Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Blizzard Gets DMCA Smackdown From Sony 206

Posted by timothy from the goose-gander-sauce dept.
tdye writes: "Blizzard has apparently released an internal memo banning P2P software inside the company. They've been served by Sony with a DMCA note, based on rampant music sharing inside Blizzard. I guess what goes around, comes around! You can see it on Declan McCullagh's PoliTech website."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blizzard Gets DMCA Smackdown From Sony More

Blizzard Gets DMCA Smackdown From Sony

Comments Filter:

  • What goes around comes around.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mestreBimba ( 449437 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @06:57PM (#3513161) Homepage
    But really how many of us have mp3s on work computers? Quite a few I would imagine. Just think of the liabilty you are posing to your work.

    How many have work sponsered mp3 servers? TIme to reconsider that move.
    • Yes, I recall my task for a full week (several years ago) was analyzing Napster's network traffic and discovering exactly which ports needed to be allowed through the firewall in order to let the boss download Frank Zappa.
      • I recall my task for a full week (several years ago) was analyzing Napster's network traffic and discovering exactly which ports needed to be allowed through the firewall in order to let the boss download Frank Zappa.

        That sounds more like an afternoon's work to me.

    • Re:What goes around comes around.... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      CTO of the company I got laid off from used to use Napster all the time. In fact we had to tell him to stop because he was sucking up so much bandwidth.. but he's the CTO so he just blew us off.. Perhaps that's part of the reason the company in in the toilet and they had to lay off 50% of their workforce.

    • Re:What goes around comes around.... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Company sponsered? Not quite, but we did have an "IT department internal use only" 20 GB mp3 server and another 20BG box just for videos and south park episodes at one time. We would still have them too, but we were using SNAP servers and they just plain died after a while. Both boxes, capoot! Thank god for backups ;-)
    • I have quite a few mp3s on my workstation (at work), but all of the files are legal, having been downloaded from http://www.epitonic.com and http://www.insound.com, and the occasional band's official site. (Some great music it is, too, and all for free! I love the Internet!)
    • I personally keep all my mp3's at home. And if they are at work, then I keep them on a CD. If I want to listen to mp3s that are at home, at work, then I use roomjuice [qooqle.com]

      Though, I do find it rather difficult to keep stuff like that off my work machine sometimes. ;)
    • Why? Why should companies reconsider something that is commonly accepted and promotes working (via morale improvements and efficiency of workers because they don't have to download/find songs)?

      Yes. It's illegal. Yes. Artists deserve paid. But nearly everyone sees music at work as a good thing(tm), and more selection of music is a good thing(tm). Eventually people will try their damnedest to make good things(tm) the common thing(tm).
    • But really how many of us have mp3s on work computers? Quite a few I would imagine. Just think of the liabilty you are posing to your work.

      Well, I have MP3's at work. They're legal too. Well, legal in the sense I've ripped them from CD's I paid for.

      However, the question is this: is the burden of proof on the RIAA to prove they're illegal or me to prove they're legal? Seems like I have to prove my software is licensed when it comes to the BSA, how 'bout the RIAA?

      • I suggest you read up on copyright law.
        It's a breach of copyright to let anyone but the people who live in your house to hear any music you have purchased. "No public performance" means just that. Playing a CD at work so your colleagues can hear it is an infringement of your license.

        So is having people round to watch a video.

        All sounds crazy but the letter of the law if restrictive to enable infringments to be easily identified and then the discretion of the judge deals with the rest.
        • This is not correct. First, in order for you to be liable for damages, you must have made some money from the work you're performing. Second, playing a CD isn't a 'public performance', regardless of where you are. You aren't performing... the artist is. Third, the 'fair use' clause of the copyright law allows you to use, share, quote from, borrow exerpts from, record, and edit copyrighted works as long as you a:don't make any money (or cost the artist any money) and b:give the copyright holder credit for the piece of the work you used.
          • playing a CD isn't a 'public performance', regardless of where you are. You aren't performing... the artist is.

            Sorry but that is exactly wrong.

            "Public performance" is playing the CD so that non-license holders of the recorded works can hear it. That means in shops, in pubs and bars and at home.

