SNIPS

MPAA v 2600 & DMCA no doubt among others.

Did you not understand the import of the word? Just in case from buckle, to crumple up.

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.

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.

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.

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).

See above

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?

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.

Respectfully,

The Motion Picture Association of America

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