mpaa prosecution update

posted by tom / December 23, 2004 /

More details of the MPAA's current campaign against BitTorrent are emerging. A cease & desist letter has leaked, addressed to the owners of demonoid.com. A couple of things jump out:

  • The identities of demonoid's owners aren't known by the letter writers. The letter was sent to their ISP with a request that it be forwarded. Presumably this information would be subpoenaed when and if the MPAA decides to proceed with litigation. I haven't been keeping up with the state-of-the-art in DMCA interpretation, but the fact that they don't yet have these guys' names is encouraging.
  • Although demonoid was certainly trading pirate material, actual evidence of infringement may be scarce. There's a warning in the letter not to destroy any evidence. If demonoid's owners were smart they just ran the tracker and didn't host any seeds (content). BitTorrent's pseudo-centralized, yet peer-to-peer nature means that the folks with the most important functional role in the distribution network may not be legally culpable.
  • The letter-writers aren't very tech savvy. They repeatedly refer to an IP address that, by definition, cannot exist (66.250.450.10), and their list of infringing works includes a .nfo file (a metadata text file created by the original pirate, to which they presumably have no copyright claim), plus the listing of an archive AND its extracted contents -- it seems like they probably don't understand what all these files are
  • The list of infringing files is depressing for two reasons. First, they include recently-aired broadcast television shows like Desperate Housewives. The law's unambiguous on this: the networks own these shows and have a right to control how they're disseminated. Still, they're broadcast for free over the airwaves, and it would have been nice if ABC/Disney had elected to grant (or continue to implicitly allow) some limited license allowing the transfer of these shows temporarily -- until the DVD release, perhaps. My worry is that a poorly-constructed court decision or piece of legislation could have negative effects on other kinds of fair use (like my beloved TiVo).

    Finally, the other depressing aspect of this is that someone might be going to jail or driven into bankruptcy for pirating the Garfield movie. How do you ask a man to be the first to go to jail for a shitty, shitty movie?

Comments

With regards to Garfield, what happens if the pirates turn out to be... like... 12?

Posted by: jeff on December 23, 2004 12:57 PM

Actually, that already happened with the RIAA. Google for "RIAA sues twelve year old". They initially acted all tough, then decided to settle for $2000 when they realized that they weren't exactly winning the PR battle.

Posted by: tom on December 23, 2004 01:14 PM

I don't know...any one who is willing to see Garfield might belong in jail. I know that it feels weird not to have been punished for watchin Van Helsing.

Posted by: Charles on December 23, 2004 01:19 PM

I don't know, Tommy. I can't get behind the sort of moral relativism that allows you to support a Garfield-lover.

Posted by: Kriston on December 24, 2004 02:03 AM

"Garfield The Movie" is wonderful with perfect 3D graphic. Garfield in the movie is really a cool and smart cat who can dance admirably. When he went to the tall building to saved the dog Odie and went down, it was very cool! But it was so dangerous when he dropped down from the tall building.
The story line is superb and jokey, and the actress is very beautiful and cute. It was very incredible for Jon that the girl could love him, I also have the same feeling and the same experience with Jon.

Posted by: Creford on April 8, 2005 08:08 PM

Post A Comment

Name


Email Address


URL


Comments


Remember info?



Google Analytics