            Third, the 'fair use' clause of the copyright law
            Sorry this is England. Fair Use is not defined
            • I guess that explains it. In the US, playing a recorded song in public isn't a 'performance', it's 'Fair Use'. It's the same as giving a reading of a poet or an author in public. Of course, claiming that you wrote the work is illegal, but reading it aloud (even with an audience) isn't. Charging to listen to a recorded song, though, is illegal. I can play it, but I can't make you pay me to listen.

    • MP3s are perfectly legal (Score:4, Insightful)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:50PM (#3513472)
      Quit feeding the trolls. MP3 files are perfectly legal - the MP3 I rip for my personal use to avoid scratching the original disc are no more illegal than the tapes I dub so I can listen to the same songs in my car. The RIAA lawyers may play dumb, but this is clearly covered as fair use.

      What's illegal, maybe, is sharing those MP3 with others in your office. Or it may be legal as well - fundamentally no different than people playing their own personal CDs in a community player. This wouldn't be legal in a "commercial establishment," but the latter refers to businesses open the public such as bars and restaurants, not offices.
    • That's funny, I bought CDs specifically for my work and to save desktop space, just ripped them to mp3 and have them on a disk for that computer. Somehow this is the same as distributing the mp3s?

      Also, that same work has an mp3 streaming server, and yet, it's licensed. Again, this is illegal, even though there's proper licensing from the music companies?

      Don't be so broad to assume that all mp3s are illegal, or doing them at work makes on a criminal. Some people play by the rules, after all.

  • This isn't a good thing.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TeraCo ( 410407 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @06:58PM (#3513164) Homepage
    If they can do this to blizzard, they can do this to your company too..

    Surely we aren't all too busy gloating over blizzard being crucified that we've forgotten this fact..

    • No they can't. Blizzard is owned by sony. This was a memo that went out to all companies under Sony's umbrella
    • If they can do this to blizzard, they can do this to your company too..
      Well, most likely the company I work for would not get such a letter. I personally slap-up any user that installs such software at work. I'm sorry sucking up our limited bandwidth to swap music with your 5 million closest friends is not acceptable behavior.

      Bring in a CD-R with all your favorite tunes downloaded at home, that's perfectly fine. Where I work we can't afford enough bandwidth for everybody to download crap. We actually need pretty much it all for running our buisness so we hopefully can make money and keep everyone employed.

  • California Youth Authority and Cover Your Ass. I don't find it surprising at all that any company, large or small, wants to ride the straight and narrow legally. After all, there's DOLLARS at stake!

  • The Email Itself (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bouncings ( 55215 ) <.moc.redniknek. .ta. .nek.> on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:00PM (#3513182) Homepage
    It seems to me that the email itself, which bans P2P networks, could be damaging. The lawyers could argue that it is kind of an admission of guilt. Ala Microsoft case.

    I just love living in a Lawsuit Economy. It's much better than that silly free market.

    • Re:The Email Itself (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tps12 ( 105590 )
      The lawyers could argue that it is kind of an admission of guilt.

      IANAL, but it seems to me that that would be circumstancial evidence at best, and not damning except as part of a bunch of other similar "evidence." Definitely not a smoking gun, IAC.

      If it were an admission of guilt, there'd be a catch-22 situation, whereby a company is either guilty of tacitly condoning P2P sharing, or they are admitting guilt by explicitly banning such activity.

    • It depends on how the memo was written.

      Reminder: P2P software should not be run on our networks... isn't an admission of guilt. It's just a reminder of corporate policy in response to a suggestion that some employees may have forgotten it.

      Quick, delete your P2P software because we got a C&D order and expect to be audited RSN... is an admission of guilt.

    • Re:The Email Itself (Score:2, Informative)

      by Kotetsu ( 135021 )
      You've got it backwards. Corporations issue notices like this because it gives them legal protection. This email will have been sent out as an official reminder that corporate policy bans any such software and makes violation of the policy a firing offense. If the company gets caught with somebody running the banned software, the company fires the responsible people. If it somehow got to court, they would present to the judge the facts that they have a published policy, employees were found in violation of the policy, and the employees were fired for violationg the policy. The judge would then have to say that the company is taking reasonable precautions to avoid violating the law. It's exactly the same as company policies about sexual harrassment and things like that.
    • I wonder if sharing a drive or directory counts? Maybe they just outlawed the Microsoft OS off their system.

