|Donald Ramsbottom||Sep 20, 2000 11:55 pm|
|Richard Clayton||Sep 21, 2000 6:40 am|
|Richard Watts||Sep 21, 2000 8:16 am|
|Neil Dunbar||Sep 21, 2000 9:28 am|
|Owen Blacker||Sep 21, 2000 10:46 am|
|Donald Ramsbottom||Sep 21, 2000 11:10 am|
|John Young||Sep 21, 2000 11:29 am|
|John Young||Sep 21, 2000 11:41 am|
|Richard Clayton||Sep 21, 2000 1:25 pm|
|Richard Clayton||Sep 21, 2000 1:30 pm|
|Dave Bird||Sep 21, 2000 2:12 pm|
|Donald Ramsbottom||Sep 22, 2000 12:52 am|
|Paul Leyland||Sep 22, 2000 1:30 am|
|Owen Blacker||Sep 22, 2000 2:09 am|
|Roland Perry||Sep 22, 2000 2:20 am|
|Roland Perry||Sep 22, 2000 2:25 am|
|Jon Ribbens||Sep 22, 2000 3:45 am|
|David Howe||Sep 22, 2000 3:56 am|
|Charles Lindsey||Sep 22, 2000 4:05 am|
|David Howe||Sep 22, 2000 4:20 am|
|Owen Blacker||Sep 22, 2000 4:55 am|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 22, 2000 5:12 am|
|Donald Ramsbottom||Sep 22, 2000 5:24 am|
|Donald Ramsbottom||Sep 22, 2000 8:32 am|
|Dave Bird||Sep 22, 2000 11:22 am|
|Donald Ramsbottom||Sep 23, 2000 7:35 am|
|Owen Blacker||Sep 23, 2000 8:24 am|
|Dave Howe||Sep 23, 2000 3:25 pm|
|Dave Bird||Sep 23, 2000 4:26 pm|
|Dave Howe||Sep 23, 2000 4:38 pm|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 24, 2000 6:00 am|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 24, 2000 6:00 am|
|Paul Crowley||Sep 24, 2000 11:07 am|
|Richard Watts||Sep 25, 2000 3:53 am|
|Charles Lindsey||Sep 25, 2000 7:09 am|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 25, 2000 10:40 am|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 25, 2000 1:13 pm|
|Philip Rowlands||Sep 25, 2000 2:04 pm|
|Dave Bird||Sep 25, 2000 7:35 pm|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 25, 2000 11:04 pm|
|Charles Lindsey||Sep 26, 2000 1:59 am|
|Pete Chown||Sep 26, 2000 2:38 am|
|Richard Watts||Sep 26, 2000 9:40 am|
|Richard Watts||Sep 26, 2000 9:45 am|
|Dave Bird||Sep 26, 2000 11:42 am|
|Dave Bird||Sep 26, 2000 12:26 pm|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 27, 2000 3:01 am|
|David Swarbrick||Sep 27, 2000 3:01 am|
|Jon Ribbens||Sep 27, 2000 3:46 am|
|Dave Bird||Sep 27, 2000 7:52 am|
|Dave Bird||Sep 27, 2000 11:53 am|
|Benjamin Geer||Sep 27, 2000 6:41 pm|
|Subject:||Re: Demon & DeCSS|
|From:||John Young (jy...@pipeline.com)|
|Date:||Sep 21, 2000 11:29:31 am|
What we found important about the DeCSS-Demon example is that the MPAA is now sending letters to other countries which appear to be the same as those sent within the US. And that the letters at first glance appear to be sufficiently authoritative that ISPs are indeed "buckling." In the Demon case the customer was sufficiently astute to point out the faults of the MPAA letter. Similar successful protestations have occurred in other countries, not least in Norway where Jon Johansen lives and where he has received widespread support for resisting MPAA's coercive highhandedness.
There have been similarly successful oppositions to MPAA's overreach in the US.
However, in quite a number of cases the legal departments of ISPs have immediately capitulated and advised shutdown of sites. This has brought them ridicule from more astute attorneys.
An argument for immediate compliance by ISPs is that they do not want to incur unnecessary legal costs which the MPAA letters appear to portend. But it is this threat to the ISP that is then passed on to the customer who might feel quite differently, as in the Demon case, and will forthwith change to an ISP with more backbone -- or rather sounder legal counsel.
