Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Media Movies

Star Wars Rekindles Old Copyright Hassles 55

Posted by CmdrTaco from the so-who-is-it-to-blame dept.
Roast Beef wrote in to send us a news.com article about Lucasfilm's form letter to ISPs. Somewhat related to the recent story about Bootleg Movies for Download, but it boils down to the age old "Are ISPs responsible for the content on their servers" debate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Star Wars Rekindles Old Copyright Hassles More

Star Wars Rekindles Old Copyright Hassles

Comments Filter:

  • Orrick Harrington (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    After getting one of these diatribes we contacted their lawyers. They do understand the law, they just don't appear to care. Chilling effect is what they seem to be looking for.

    Yes, the letter is merely a warning, but after actually talking to their counsel, they do intend to conduct an agressive and active search of the Net for these materials and demand ISPs remove them. So far so good.

    But if they find this material internationally? They expect ISPs to maintain routing blacklists to suppress this material and related sites based merely upon their demand. Suppress it on the basis of their questionable legal opinion or bear the risk of marginal nuisance litigation by an overfunded muddy white shoe lawfirm.

    Saying Lucas is not responsible is to ignore the Attorney-Client relationship. Maybe we should boycott Star Wars. I, for one, am waiting for video tape or at least pay per view after this experience!

    Another thought: When someone wants to control routes, play the disagreeable genie. You want us to shut off routes to illegal Star Wars material? Why don't we shut off ALL routes to ALL Star Wars material. Does the Net have a legal duty to carry their material?! Makes it easier for ISPs, and demonstrates to users what a slippery slope blacklisting routes can be! Control us and the Net generally at your Peril. (They seem a little thick on anonymizer services and redirection - Their answer? A list upgraded daily!)

    P.S. - If their attorney calls you, talk a _very_ long time. Orrick Harrington is pretty #$%^ pricey. :-)

  • Are ISPs responsible for content? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yes and no. It would be a technical impossibility for an ISP to monitor everything posted. However, they should be required to excercise "due dilligence" to assist in handling copyright infringement (which, like it or not, IS currently illegal). In my opinion, if copyright infringement is explicitly forbidden in the Terms Of Service, and if the ISP reacts in a timely manner (within 24 hours) of being notified of an infringement to make that material no longer available on their server, that should be sufficient to remove them from liability.

    An analogy is: Is the phone company responsible for phoned in death threats? Nobody expects them to be held responsible. However, they ARE expected to cooperate with law enforcement to track down the problem, and prevent it from reoccuring.
  • George probably has nothing to do with the letter itself.
    the lawyer wrote it, blame him. not the guy who said , "They're not supposed to do that, can you do something about it?" George is probably plying ith his kids or something.

  • idea.. (Score:1)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    Dear Lawyers,

    I will be happy to scan my systems for the files you've specified. Attached, please find my pricing sheet. Please call to discuss your payment options.

    Regards,
    drwiii

  • Sometimes the right hand does not know what the
    left hand is doing....

    Remember the recent brewhaha over Grateful Dead
    and MP3? It was discovered (last I heard) that
    the band had no knowledge that the legal arm
    was doing this.

  • Again, overreaction... (Score:3)

    by Masem ( 1171 ) on Monday May 03, 1999 @08:27AM (#1906771)
    First, Lucas himself probably has very little to
    do with this (he's reportedly going to make
    a cool billion based off his initial contract
    with 20CF and the movie sales (he's getting 90%
    of the profits)). If anything, this is most
    likely Lucasfilms in general, and if more specific,
    the lawfirm hired.

    Also, read the story: LucasArts is trying to warn
    the ISPs that if they (the ISPs) let SW:TPM
    electronic media through their lines, LA will
    follow up with lawsuits. This is against the
    nature of the law recently passed by the US
    Gov't that says that ISPs are not responsible
    for media served by their customers. Many
    analaysts are saying that this letter is
    a bullying tactic, and that ISPs do not need
    to heed it's warning, because LA does not
    have a leg to stand on.

    My expectation is that the larger ISPs (AOL,
    Earthlink, etc) will seek legal help, then
    release a press release or a rebuttal against
    the letter, stating their freedom from
    prosecution by this law. There will be a bit
    of word battles to resolve this, but in the end,
    LA will back off (I hope). However, I suspect
    that LA will launch (if not already in progress)
    a large campaign to block the distrubution of
    electronic media of SW:TPM related stuff, and
    this will be rather strong if the ISP route
    fails.