      Snip
      POLICY. Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs may not be used on any computers connected to Blizzard or Blizzard North's networks without the express written approval of Mike Morhaime or Paul Sams. This policy shall go into effect immediately. Exceptions, if any, will be installed and tested in a controlled environment and properly configured to ensure an adequate level of security before implementation. If an adequate level of security cannot be established, such usage will not be approved, and an alternative method
      will need to be found.
      It sounds like MS might have a chance if Windows can be tested and approved in a controlled environment.
      ;-)
    • If it's an admission of guilt, it's an admission that their employee did something wrong, and that when they were made aware, they took appropriate actions. Blizzard wasn't sharing copyrighted material for commercial use. One of their employees was sharing copyrighted material using company equipment. Blizzard is just making sure they aren't liable. THe employee who did this may very well be looking for a new job.

  • Serves 'em right (Score:3, Funny)

    by zmcgrew ( 265718 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:00PM (#3513186) Homepage
    For attack BNetD, I think this should happen. I personally feel that the DMCA will just kill all companies eventually. Because lets face it:

    If you played Pong, that means you played a game, perhaps you looked at pong when you wrote your current game. You had fun in Pong, and you have fun in your game... So who's to say you didn't reverse engineer "fun"?

  • One has to wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by anotherone ( 132088 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:01PM (#3513192)
    Did Sony actually know that Blizzard had this sort of thing going on, or do they just send letters like this out to every High Tech company under the theory that they've all probably got something going on?
    • I know in the past the RIAA has threatened the use of "bots" to scan the P2P waters looking for people to bust. It wouldn't surprise me if one of these bots noticed a certain IP address seemed to be online 24/7 with a big pipe for fast downloads and reported to a monitor. It wouldn't be hard to do a reverse lookup and find out that the IP address doing the sharing belonged to Blizzard.

      I mean, think about it. Who would you want to sue if you were Sony; Some kid in a dorm somewhere with no money/assets, or a large game company will millions in assets?

  • Again the cat got my tongue (Score:3, Funny)

    by Graspee_Leemoor ( 302316 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:03PM (#3513204) Homepage Journal
    I imagine Blizzard will be really pissed-off at their employees who run p2p software, because it makes Blizzard look like a bunch of hypocrites-

    Blizzard: Ooooh, ohooh, naughty people are creating a server that's compatible with battle.net and allows pirate copies. Ooooh, points my finger at them I do!

    Sony: Oi, Blizzard! What's all that ILLEGAL music doing in your company, eh?

    Blizzard: I hit you, Mr. Sony! I hit you with Dvareks Staff of Limitless Power, damage + 99 ! (Lie down, you're dead!)

    graspee

    • It goes farther than that. Sony made a huge amount of money producing Walkman's in the eighties. They were criticized at the time for this because a popular thing to use these personal casette players for was sharing homemade copies with friends. Their view at the time was that they couldn't control and shouldn't be judged based on what users of their products do. Fast forward about fifteen years and they've got their collective panties in a bunch because people are sharing copies of songs.
    • This is reminiscent of the pig latin encoder for song names that came out to slap the RIAA across the face with the DMCA when they had their grubby meathooks around Napster's neck.

      Irony is a bitch.

    • Blizzard: Ooooh, ohooh, naughty people are creating a server that's compatible with battle.net and allows pirate copies. Ooooh, points my finger at them I do!

      Sony: Oi, Blizzard! What's all that ILLEGAL music doing in your company, eh?      |

      Oh, I've got better! Here is some actual video [userfriendly.org] of Blizzard employees being used by Sony in the court case.

      :)

    • Blizzard: I hit you, Mr. Sony! I hit you with Dvareks Staff of Limitless Power, damage + 99 ! (Lie down, you're dead!)

      Sony: Your feeble weapons are no match for my Mariah Carey Gauntlet of Humiliation! [sonymusic.com]. Still want more? How about a manbeating from our Billy Ray Cyrus HonkyTonk of Despair [sonynashville.com]. Not enough? 9999 hp on you with our Kris Kross Shurieken CD of Death! [sonymusic.com].

      You think you're so powerful. Behold at last, Diablo is on OUR side. Diablo is now on our side!

  • Okay.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sc00ter ( 99550 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:08PM (#3513234) Homepage
    Should Blizzard have tried to kill off bnetd? No.

    Should Sony have sent a C&D to Blizzard? Perhaps.

