from the keep-sending dept

We've had a few discussions concerning the available damages awards for bogus DMCA takedown notices. Unfortunately, if you've had your content taken down incorrectly, the damages you can get from those who sent the takedown, are greatly limited. This is a big problem, because bogus takedowns are regularly sent for a variety of reasons, including attempts to silence speech and because a copyright holder is taking a machine gun approach to dealing with infringing content. The case that's received the most attention on this has been the Lenz vs. Universal Music case, involving Universal Music's failure to take fair use into account in taking down a short video of a baby dancing to music.

However, Michael Scott points us to Marty Schwimmer's blog post detailing a content creator's attempt to claim a bogus DMCA takedown was both copyright infringement itself as well as libel, two rather interesting legal claims... both of which got dismissed pretty quickly. The case involved Actors' Equity Association (AEA) which apparently has some sort of setup where it has the right to alert YouTube to any videos that violate the copyright of its members. How it knows whether those videos are authorized or not is not at all clear -- and, in this case, AEA screwed up. It issued a takedown on a video that was posted by the copyright holder who was pretty pissed off. AEA apologized, but the guy sued, and beyond just using the DMCA's 512(f) clause on dealing with bogus takedowns, tried some other claims as well -- including the copyright infringement and libel claims mentioned above.

The claim of copyright infringement claim is quite creative. It was based on the fact that copyright gives you the exclusive right to distribute and display your works, and the bogus takedown interfered with those exclusive rights. Of course, there's a pretty big problem with this theory, which the court was quick to point out: just because copyright law gives you that exclusive right, it doesn't mean that everyone has to automatically let you distribute or display your works, which is effectively what the guy was claiming. If this theory won out, then no one could stop someone else from displaying their works or it would be considered copyright infringement. So it's good that the court rejected this. Related to this, the court also rejected the 512(f) claim, by noting that only applies to situations where the takedown issuer had actual knowledge of the fact that the takedown was bogus, which greatly limits its applicability.

The libel claim stems from the idea that he was falsely labeled for infringing copyrights when he had not done so -- and the court ties that to the same 512(f) claim, pointing out that this would only apply if there were actual knowledge that the takedown notice was bogus.

The ruling here certainly makes sense, but still highlights a massive problem with the DMCA -- which is that those issuing takedowns have absolutely no incentive to determine if those takedown notices are valid. This would seem to seriously violate what's supposed to be a fine balance between copyright law and the First Amendment, in that it allows individuals or companies to stifle the speech of others, using the law, even if they're doing so incorrectly. This seems like a massive problem in how the DMCA is constructed.

Filed Under: bogus takedowns, copyright, copyright infringement, dmca, libel, takedowns
Companies: aea

Many Innocent Users Sent Pre-Settlement Letters Demanding Payment For Infringement

from the borderline-extortion dept

We've already discussed how operations like DigiProtect and ACS:Law are operating a rather questionable business of purposely putting content online, tracking the IP addresses of anyone who downloads that content, and then sending letters demanding payment to avoid a lawsuit. While it's not clear if any of these lawsuits are ever filed, many people are frightened into just paying up, even if they've done nothing wrong. And, in fact, it appears that many innocent users are receiving these letters, in such a blanket campaign. While some may call it "collateral damage" if a small percentage of innocent people receive these letters, it's still quite problematic, and a highly questionable business practice.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, innocent, pre-settlement letters, uk
Companies: acs:law

So Is Verizon Cutting Users Off Or Not?

from the probably-not,-but-they-need-to-clarify dept

Well, well, well. A few days ago, News.com had a story that got a lot of attention saying that Verizon was kicking users off of its service after it had received accusations of file sharing. At the time, we wondered if this was a misstatement by a Verizon spokesperson, and in an update, Verizon insisted that News.com had misquoted its spokesperson, and it had not kicked anyone off. And yet, lots of folks are still reporting that Verizon is kicking users off for file sharing. And, now, News.com has come back and stands by its original story.

Reading through the details, what it appears to have happened was that a Verizon person misspoke, and News.com accurately reported the misstatement (suggesting that users had been kicked off). Verizon is still claiming it "reserves the right" to kick users off, but has not actually done so. Hopefully it realizes that doing so based solely on accusation is a huge mistake and one over which it would almost certainly face serious backlash.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, isps, riaa, three strikes, users
Companies: riaa, verizon

If Banning The Internet For Sex Offenders Is Unfair, Is Banning The Internet For Copyright Infringers Fair?

from the help-us-out-here dept

For many years we've questioned the logic of courts banning people from the internet for committing some sort of internet crime (mostly commonly sexual offenses online). Many courts have decided that it's ridiculous to ban people from the internet in an era when the internet has become so integral to our lives and our jobs. And, as more content and services move to being online only, it gets even sillier. If you're banned from the internet can you use a Kindle? What about a VoIP phone? It gets confusing fast. Luckily it looks like yet another court has thrown out an internet ban on a sex offender as draconian and a potential violation of the guy's free speech and association rights.

While there's been some split in the courts, it looks like many are starting to question such bans, given how ubiquitous the internet has become. And yet... just as this is happening, we have the entertainment industry pushing hard to kick people off the internet for a small number of accusations (not convictions) for file sharing. Seeing as the courts are already claiming that internet bans -- even for online sex offenders -- is too draconian, how can anyone justify an internet ban as being a fair and equitable "punishment" for being accused (not convicted) of sharing some music?

