Court confirms DMCA 'good faith' web site shut down rights

[Zero Signal]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30943.html

A U.S. court has extended the power of the DMCA even further with a ruling this week that backs up copyright holders' ability to shut down a Web site on "good faith."

InternetMovies.com had asked the District Court for the District of Hawaii to require that copyright holders investigate infringing Web sites before shutting them down. This rational request was rejected by the court, as its granted the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) and any other DMCA zealot the right to put the clamp on Web sites at will.

"This decision rules that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not require a copyright holder to conduct an investigation to establish actual infringement prior to sending notice to an Internet Service Provider (ISP) requiring them to shut-down an allegedly infringing web site, or stopping service all together to an alleged violator," InternetMovies.com said in a statement.

In the land of the DMCA, a "good faith belief" of infringement makes it possible to hijack a Web site without investigation.

This decision seems to have thrown a large chunk of the Internet into a virtual Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. military describes its Cuban compound as the least worst place, which is an apt take on where Internet users appear to be.

InternetMovies.com claims to have provided little else other than movie trailers to upcoming flicks. Some would characterize this as a service for the movie industry, but the MPAA saw things in a different light.

After issuing several cease and desist orders, the MPAA shut down InternetMovies.com in 2001. The movie site then fought back by filing a lawsuit against the MPAA last year, claiming it did not provide copyrighted content to users at all.

Despite the recent setback, InternetMovies.com plans to continue the legal battle with the MPAA by filing an appeal with U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit here in San Francisco.

The company hopes to cut off a path for various DMCA zealots trying to shut the Internet down.

"This has serious implications to university campuses as many students and faculty use the school as ISPs and any copyright holder can seek to lawfully shut down whole university networks or obtain individual identity without an investigation under the protection of the DMCA," InternetMovies.com said in the statement.

This recent decision builds on a disturbing trend where no Internet user is safe from copyright holders' prying eyes.

For example, four Ohio State University students had their computers seized in a raid earlier this month and have yet to be charged with a crime. They've been banned from using the Internet at school and still have not received their kit back.

It's dangerous out there on the Web these days. Please, dear readers, surf with caution.

It infuriates me that this BULLSHIT even passes!

I am so mad that I am at a loss for words.

[Rongi]

Oh this just has to be a fucking joke

[Sethomas]

I hope my ex-girlfriend was one of those four OSU students.

[Vibecrewangel]

It isn't a joke.

Stanford recently sent out notice to all faculty, staff and students regarding peer to peer file sharing. We have been asked to remove all peer to peer software from all university computers. This includes personal computers that access the internet via a Stanford server, such as students living in Stanford housing.

If we do not comply our IP will be blocked from the servers for a certain amount of time. Continued failure to to compy could result in some pretty sever disciplinary actions.

[El Blanco]

Is it just me, or do most of the fucked up rulings these days come out of the 9th circuit? Seriously, either way too left, or too pro-corporate.

[Jeanette X]

I'd like to hear Ror's take on it.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Well:

1. while the OSU students haven't been charged yet, (and may not if they are held to CIVIL liability instead of criminal), it doesn't state what the good faith attempt to stall copyright infringment was based on. "good faith" means just that but they have to state what specifically is being infringed. Those students may very well have been infringing copyrights, but the author "forgot" to write about what it was I guess. And just to let you know, Ohio State isn't in the 9th circuit, so that has no bearing on the ruling nor is it indicated that it is a result of it.

2. Regardless of how much you may hate it, P2P is stealing and is infringing copyright. Just b/c you want it for free doesn't mean you can just take it. Law on making a "gift" to someone else, requires giving up ownership. So initially, someone would have to buy it in order to give it to someone else and then completely give up ownership in it. When applied to intellectual property rights, that requires erasing it off your harddrive as soon as someone else downloads it. These people aren't selling records and making music for the sole purpose of making you happy and Congress is invested with the power to enact laws to protect the copyrights, patents and trademarks of their artists/creators.

3. The story seems to slant its views of the DMCA by making it seem like someone can randomly report a site w/o any evidence and the site gets shut down. Not true. They do have to submit evidence of the infringing activity and have to produce a lawful copyright ownership to it. Copyrights can exist in commercials, movie trailers, tv shows, skits, etc....almost anything that you can think of which would qualify as a fixed-tangible piece of work in a specified medium including TV, motion pictures, "phonorecords", etc.

Example: it's copyright infringement to buy or rent a movie from a video store and then charge admission to those who come over to watch it at your house and you allow anyone who pays to come in. Copyright always has had broad reach, it's just not been as easy to accomplish as the internet has made it.

[Zero Signal]

Originally Posted by punkgrrrlie10

2. Regardless of how much you may hate it, P2P is stealing and is infringing copyright. Just b/c you want it for free doesn't mean you can just take it.

Wrong. Is owning a gun commiting murder just because it can be done with one? No. P2P is not an illegal concept or execution. What people do with it that infringes on others rights, is. As a law student, I would have thought you would painfully make that clear and not overgeneralize it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Thanks Zero.

Not everything that is shared P2P violates a copyright.

[punkgrrrlie10]

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Wrong. Is owning a gun commiting murder just because it can be done with one? No. P2P is not an illegal concept or execution. What people do with it that infringes on others rights, is. As a law student, I would have thought you would painfully make that clear and not overgeneralize it.

not everything P2P is stealing, so long as there is permission to do so, which is where good faith comes in. It wouldn't apply if you were making your own music and you send it to a friend or make it available for download to your friends, however, that doesn't mean that you making available a song by Nirvana to your friends, that now both of you aren't infringing copyright. Good faith is premised on standing which is they can't assert rights unless it belongs to them. You can't say that Joe Bob is infringing Mary Joe's copyright unless you are Mary Joe. I didn't think I had to make things painfully clear since I assume a modicum of intelligence from this forum w/the exception of vince.