    It is okay to share music with your friends? Sure.

    Is a P2P network a group of your "friends"? Probably not.

    Is bringing MP3s to work okay? Sure, why not.

    Is using company time and bandwidth to download and search for MP3s on a P2P network a good idea? uhh, NO, you're at work!

    • thanks for your view on things, but you are not the principal of the DMCA.

    • Re:Okay.. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Saeger ( 456549 )
      Two points:
      1. People spend a lot of time at work "looking busy" - its an artform which is necessary to master if you want to keep your sanity(!)
      2. Control-freak managers (like you) who enjoy strangling any personal freedom or 'fun' in the workplace, are ultimately counter-productive. If you want to ban P2P, or music, or personal email, or smoke breaks, etc., by reasoning that it's "your stuff and your time", fine, but don't expect productivity (and your profits) to soar as a result of treating employees like robotic shit.

      Years ago I used to work at Microsoft, and was free to do whatever the fuck I wanted as long as I got my work done by the (intentionally short) deadlines set. Microsoft may suck, but their workplace definately does not.
      --

      • Re:Okay.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dr Caleb ( 121505 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @09:38PM (#3514059) Homepage Journal
        Two points right back at you:

        1) Look busy if you want to. Just get your work done on time. Doesn't matter to me.

        2) Control freak manglers like me have other reasons to ban such things other than "Lets screw the peons because we are evil and we can [insert evil laugh here]". Security, and legal come to mind.

        Search KaAzA or Limewire for "resume.doc" or "budget.xls" or "SuicideNote.doc" and see what you get. Most users are dumb and don't know how configure such things. Most VP's are so stunned they can't find their serial port with a map and 3 Sherpa guides, so I don't want them sharing the company's Next-Big-Thing(TM)secrets to the world. So I treat them as such and say a blanket *NO* p2p. Period. They want music, bring CD's or turn on a radio.

        As for the legal issues...let's not get into that here. Been done to death.

      • It's not treating employees like shit to ban the use of company property for illegal activity. Someone at Blizzard was sharing copyrighted material using P2P software. Now that they've been officailly warned they don't have a lot of choice in the matter. They need to prevent such activity or risk being sued. There's just no practical way for them to make sure P2P software isn't being abused without banning it. Monitoring it's use is time consuming and intrusive. Their only real choice is banning it. They tried the honor method, and someone abused it. They could fire that person, and try the honor method again, but it might get them sued if someone abuses it again.

        I believe in the philosophy that if someone is getting their work done, and not causing problems, they're doing a good job. You're paid to get a job done, but if you're exposing the company to getting sued, that's a different story.
      • "Control-freak managers (like you) who enjoy strangling any personal freedom or 'fun' in the workplace, are ultimately counter-productive."

        He did say that it was fine to bring in mp3s. He was just opposed to using P2P software and company bandwidth to grab them. That's not unreasonable, especially given the P2P-related legal problems (as shown by the C&D letter) and resource problems (as shown by the various organizations that've had their bandwidth chewed up by such services).

        "Years ago I used to work at Microsoft, and was free to do whatever the fuck I wanted as long as I got my work done by the (intentionally short) deadlines set."

        When I interned at Microsoft (Summer of '99?), Steve Ballmer sent out a company-wide email essentially telling people to stop engaging in rampant copyright infringement. It seems everyone knew about a few multi-gig mp3 servers, a few servers with movie/TV rips (including Red Dwarf and The Young Ones episodes), and http://msradio/ (on-demand, streaming mp3s -- you could set up your own playlists, see what other people were listening to, and even have the server pick random songs based on your preferences).

  • Big deal. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oylerNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:11PM (#3513257) Journal
    This isn't hurting the assholes/lawyers that are trying to squash bnetd though. It's hurting the programmers that wrote great games like war2 and diablo.

    Double whammy for us, I would think. You people cuoldn't be more confused about what this really means. What's next, celebrating the death of one of the corporate attourneys, the only one who had the dissenting opinion to just leave bnetd alone(not that there is such a lost soul at Vivendi)?