Filed Under: copyright infringement, internet ban, sex offenders, three strikes

Would Google Be Liable Under The Pirate Bay Ruling?

from the answer-is-hazy dept

Michael Carrier, a law professor specializing in intellectual property law, was kind enough to let us know about a paper he recently wrote analyzing the Swedish court's ruling in The Pirate Bay Case, and seeing how the reasoning set forth might apply to two other services: Grokster and Google. Grokster, of course, was a key player in a similar US lawsuit, that eventually resulted in the service shutting down. While many believe that the Supreme Court said Grokster was illegal, in reality, the ruling on the case only found that Grokster could be liable as a third party. Grokster itself settled before the lower court could rule on the issue, though co-defendant Streamcast was eventually found liable.

Carrier's analysis suggests that the Swedish ruling over The Pirate Bay did not go into nearly enough detail on why it made its ruling. Many of the explanations are quite vague, and could be broadly applied to other services. The most interesting part of the paper looks at how Google would fare under the same conditions -- and it finds that while Google has some distinct differences from The Pirate Bay, one could read the ruling in such a way that it absolutely would apply to Google as well -- which has troubling implications. At the very least, it suggests that the Swedish court did not fully understand the technology or the implications of such a ruling, and was more influenced by the fact that it seemed like The Pirate Bay must be bad, and therefore decided to support that in the ruling. But without carefully highlighting why The Pirate Bay is different than Google, the ruling is too vague and potentially dangerous.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, inducement, liable, michael carrier
Companies: google, grokster, the pirate bay

Music Publisher Suddenly Claims 80s Australian Pop Hit Infringed On 1930s Kids Tune

from the i-come-from-a-kookaburra-down-under dept

Mick was the first of a few folks who sent in this story about how an Australian music publishing firm, Larrikin Music, is suddenly accusing the Australian band, Men At Work, of "ripping off" a 1930s popular Austrlian children's song, "Kookaburra" with their hit song "Down Under." Why did it take so long? Well, Larrikin only gained the copyright in 2000, but that's still 9 years of nothing. Apparently, they only noticed the similarities when an Australian quiz show brought it up -- which certainly raises questions about any "harm" done by this (if there was any actual copying). Once again, like similar stories (such as the Coldplay/Satriani/Creaky Boards/Cat Stevens battle), it's difficult to see why this even matters. Even if the songs are similar, it's not as if one makes the other any less valuable. If anything, it's only served to drive more attention to the similar songs. This is nothing more than a music publishing company desperate for cash grasping at straws to demand cash from others who have been more successful.

Anyway, for comparison's sake, here's a group of kids singing Kookaburra: And here's the song Down Under: Can anyone tell the difference?

Filed Under: australia, copyright, copyright infringement, down under, kookaburra, men at work, music

Yet Another Copyright Lobbying Group Caught Infringing

from the always-seems-to-happen... dept

These days, it's nearly impossible not to infringe on copyright in one way or another during your regular day -- but it's always amusing when big-time copyright supporters are caught infringing (and it seems to happen quite frequently). The latest is musicFIRST, the lobbying group funded (potentially illegally) by the recording industry, which has been pushing a campaign claiming that radio is piracy and demanding that radio stations pay even more royalties than they already do.

But, of course, when it comes to licensing or paying royalties itself... well, you know... that's a different story.

Billboard has noticed that MusicFIRST appears to have quoted the entire lyrics to the Beatles song "We Can Work It Out" in a mocking press release it put out earlier in the week -- but failed to get the necessary license. Now, of course, many of us believe that quoting lyrics like that is perfectly reasonable fair use. But... the recording industry (you know, the folks behind MusicFIRST) doesn't believe that, which is why they've shut down plenty of people for posting lyrics on the web and even thrown people in jail for posting lyrics on the web.

But, when they do it? It's fine? Funny how that works...

Filed Under: copyright infringement, lobbying, lyrics, musicfirst
Companies: musicfirst, riaa, soundexchange

DC Bar Association Claims Lawyer Rating Site Infringes Its Copyright

from the oh-come-on dept

There's been no shortage of stories about misplaced anger (and sometimes lawsuits) filed against all kinds of rating sites lately, and the latest situation is equally questionable. Against Monopoly points us to the news that the Washington DC Bar Association has sent a cease-and-desist letter to lawyer-rating site, Avvo, claiming that Avvo's use of information on the DC Bar's website violates copyright and privacy rights. It would be great if some lawyers chimed in, but I have a hard time seeing either claim making any sense. On the copyright side, the information appears to mostly be factual information, which isn't covered by copyright. On the privacy side (and local privacy laws do differ), if the information is public information, it's difficult again to explain how anyone's privacy is being violated. It seems like yet another attempt by folks who just don't like being rated to try to come up with something (anything!) to shut the site down, rather than figuring out ways to work with the provider and improve their own quality.

Filed Under: copyright infringement, rating sites
Companies: dc bar association

Can A Link, By Itself, Be Copyright Infringement?

from the someone-please-explain dept

A report in Billboard Magazine mentions that the IFPI and the MPA (the global versions of the RIAA and the MPAA respectively) have successfully been able to get ISPs in Mexico to take down 35 blogs which they say contributed to music and movie piracy. Specifically, they charge that the blogs had thousands of "infringing links." Of course, that leads to a rather obvious question: what the hell is an "infringing link"? Is it a link to infringing content? If so, then Google and pretty much any search engine is equally guilty. Simply linking to something, by itself, is not and should not be considered infringement.

Filed Under: blogs, copyright infringement, links, mexico
Companies: ifpi, mpa, mpaa, riaa