    Mind you, I disagree that piracy and bootlegging
    are answers to Evil Corporate Clones. LA has
    every right to protect their IP on the net.
    On the other hand, a smart Hollywood company
    would think that releasing offical snippets and singles in electronic form to satisfy the pallete of fans out there is a Good Move; this is
    basically free advertizing for them. If you
    feel you must protest this action by LA, write
    letters instead of pirating the (expected)
    MPEG movie from someone's camcorder used on
    May 19th.
  • The whole point is moot. STARWARS is something that simply cannot be experienced properly outside of a suitable cinema. The notion that even bootleg copies really serve to replace the 'real thing' is just absurd.

    The STARWARS special editions should have convinced everyone of this. HELL, even the first commercial promo for the special editions even pointed this out itself.
  • I'm not going to be a customer to a coorporation or polititions that actively attempt to destroy the internet. It was the Clinton administration, RIAA, and now Lucasfilm... Did I miss anyone? Who's next?
  • Well I wasn't going to watch it anyway (maybe on video some day down the road) but now I got one more reason past that annoying 'countdowns' in everything from a rinky dinky personal web site to USAToday.

    I found of interest the link to the LOC site where they keep the designation of who's responsible for a given site. It's good to have if you need to get a hold of someone. Bookmarked here.

    The ISP business gets more complicated each day..

  • (Score:1)

    by aqua ( 3874 )
    Great article title. :)
  • An easy way to fix this: Have the ISP customers sign an agreement in which they asume responibility for information they post, and absolve the ISP of liability.

    But really... how in the heck is a large ISP supposed to enforce controls on all the content on its server? As someone else said, we might as well have the Post Office open and scan every letter for infringements and such. Bye bye privacy!
  • Currently (99-5-4) there is a case going on in the UK involving Demon internet [demon.net] and a physicist who had a defamatory message posted on its news server. If Demon loses, it will affect all ISP's in the UK and would mean that LucasFilm could easily get it's request for removal of unofficial Star Wars files enforced here.

    See http://news.bb c.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F304000/304869 .stm [bbc.co.uk] and
    http://news.bbc. co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_278000/278482.stm [bbc.co.uk]
  • (no pun intended)

    >Problem is, the Net in general doesnt like to be manhandled or bullied.

    ..problem is, the two tactics most often seen on the net to counteract bad policy are piracy and boycotting.

    ...No matter how bad LucasFilms were to get tho, you'd never see nerds apply the latter ;).
  • I believe that bartenders have the responsibility to cut off their clients, but they can't be held liable for their actions. This is America, it's a free country and (without trying to sound too religious,) we have free will and can do what we want. Ultimately we are responsible for our own actions. Let's stop being victims.

    ISPs can't monitor every bit that goes through their server. I'm also pretty sure that ISPs (like mine) make their clients sign all kinds of waivers that state that the ISP is not responsible for the clients actions and that illegal activity will constitute ... blah, blah, blah....

    Again, Let's be responsible for our own actions.

  • The news.com article isn't as explicit about it -- merely noting that specific files and location aren't mentioned -- but the letter text posted below makes it clear that this is a preemptive strike intended to make ISPs police their users just in case they start sending streaming digitized Ep I video around.

    Now, if that isn't as far from citing a specific violation as possible ... I don't know what is.
  • about the legality of bootlegs and such. But say you were making a movie, and everyone is HIGHLY anticipating it's release. Do you really want to see pre release copies of itfloating around anywhere? I for one wouldn't. Lucas is paying for this movie out of pocket, while that doesnt in any way endanger his financial future, it is his idea and his movie. Geez you people cast him as Darth Vader and whatnot, HE CREATED DARTH VADER. No one could bitch about bootlegs of Star Wars if he didntfirst create it. I dont think people should bootleg movies that havent been released yet. Its just rude to show off someone's hard work before it's finished or before they want to show it off. Grow up people, Lucas doesnt HAVE to make these movies for us to all watch, he does because he enjoys it and wants to tell other people his stories. Show some respect.
  • people who steal the movie as 'bad guys doesnt the word "steal" seem to you as the bad thing to do here. If I were Lucas and someone stole copies of my movie before I released it I would be plenty pissed off. Why do people on here have a fit any time legal sanctions are mentioned, I think some people are going too far on the whole open source thing. Unless Lucas makes Star Wars GNU then passing out free VCD copies of his movies is stealing.
  • Lawyers send threatening letters to ISP's all the time, and most of the time they are threats which have little basis in law and are designed to frighten ISP's into caving. ISP's are very afraid of lawyers because the laws and precedents are not always clear, and litigation is expensive and time consuming for a small business. OTOH a good lawyer will make quick work of something like Lucas's letter which has dubious basis in law and is just trying to spread fear.