  • I've got just the armor they need... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Zildy ( 32593 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:12PM (#3513263)
    Ironic Iron Plate Mail of the Damned

    Defense: 534
    Smite Damage: 1 - 2
    Required Strength: 45
    Required Level: 39

    +204% Legal Defense
    +843% Resistance to Flames
    +436% Faster legal woe recovery
    +2264% More gold received from Bnetd
    +30125 Running speed

    -342 HP for every DCMA attack
    • So funny!

      Reminds me of PlanetDiablo's Wacky Item Database. [planetdiablo.com]
    • -342 HP for every DCMA attack

      Hmm...somehow I don't think that'll work...

      $ gdb diablo
      (gdb) break compute_defense if strcmp(defense_item.name, "Ironic Iron Plate Mail of the Damned") == 0
      Breakpoint 1 at 0x80483f6: file defense.c, line 36.
      (gdb) run
      Starting program: diablo

      Breakpoint 1, compute_defense (attack="DMCA", defense_item=0xbffff854) at defense.c:36
      36 if (strcmp(attack, defense_item.bonus_defense_attack) == 0) {
      (gdb) print defense_item.bonus_defense_attack
      $1 = 0xbffff99b "DCMA"
      (gdb) n
      44 debug_printf("Sorry, no defense bonus against %s\n", attack);
      Hmm...sometimes, it pays to know that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is abbreviated DMCA and not DCMA. :-)
  • Heheh, I wonder if the people running the p2p inside Blizzard were sticking the nightly builds of Warcraft 3 on it ?

    graspee

  • Mole? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by weepingwillow ( 167479 )
    What do you want to bet that a OSS fan in side the company tiped sony off?

  • Policy isnt worded well. (What about samba?) (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Its funny to watch these sorts of things.. They happen in my company too.. I understand what they are trying to stop, but the policy forbids samba. Its another case of making knives illegal instead of murder. The policy should state:
    "DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN TRANSFERRING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL, EXCEPT MATERIAL WHICH IS OWNED BY THE COMPANY".

    Dont ban the tool, ban the mis-use of the tool.

    But instead the policy bans peer-to-peer file sharing unless those two guys (Mike Morhaime or Paul Sams) are specifically asked...

    Check the policy:

    POLICY. Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs may not be used on any computers
    connected to Blizzard or Blizzard North's networks without the express
    written approval of Mike Morhaime or Paul Sams.

  • For all who are glad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antistuff ( 233076 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:17PM (#3513290) Homepage
    It seems many of you think this is a good thing because of thier atacking the bnetd project. You all really couldnt be more hypocritical. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Blizzards actions may have been wrong, but so are sonys (arguably). If you are going to condem one instance of it, you should condenm every single action taken by a corporation that tries to limit the freedom of others to protect thier profits. To do otherwise makes you look very dumb.

    Your enemy's enemny is not your friend if both are your enemy.
    • Correction: an eye for an eye makes two people blind.
    • If you are going to condem one instance of it, you should condenm every single action taken by a corporation that tries to limit the freedom of others to protect thier profits. To do otherwise makes you look very dumb.

      Nah it makes them look Human...

  • Bwahahaha! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I used to work at Sony Pictures Entertainment as a Systems Analyst (and you're gonna have to take my word for it, I'm staying Anonymous!)

    What's funny is that EVERYONE has AT LEAST one P2P application installed on their PCs... Sony Music included!!!

    Let's see how long until they get seerved

  • I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:20PM (#3513309) Homepage Journal
    what happens when all software that would allow file sharing between computer is removed.
    I'm sorry boss, I can't connect to the computer to get that file.
    all the ftp and telnet servers have been deleted. talk to sony.

    • Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Your sig is one of the lamest i've ever seen. Really.
  • 1. that's about the same stuff that's going on inside EVERY large company that makes internet access available for it's employees! 2. it's not that Blizzard got DMCA'd because they are offering a product that infringes copyright, so you can really not compare employees file sharing to something like Bnetd. The Screwing Of (Open Source) Competitors With The Law is somewhat completely different than Setting Things Right For The Suffering Record Industry. These are individuals working for Bizzard with Blizzard equipment, while on the other hand the Bnetd people had a nice idea for a free emulator and got busted over it by the big boys!

  • Common from Sony (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AKAJack ( 31058 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:24PM (#3513332)
    Sony has contracted with a third party to spider the web looking for Sony music on P2P networks and then a form letter is generated with the IP address and any other info they can get, and sent to the domain contact name.