This is a nasty practice which we know is has been long used by the telecommunications giants to maintain beneficial relations with their stron-armed regulators.
We would regret that ISPs match the giants obnoxities in putting customers second to corporate predators and regulators, but that may be inevitable as they are bought up or bribed or overpriced by the wire and satellite titans.
A happy outcome of the Demon example is that it could be a bellweather for other ISPs to show humility and fortitude in protecting their customers and their reputation rather than bucking and jiving like wannabe titans.
In any event, we would like to hear more of Demon's view on this transnational issue which we believe will become more common as the global corporations endeavor to expand their control of markets -- not only the proponents of the G8-way-only.
At 07:10 PM 9/21/00 +0100, you wrote:
Basically, it would seem that Demon have receieved a "Cease & desist" letter from MPAA,
The MPAA did indeed write to Demon. They quoted a great deal of US law and a US judgment.
They were asked to explain how relevant this to the UK (they may not have been aware of Demon's physical location) but they have yet to respond to the email that was sent back to them :(
MPAA v 2600 & DMCA no doubt among others.
and have buckled by treatening to pull someones site (although they have indicated they will take no further action at present).
"buckled" ?? this is tabloid-speak :-(
Did you not understand the import of the word? Just in case from buckle, to crumple up.
The MPAA letter suggested that the customer was not authorised to publish the DeCSS material. The standard procedure for such matters was then put into effect and the customer was invited to explain what permission they had.
I would have thought that standard procedure would have included getting positive affirmation of the allegation and its basis in fact and law before proceeding.
The response was that the DeCSS material is said to be "public domain" [[a complex concept, but exploring its depths is probably not relevant]] so there was no question at present of an infringement of Demon's AUP for web space. Hence no further action at present.
But if there had been no positive response from the customer the uncorroborated initial email would have sufficed to occassion the suspending of the customer account.
The "threat" (more tabloid-speak) was present in the email because it is necessary to set some sort of reasonable time limit for a response (otherwise people would never respond lest they lose out in some way, which can be problematic from Demon's point of view).
With respect, respond or we suspend is a clear and unequivocal threat, and wheras my first allegation of buckling, may well have been "sensational" and I withdraw it, I have no doubt that the use of the word "threat" was an accurate description of the email to the customer.
In the event the response was prompt and so the "threat" disappeared - as indeed it usually does.
The point is, it should never have got to that stage. It appears from what you say, that there are no checks on the bona fides of the complainant, and a direct threat of sanction to the customer, based soley on an unfounded and uncorroborated allegation. I suspect that the receipt of a letter from the MPAA (and if it is the same as they have been sending out then it will be similar to the one sent to John Young at Cryptome [set out at the end of this post]) caused a reaction somewhat more quickly than if Jo Bloggs complained, (I may of course be wrong).
It maybe a botty covering exercise, but demon really should have taken some advice before knee jerking.
The procedures that Demon operate in cases of complaint are applied whether it is the MPAA complaining or the web site owner's girlfriend...
If the right to publish material is questioned (whether it is DeCSS or a photo of a pet cat) then these procedures involve putting the matter to the web site owner ... which is exactly what happened here.
In English Law there is a proposition, which states that "he who alleges must prove", not he who is alleged against must disprove. This may not be a "legal case", but surely some natural justice should prevail?
By all means discuss the MPAA's operations in the UK... but bringing Demon into the middle of this is of strictly limited relevance.
Not when the "standard procedure" seems to "reverse" the "burden of proof" such that anyone can make an allegation, and unless a completely innocent 3rd party responds they wil be "suspended". I also note that the response letter (from demon to customer after he has ***had*** to respond or be suspended), is:
"Your comments are noted. We will not be taking any further action at this point.",
No apology, just a further implied "threat" that they may well look into the matter again, and remember folks, the customer has done nothing wrong, and the MPAA are not even customers of Demon [supposition, they may well be] (although they do have lots of lawyers!).