    -Rich
  • I can't imagine that the international FTP sites are going to be that bad anyway. How quickly can anyone, even at a university, download a VCD of the thing from over the ocean? There's no way any ISP is going to blacklist certain international routes, and that's not what the lawyers should go after. Just trying to connect to those site .fr web sites makes me want to hit the computer, it's so slow. And I'm sure the lawyers can get most of the industrialized nations to respect their copyrights by scaring those ISPs. The countries which don't respect our copyright law are the ones with pathetic Internet connections, so it's not going to matter that much anyway.
  • I suspect that this is just another exampele of George's megalomania; he (or Lucasarts; take your pick) is going a bit nuts controlling the merchandise and related periphery for the new film, and News.com is trying to stir it up for no reason other than ratings (or hits, I suppose).

  • The actual form letter (Score:4)

    by HerbieTMac ( 17830 ) <5excelroa001@sneakemail.com> on Monday May 03, 1999 @08:24AM (#1906787)
    This is the actual letter [uchicago.edu] which we received here at the University of Chicago. As you can read, they are a bit too gung-ho about things.
  • I believe that bartenders have the responsibility to cut off their clients, but they can't be held liable for their actions.
    These are contradictory beliefs, and you need to reconsider one of them. If I am responsible for X, then I am liable for failing to do X.


    Again, Let's be responsible for our own actions.
    Yes. And let's be sure bartenders are, too. Remember, for every person who drives drunk, there's someone who made money selling them the alcohol. If you provide me with booze, and you have reason to believe I will drink it and drive, you should be held liable for your actions. A drunk person can't make rational decisions, but a storekeeper can. Right now, he looks at the situation rationally and says "I'm not driving right now, the law doesn't hold me liable, and i stand to make a buck. Screw it."
  • I'm not sure what the big fuss is. All ISPs need to do is to install some filtering software. Anytime they get a request for a page that contains the trademarked terms or the copyrighted filenames, they can instead serve up a page saying "Lucasfilm has blocked access to this site for intellectual property theft. Your request for illegal information has been logged." It would last about a DAY before Lucasfilm fired their legal firm and came crawling on their knees begging to be forgiven.

    Oh, and anybody with a fan page should send George a bill for their work in promoting Star Wars.

    Fight stupidity with stupidity.

    *illegal information - what a stupendously silly phrase.
  • In Pennsylvania, where I live, bartenders are held liable if someone they serve goes out and causes an accident. This is a stupid law, but it shows that ISP's might be treated the same way. I don't think it is the ISP's responsability anymore then the Post Office should be held liable for illegal materials sent through it's system.
  • Over 700,000 of us, and you assume that we're all going to be there? I doubt I'll ever see it in the theaters. I may never "be there" for it.

    But you're right about me being a LucasFilm customer. I happen to be seeking a replacement for my copy of the Dark Crystal, among other videos stolen last year. D'you know how *hard* it is to find a cheap, legal tape of that?
  • Was Droid A StarWars Only thing? they have it listed as a trademark.
    Scary *cringes*
  • I think its less megalomania, and more that they have simply resorted to brute scare tactics to get what they want accomplished.
    Problem is, the Net in general doesnt like to be manhandled or bullied.
  • I can't beleive some of the stunts these lawyers and hollywood try to pull on the internet.

    As if Lucas isn't going to sit back and watch the profits of the biggest grossing movie ever made in the history of cinema roll in. And they're now putting the squeeze on ISPs who arguably have no legal responsibility for this in any case!

    I thing the internet/web has really aided in keeping and growing the community of Star Wars fans [the movies themselves were OK to i guess ;)]
    and so god damned what if a few mp3s and dodgey quicktimes make their way around the internet?

    As if we're not all going to line-up for too long, only to sit in front of a pack of 13 year olds with no idea crunching, spilling and guffawing the entire length of the movie to do it all again a few days later.