    I had to do a search and destroy on one of these memos a few months back. But basically what we got just said to remove the offending material, go forth, and sin no more.

    Maybe this is something different, dunno.
  • As shown on their memo, they are going to go through and remove any p2p software they find on the Blizzard LAN. Blizzard is not fighting Sony to keep p2p software on their machines, in matter of fact they agree with them. This is unlike bnetd, who is actually fighting against the DMCA
    • ah.

      Assuming they have Samba, NFS, or AppleShare installed (covers about 95% of OS out there, I think), the OS needs to go too, as these can be used to share music and files. We all recall the hubbub that cablemodems and inadvertently open shares caused a few years ago.

      The real idiot here is the Sysadmin who wasn't filtering these packets. Internal p2p programs are just a convenient way to share music.

  • Maybe we won't need BNetd... (Score:3, Funny)

    by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:28PM (#3513357)
    Once Blizzard employees stop using up all the bandwidth for P2P apps, perhaps BattleNet will get the bandwidth it needs.

  • tv (Score:2)

    by nexex ( 256614 )
    god help them if they have stolen tv as well!

  • These people are supposed to be working! If I got caught on slashdot at work I'd be fired..... Uh-oh

  • What this means (Score:2, Interesting)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 )
    Together with the previous story posted here [slashdot.org] about the RIAA hitting that consulting firm with a $1M settlement, I see Bad Things (TM) happening.

    The first of course, is that regardless of whether or not a company has a blatant-ly piratic MP3 server the typical corporate knee-jerk reaction is going to be "no MP3's". Whatsoever. Forget about P2P, forget about actual piratical behavior (whatever that means). Nope, those MP3s on my hard disk from CD's I own that I listen to all day so as to not go mad? Can't have those, mister. Because they're MP3s. You think we're going to bother checking if you own them? Ha-ha.

    And so it begins.

  • Sony's been issuing C/D Letters to Unis too... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kynes ( 45273 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:35PM (#3513393)
    I work in the IT department of a major US University and, at least on our campus, these C/D letters have been popping up quite frequently lately. It appears that Sony (and maybe other major labels) must be running some sort of harvesting software that just searches for songs to which they hold copyrights, does a quick "whois", and mails off form letter style nasty grams to the contact listed. fyi, they look something like this (identifying info is X'd out, I like my job :)

    original complaint:
    RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Work: X
    Dear X University:

    As you may know, the musical group X is currently subject to a recording agreement with Sony Music ("Sony") pursuant to which Sony is entitled to X's exclusive worldwide recording services and the exclusive, worldwide right to distribute all audio and audiovisual recordings recorded during the term of that agreement through any and all media, including distribution via the Internet.

    We have received information that an individual located at X.X.X.X on your network has offered downloads of the above-mentioned work(s) at the noted date and time through your service. No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work without the express written permission of Sony, which permission Sony has not granted to the user located at X.X.X.X.

    The attached documentation specifies the account or username offering this infringing material, the name and size of the file being offered, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.

    We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you remove the site from your system or (in the case of a peer-to-peer service) disable access to this site; or at a minimum delete the infringing files that have been downloaded.

    In addition, we ask that you inform the individual(s) involved of the illegality of his or her conduct and confirm with us, in writing, that this activity has ceased.

    You should understand that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you ignore this notice, your company/institution may be liable for any resulting infringement.

    As owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Sony, its respective agents, or the law.

    Also, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that we are is authorized to act on behalf of Sony.

    The foregoing is not a full recitation of the facts and law pertaining to this matter, and all of our rights and remedies, including the right to
    recover monetary damages, are expressly retained.

    We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please contact us at anti-piracy@sonymusic.com should you have any questions.

    In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID X.

    Your prompt response is requested.

    Sincerely,

    Anti-Piracy Group
    Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
    550 Madison Avenue
    New York, NY 10022

    Infringment Detail:
    Infringing Work: X
    Filename: X.mp3
    First Found: X/X/2002 X:X:X AM EST
    Last Found: X/X/2002 X:X:X AM EST
    Filesize: Xk
    IP Address: X.X.X.X
    Network: KaZaA
    Protocol: FastTrack
    Username: X@KaZaA

    • ... they look something like this (identifying info is X'd out, I like my job :)

      original complaint:
      RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Work: X
      Dear X University:

      Well, you've already given us a clue. Your university has the same name as a song.

