TorrentFreak, is reporting on a thread at the orange site discussing Comcast allegedly having invoked the DMCA against a customer for having downloaded Ubuntu, a very popular GNU/Linux distro made by Canonical, Ltd. Just to be clear, the license for Ubuntu and its components allow not just downloading, but also even redistribution, modification, and redistribution of the modifications. The DMCA complaint was filed by a German company named OpSec Security. No comment was provided to TorrentFreak by either Canonical or OpSec.
Detail of the Allegedly-Infringing Content and DMCA Notice
The allegedly infringing content is the 64-bit Ubuntu 20.04.2.0 LTS release but the first big question is whether the file is actually the official release from Canonical. Given that the listed hash value is 4ba4fbf7231a3a660e86892707d25c135533a16a and that matches the hash of the official release, mislabeled or misidentified content (wrong hash, mislabeled file etc) appears to be ruled out.
Indeed, the same hash value is listed on Ubuntu’s very own BitTorrent tracker and according to NateNate60, this is where he downloaded the torrent that led to the DMCA notice. It doesn’t get much more official than that.
According to the DMCA notice sent by Comcast, the complainant wasn’t Ubuntu/Canonical but an anti-piracy company called OpSec Security, which according to its imprint is based in Germany. TorrentFreak has contacted OpSec for a comment on the DMCA notice but at the time of writing the company is yet to respond.
Because the customer in question will probably not contest the false accusations there will be serious legal repercussions since guilt is assumed unless successfully contested. For that matter, the DMCA from 1998 is the law which also makes watching DVDs on GNU/Linux illegal in the US.
Previously:
A great many stories on either Ubuntu or the DMCA.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @07:43AM (12 children)
Need to be charged with cybercrimes, extortion, and very possibly, "crimes against humanity" - or at the very least - "crimes against nerds".
They should be hunted to extinction.and most definitely made a public* example of.
Companies making false DCMA claims should face being automatically bankrupted.
Directors of companies, and anyone with legal responsibility for making the claim, or authorising software capable of making false DCMA claims, against works in the public domain should definitely
face the same prison terms as organised crime, without regard to whether or not the claim is successful. This should be treated in every way as if it was an attempted armed robbery of Fort Knox.
Political figures opposing such legislation should be treated as "enemies of the people".
* Spellcheck suggests "pubic example" - not sure how you do that, but I am in favour of it anyway!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @08:29AM
I would think barring that company, and it's employees and representatives from filing any further DMCA takedowns is in order. Or maybe accommodate any further filings by requiring a vetting fee, of one million dollars or so, per filing, to be used to fund another agency to vet the authenticity of their claims.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @08:32AM (7 children)
1) US law, Germany-based company. US judges have no jurisdiction in Germany. German judges don't judge with US laws.
2) The takedown has to be tested in court first, no court case, no verdict. The company only send the notice.
3) IF there would be a verdict in court (on the notice), chances are slim that the same court case would judge that bankruptcy is declared (see next point).
4) Bankruptcy can only be declared if someone who owes money (which would here be the person receiving the DMCA notice, which isn't the case here) files for it, if he doesn't receive the money owed (due to the lack of funds within the company, probably not the case).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mojibake Tengu on Thursday May 27 2021, @08:53AM (6 children)
European Union politically supports and often legally executes extradition to United States.
Not just for some terrorism but for digital crimes too.
Rust programming language offends both my Intelligence and my Spirit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday May 27 2021, @11:49AM (5 children)
The US has to ask for extradition, it isn't just something that happens on a whim. I don't see it happening.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @01:51PM (4 children)
Is the customer in the U.S. or Germany? If the company that filed the takedown is in Germany and the customer is in Germany then how would the DMCA, a U.S. based law, even apply?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 27 2021, @05:43PM
I agree - I was merely suggesting to the post ahead of mine that was suggesting that extradition would be a possibility. Theoretically yes, but I don't yet see any grounds or justification in what I have read.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @07:53PM (2 children)
It applies because the Comcast subscriber is in the US, which means that the alleged copyright violation occurred in the US.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday May 27 2021, @10:36PM
Doesn't the complainant have to have standing in a US court though (i.e. be located in the US)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28 2021, @12:16AM
So wouldn't it be Germany, not the U.S., asking for extradition?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday May 27 2021, @05:21PM (2 children)
What would really hurt is to take their copyright and put it in the public domain
Revoke their corporate charter. If it's a publicly traded company, oops, oh well, easy come easy go.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 28 2021, @02:38PM (1 child)
That doesn't help if they don't own the copyright of what they file the false DMCA for. And you definitely don't want to disown the actual copyright holder unless you can proof that the copyright holder agreed on the DMCA, or else it would be an easy way to disown your competition (and in this specific case, it would mean taking away the GPL protection from everything in Ubuntu, which includes the Linux kernel, the desktop environment, the GNU utilities, …).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday May 28 2021, @03:04PM
Well then you just lock the bastard up for perjury
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @10:51AM (1 child)
The DMCA is a bad and stupid law that needs to be done away with.