    C'mon Lucas, embrace the chaos of the internet... You're already loaded anyhow, buddy!
  • Don't forget WIPO, "Eroding rights in the name of Multinational profits since 19xx"
  • IANAL:

    Why should a TOS be required to forbid copyright infringement? It's already illegal. Why should any civil contract require an agreement not to engage in any specific form of criminal conduct? Does AOL say that, as a TOS, you are not allowed to commit murder? TOSs already generally include the right to terminate _for any reason_. I would think that prohibiting copyright violation specificly could only weaken any potential claim by the ISP of common carrier status.

    (And stop calling it "theft" of intellectual property. Legally it isn't "theft", it's "copyright violation". That word in that context is simply a tool used to further the conflation the ideas of physical and intellectual property, just as "piracy" is an attempt to equivocate the copying of software without permission and murder, rape, and pillage on the high seas.)
  • Dram shop liability, when it attaches, can create vicarious liability for negligent acts by the drunken sailors who leave the bar.

    The existence and scope of dram shop liability varies from nation to nation, and in the U.S. from state to state -- so your mileage may vary. In any case, don't drink and drive.
  • Under the DMCA, ISPs are not, in fact, obliged to engage in any due diligence, at least with respect to copyright issues. Indeed, once they begin to engage in affirmative investigations, they can lose their safe harbor benefits. (ISPs should consult with their attorney for particulars.)

    If they are placed upon notice in a particular manner, however, the burden shifts to them to pull it down for a brief period of time (I believe its 10 days), or to investigate and decide to take the risk. After that time, the information can go up again, unless the owner files suit against the alleged infringer.

    Once again, read the DCMA together with your attorney. Do not rely upon these general statements, as the application is exceedingly fact-dependent, with subtle changes potentially swinging the results 100%
  • Under the DMCA, ISPs are not, in fact, obliged to engage in any due diligence, at least with respect to copyright issues. Indeed, once they begin to engage in affirmative investigations, they can lose their safe harbor benefits. (ISPs should consult with their attorney for particulars.)

    If they are placed upon notice in a particular manner, however, the burden shifts to them to pull it down for a brief period of time (I believe its 10 days or so), or to investigate and decide to take the risk of being wrong. After that time, the information can go up again under the safe harbor, unless the owner files suit against the alleged infringer.

    Once again, read the DCMA together with your attorney. Do not rely upon these general statements, as the application is exceedingly fact-dependent, with subtle changes potentially swinging the results 100% either way.

  • DMCA Likely Saves the Day (Score:4)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Monday May 03, 1999 @08:59AM (#1906800) Journal
    Title II of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act squarely confronts the issues raised here by Lucasfilm. Essentially, a qualified service provider is not responsible for copyright infringement by its subscribers under many conditions.

    One way a copyright owner can pierce the safe harbor is by sending notice of an infringement to the ISP, under certain conditions. This is what this letter is about. There is a laundry list of details setting forth what constitutes a notice that would serve this purpose. In particular, to be effective, the notification must identify particular works "at that site" and information "reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material."

    In short, the notice appears intended to be used as a notice of an actual infringement, and not as a blanket, preemptive device to "turn off" the ISP immunity for a given list of works. Clearly the Lucaslawyers are trying to test the limits of the law, or (more likely IMHO) are merely setting up later cases in an abundance of caution. ["Yer honah, we notified them and notified them and notified them a whole buncha' times, but they didn't do nothin'"]

    The notice Lucasfilms presents does not appear to qualify, since it is a notice of potential infringements, and not a notice of an actual, present infringement. Here, Lucasfilms is attempting to use something like the notice to effectively "deputize" the world's ISP community as copyright police.

    This is probably impermissible. In particular, the DMCA provides that: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of [the exemption] on-- (1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity" provided that the ISP accomodates and does not interfere with "standard technical measures."

    Of course, once there *is* an infringement, and once Lucas actually gives notice, that is another issue.

    While I am a lawyer, readers should note that the preceding is merely a general summary of a few provisions of the DMCA and should not be deemed legal advice. Legal advice requires application of particular law to particular facts and in DMCA cases, the devil is certainly in the details and particular facts can make the case swing either way. Please forgive the multi-line disclaimer -- my carrier insists upon this sort of thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Know Thy User.

Close