      TheFrood
    • I used to get tons of these. They actually do a lookup for who the IP is registered to, not what it reverse lookups too...so if you get your ISP service from a statewide network, they get the notice.

      I stopped getting them (when they were coming from NetPD) after I wrote back claiming a) NetPD was not the copyright holder, b) the DMCA says that it needs to be a signed notification and a couple of other points I found on the net :)

      I'd love to find out just how they are harvesting them and cut it off, but it's not gonna be as simple as "deny all from sony.com"

  • The P2P software of choice in many companies... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SIGFPE ( 97527 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:37PM (#3513407) Homepage
    ...for sharing files is Windows File Sharing. Just right click on a folder of mp3's and switch on sharing to let your colleagues enjoy your collection. I would just love to see it outlawed.

  • and who owns Blizzard? (Score:4, Funny)

    by mo ( 2873 ) on Monday May 13, 2002 @07:45PM (#3513443)
    The comedy of this is that Blizzard is owned by Vivendi Universal, one of the big 5 record labels, as well as a member of the MPAA.
  • Company policies like this come about because:
    • Somebody threatened a lawsuit. In this case, Sony was threatening Blizzard with a DMCA suit. In cases like this, it is a case of "cover your ass". You want to be able to demonstrate that if one of your employees is engaged in illegal activities, that it is in direct violation to stated company policy. You might still get sued, but it is somewhat less damning than if it was widely known in the company and ignored.
    • Someone is sucking too much bandwidth, and it is costing the company money. I know from experience that given the opportunity, people will acquire as much bandwidth as they can, often at the expense of other legitimate business users.

    In both cases, the company is merely acting in a way which is consistent with its profitable operation by minimizing potential costs and risks. In the real world where people work, get paid, spend and pay taxes, that seems prudent.
    • At the dot-bomb I worked for, least twice a week I had to adjust someone's RealPlayer settings because WE have a T1 line, YOU can ask nicely for a 56 kbit slice. One T1 and 100 dot-com employees - shudder.
      Then there was the nanny-cam. Running in a minimized window. With the kid in daycare. At high quality. She must have lived real close to her uplink point because she was getting a fantastic upstream rate - at least 500kbit.


      Then at another palce there was the friendly HR person. Having learned that an ally in HR is a Good Thing, and given that the IT Director didn't care because we had enough bandwidth, I helped her keep Limewire running smoothly. Sadly, Gnucleus (GPL'd) wasn't ready for an HR person back then. For that matter, even today it's still a geek's tool.

  • I put a new policy in place that as long as your MP3s were legit, you could have them on your work system. But *NO* P2P systems. They are too big of a security risk and they waste bandwidth.

  • This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.

    I just wish they'd broaden into more than just law, then I could ditch slashdot completely.

  • I find it hard to argue that Sony is wrong in this instance.

    They own those songs. People are illegally distributing them over the internet. They shouldn't be.

    This isn't an internal MP3 server at Blizzard that employees can backup/store their songs on and play. This is people in Blizzard who are publically sharing songs over the internet.

    Sony is sending Blizzard a warning message IE "just in case you didn't know, people on your network (details provided) are engaged in illegal activities".

    • This isn't an internal MP3 server at Blizzard that employees can backup/store their songs on and play. This is people in Blizzard who are publically sharing songs over the internet.

      Even if it was an internal MP3 server, it wouldn't matter, it seems.

      Here in Phoenix, Arizona (I actually think it is a Tempe or Mesa company) is a company who is being sued under the DMCA for copyright violations due to an internal MP3 server.

      I am just waiting for them to target individuals...

  • ... or bypasses anti-circumvention technology, thereby infringing upon Blizzard
    Entertainment copyrights.

    Isn't an illegal act of circumvention NOT a copyright infringment, but a totally different tort/offense? That is why fair use is apparently not a defense against it (the Constitution not withstanding). Bypassing the lock and unauthorized use of the content protected by the lock are 2 different things. (17 USC 1201 violation versus violation of the copyright specific part of Title 17).

    Anyone else find this strange?

    Note, the complaint says circumvention .. thereby .. infringement. This means the the first implies the second. This is a much stronger statement than just that circumvention allows infringement - it states circumvention IS infringement - not even the DMCA says that.