I do not want to get into a slanging match with anyone, but the "standard procedures" do seem to err on the side of covering Demon and vicariously, therefore, favour of the MPAA. The customer is the one who through no fault of his own has been the subject of a potential sanction, and the MPAA are laughing their socks off. It is Demon's apparent acceptance of the MPAA's allegations which results in them doing the MPAA's dirty work (for free and out of their jurisdiction) which makes the lack of verification of the MPAA's claims fully relevant, and worthy of comment.
BTW courtesy of JY's site I have all of the pleadings and papers on the MPAA actions in the States, and know their somewhat spurious arguments.
LETTER from MPAA to JY :
MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 15503 VENTURA BOULEVARD ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 UNITED STATES PHONE: (818) 728-8127 Email: MPA...@pacbell.net Anti-Piracy Operations
John Young Cryptome 251 West 89th Street New York, NY 10024 jy...@pipeline.com Fax: 212-787-6102
Date: May 24, 2000
RE: Illegal Provision of DeCSS/Circumvention Device
Site/URL: cryptome.org/dvd-css.htm MPAA File#: 5-671-812
Dear John Young:
The Motion Picture Association of America is authorized to act on behalf of the following copyright owners:
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Disney Enterprises, Inc. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. Paramount Pictures Corporation TriStar Pictures, Inc. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation United Artists Pictures, Inc. United Artists Corporation Universal City Studios, Inc. Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
We have knowledge that the above-referenced Internet site is providing a circumvention device commonly known as DeCSS. DeCSS is a software utility that decrypts or unscrambles the contents of DVDs (consisting of copyrighted
motion pictures) or otherwise circumvents the protection afforded by the Contents Scramble System (CSS) and permits the copying of the DVD contents and/or any portion thereof. As such, DeCSS is an unlawful circumvention device within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. §1201(a)(2),(3). Providing or offering DeCSS to the public on your system or network violates the provisions of §1201(a)(2) which prohibits the "manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking" in an unlawful circumvention device.
On January 20, 2000, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting the Internet posting or other provision of DeCSS, having found that DeCSS was a prohibited circumvention device within the meaning of §1201(a)(2) and that the offering, providing or trafficking of DeCSS on the Internet violated §1201(a)(2). That court thus enjoined:
Posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing, importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in DeCSS, and (b) posting on any Internet web site, or in any other way manufacturing,importing or offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device,component, or part thereof, that: (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing, or circumvention the protection afforded by, CSS, or any other technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiffs' copyrighted works or effectively protects the plaintiffs' rights to control whether an end user can reproduce, manufacture, adapt, publicly perform and/or distribute unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works or portions thereof. . .
The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California also recently granted a Preliminary Injunction against the Internet posting of DeCSS.
If you are bound by an injunction, maintaining the DeCSS utility on your system or network violates the above injunction[s] and risks court sanctions for contempt.
Even if you are not bound by this injunction, we submit the legal rationale of these opinions would apply to the activities complained of herein. Thus we still request you comply with this request.
We hereby demand that you:
1) take appropriate steps to cause immediate removal of DeCSS from the above identified URL, along with such other actions as may be necessary or appropriate to suspend this illegal activity;
2) provide appropriate notice to the subscriber or account holder responsible for the presence of DeCSS on your system or network, advising him/her of the contents of this notice and directing that person to contact the undersigned immediately at the e-mail address provided above;
3) advise us of the name and physical address of the person operating this site; and
4) maintain, and take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the destruction of, all records, including electronic records, in your possession or control respecting this URL, account holder or subscriber.
By copy of this letter, the owner of the above-referenced URL and/or email account is hereby directed to cease and desist from the conduct complained of herein.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your immediate response is requested.
The information in this notification is accurate, and we declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Motion Picture Association of America is authorized to act on behalf of the owner[s] of exclusive rights described above.
Should you have any questions, please contact us at the above listed address.
The Motion Picture Association of America
Donald Ramsbottom LL.B, BA (Hons).
RAMSBOTTOM & Co. Solicitors Internet Law & Global Cryptology Law Specialists 5 Seagrove Avenue, Hayling Island, Hants, PO11 9EU, England. Tel (44) (023) 9246 5931 Fax (44) (023)9246 8349 Ramsbottom & Co is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment business Service by Fax or E-Mail NOT Accepted