4 ms·

Downloading Ubuntu via BitTorrent gets Comcast customer a DMCA warning

48 points by stalfosknight 5y ago

sebmellen 5y ago
From the subtitle: > Put down your pitchforks—it looks like the DMCA warning was bogus.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  From the article: > This leaves OpSecSecurity's explanation as by far the most likely—rather than the "spoofed notice" being sent directly to u/NateNate60 by the attacker, it was most likely sent to Comcast, which passed the warning on in accordance with its DMCA policy. > Update: Ars was able to review the headers of the email from Comcast to u/NateNate60, and confirm their authenticity. The DMCA warning he received did come from Comcast, not a third party. So I guess whether you believe this was bogus depends on whether you believe OpSecSecurity. They claimed to have incontrovertible proof. I guess they should probably display that proof.
elmerfud 5y ago
This is the kind of stuff where the agency needs to be prosecuted for perjury. Alas, there's no money in pursuit of a perjury claim like this. We can only dream of a world where protections of individuals trump the protections of corporations. Comcast Xfinity is also to blame here as they forwarded on a dmca notice something which they have no duty to do but they voluntarily did so without even taking the most basic review of it. Without civil liabilities being held to people who report falsely and agencies who forward this on and without criminal prosecution of the perjurious testimony that was given to file the dmca of these kind of abuses will persist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- curryst 5y ago
  Sadly probably true. The DMCA does specifically state that the filing party is responsible for the accused's legal fees if you can demonstrate that they "materially misrepresented that material or activity is infringing". Still, you're rolling the dice with almost no upside and a probably quite expensive potential liability if you lose. You could maybe also file a countersuit alleging defamation. False allegations of a crime are "pro se" in most jurisdiction, so you don't have to show malice. Negligence is not a defense against defamation, so they can't simply claim that they screwed up. The more important factor is that defamation suits allow punitive damages (which don't seem to be written into DMCA suits; there's no actual financial punishment other than paying lawyer fees). Plus defamation can be a civil suit, with a lower burden of proof than a criminal charge like perjury.

48 points by stalfosknight 5y ago

sebmellen 5y ago

From the subtitle: > Put down your pitchforks—it looks like the DMCA warning was bogus.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
From the article: > This leaves OpSecSecurity's explanation as by far the most likely—rather than the "spoofed notice" being sent directly to u/NateNate60 by the attacker, it was most likely sent to Comcast, which passed the warning on in accordance with its DMCA policy. > Update: Ars was able to review the headers of the email from Comcast to u/NateNate60, and confirm their authenticity. The DMCA warning he received did come from Comcast, not a third party. So I guess whether you believe this was bogus depends on whether you believe OpSecSecurity. They claimed to have incontrovertible proof. I guess they should probably display that proof.

elmerfud 5y ago

This is the kind of stuff where the agency needs to be prosecuted for perjury. Alas, there's no money in pursuit of a perjury claim like this. We can only dream of a world where protections of individuals trump the protections of corporations. Comcast Xfinity is also to blame here as they forwarded on a dmca notice something which they have no duty to do but they voluntarily did so without even taking the most basic review of it. Without civil liabilities being held to people who report falsely and agencies who forward this on and without criminal prosecution of the perjurious testimony that was given to file the dmca of these kind of abuses will persist.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
curryst 5y ago
Sadly probably true. The DMCA does specifically state that the filing party is responsible for the accused's legal fees if you can demonstrate that they "materially misrepresented that material or activity is infringing". Still, you're rolling the dice with almost no upside and a probably quite expensive potential liability if you lose. You could maybe also file a countersuit alleging defamation. False allegations of a crime are "pro se" in most jurisdiction, so you don't have to show malice. Negligence is not a defense against defamation, so they can't simply claim that they screwed up. The more important factor is that defamation suits allow punitive damages (which don't seem to be written into DMCA suits; there's no actual financial punishment other than paying lawyer fees). Plus defamation can be a civil suit, with a lower burden of proof than a criminal charge like perjury.