  • This is amusing. Nothing more. Nothing less. Not suprising. Not profound. Amusing.

    These Blizzard workers are geeks just like you and me. They "share" files. Their computer chairs, like our own have been custom fit to the shape of their buttocks. If they were not working at Blizzard, they would be downloading WarCraft3 beta and setting up for bnetd play.


    They aren't the ones going after bnetd, Bill Roper, or whoever in charge is. For ethical reasons? No. The average worker downloading music has nothing to do with the business end. Of course they have SOME personal stake in the matter and would perhaps like to see bnetd go down (or perhaps not). Is this hypocritical? Perhaps. Unreasonable? No. We all learn to protect what is ours to different degrees. We all want to maximize personal benefits. Otherwise, we may not be downloading free music in the first place.

    Nothing profound here. Just rambling.

    They are geeks like us.


    I bet Sony chose Blizzard (among others) because it is an easy target. They have a certain range of IP addresses, and it is easy to verify people downloading files are from within Blizzard. They have an identifiable source.


    Try sending a cease and desist to Verizon, or PacBell, or RCN. Make them send out an "office memo" to all of their users, asking them to stop!

  • This [theonion.com] Onion [theonion.com] article shows how ludicrous the music industry's claims are.
  • Its actually a change of strategy about how their playing the game.

    In the beginning of P2P, the RIAA and the companies comprising of it tried to sue Napster out of existence, hoping that if they could succeed, the user-friendly and well-known way to download songs would be stopped, and an end to mass-sharing.

    This approach obviously failed, as P2P networks and protocols were jumping up faster than they could threaten them with. The loss of a main central point (ie lots of different P2P programs) was another point that stopped the RIAA from suing the companies. So they changed tact.

    Now they're threating anyone large companies, organisation, groups with enough at stake etc with dmca letters, trying to curb their P2P their. Most companies, organisations and universities have high-bandwidth, which allows for easy and quick downloads.

    If the RIAA can get these to ban P2P, a lot of the high bandwidth use is shut-down, therefore home use is the only real way to download songs, and since most people have 56k modems, this would stop the huge amounts of downloads, due to bandwidth constraints.

    There will always be P2P sharing, but if they can target places of mass-downloading, they will stop a large amount of sharing and downloading.

    That's my take on it, anyway.
    • Well, this seems reasonable. More so because of upload speeds. If a DSL user has ADSL, chances are, their upload speed is cruddy. While, I can download a good-quality DIVX in about two or three hours at 80bs or 90kbs, it the host is fast enough, it will take a long time for someone to download it from me at 8kbs-20kbs.


      Enter a P2P such as Grokster that lets you download from multiple users simutaneously. Now my bandwidth is only a piece of someones download speed. Still, without these fast hosts, slower users will have to become more saturated. Things will be slower overall.

  • <nelson>HA, HA!</nelson>

  • It was a quiet day at Blizzard, as all the employees were quietly listening to music with their headphones on. All of a sudden...

    Blizzard Employee #1: "What happened?"
    Blizzard Employee #2: "Somebody set us up the kazaa."
    Blizzard Employee #1: "We get signal?"
    Blizzard Employee #2: "What?!?!?"
    Blizzard Employee #1: "Main Screen turn on!"
    Blizzard Employee #1: "It's you!"

    A Sony music representative with an Engrish.com [engrish.com] poster appears in the background.

    Sony Rep: "How are you gentlemen?"
    Sony Rep: "All your Orcs are belong to us!"
    Sony Rep: "You are on your way to destruction. Make your time."
    Sony Rep: "Ha ha ha!"

    Blizzard Employee #1: "For great justice... etc."

  • Are you guys still buying Sony Playstations and Sony's music CD's? Yes, you are.
  • Well, it seems that someone is datamining over at Sony. Hmmm. Maybe that could be used againt them? When someone in the intelligence field (read spys) know they are being bugged, they don't remove the bug, or let the evesdroppers know they know about the bug.
    Instead, they feed information to it.
    Specific informaion.
    That they want the Bad Guy to know.
    Doesn't mean it's true...
  • Blizzard DMCA's bnetd.
    Sony DMCA's Blizzard.

    I suggest the bnetd team see if they can a Sony employee using bnetd software in an unauthorized manner...

    bnetd DMCA's Sony :)

    -

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Close