It give big companies freedom to rape over the little people whenever they want. When it has gotten so bad that just clicking a link for any kind of free download might wind up ruining your life, it just needs to stop.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday May 27 2021, @08:08PM
Yeah, doing away with bad laws means you gotta do away with bad lawmakers. Most of the people that wrote and passed it are still in congress and in the white house. So it's gonna be a while
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Thursday May 27 2021, @11:57AM
There is no recourse for this? Somebody needs to be liable for these fraudulent takedown notices.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @12:49PM (4 children)
https://twitter.com/OpSecSecurity/status/1397695279932096515 [twitter.com]
Basically, OpSec Security says they never issued this notice and so the onus is on the ISP. Basically, looks like a typical smear campaign against OpSec Security.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday May 27 2021, @01:51PM (2 children)
You are pretty naïve to think that a copyright troll would not lie, even under oath.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday May 27 2021, @06:23PM
I last worked for a ISP as a W-2 or contractor a decade and a half ago, at the time all DMCA stuff was done by simple email, not a web REST API or some nonsense possibly being used now.
It would be trivial to look at the senders email server log and not see an outgoing email to comcast at that time.
Or it would be trivial to look at the full email headers of whatever comcast got and embarrassingly notice the headers show the email originated from a chinese cablemodem PC running unpatched Win7.
At least 20 years ago nobody was doing anything with DMCA notices like GPG signing them or whatever. Not a bad idea to try.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28 2021, @07:00AM
Considering they also claim to sell anti-phishing and anti-spoofing email protection, I'm not sure if the truth or the lie would be worse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @02:19PM
I don't know if it is still set up this way, but in the past German law permitted (actually, incentivised) filing copyright claims on someone else's behalf, even without them knowing about it. I remember issues where claims like this would be filed saying that Company X's rights were being violated, but Company X had nothing to do with it. It spawned a cottage industry of legal filings. I'm assuming that things haven't changed much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27 2021, @05:43PM (11 children)
i once had to chew out some dumb ass comcast rep because their was simply bittorrent traffic on the internet connection. the idiot didn't know there was a legitimate use for bittorrent. She referred me to the security team like it was my punishment. i said "good!". The security guy was in deescalation mode from the begiining as he already knew the deal and was just being forced to take the call.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 27 2021, @09:47PM (10 children)
You say "legitimate use for bittorrent", as if there are illegitimate uses. As if you have accepted the notion that some downloading can be illegal. Don't fall for that line of doublespeak. Freedom of Speech should include the Internet, and it should never be acceptable to criminalize mere communication, even if it's possible for the communication channel to carry copyrighted content.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday May 27 2021, @10:44PM (7 children)
I know you're thinking in terms of Copyright and what the law should be, but unfortunately:
Communication is not (point 1) and should not (point 2) be 100% free
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28 2021, @03:34AM (6 children)
I must politely disagree, at least partially. The concept of 'CP', or 'P' in general for that matter, is entirely an artificial creation that human beings dreamed up, not an absolute notion set in stone and handed down by god. It's definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there may even be areas on this planet that it isn't a crime at all.
As such, to add it to a hypothetical example for the purposes of arguing a position regarding free speech, and then categorically state that in such cases speech should not be 100% free, is nothing more than passing off an opinion as a fact. It's poor debating, and should be called out as such.
Seeing such arguments get used irritates the hell out of me, specifically because the laws on such things differ from place to place, and in general are overly broad, open to abuse and often are abused, no matter how well-intentioned the writers were. In my personal case, my highschool girlfriend was a hairsbreadth away from being charged for possession and a few other (more serious) related offences. I was the alleged victim, and it was an overly-nosy guardian and a whopping 23-day difference in our ages that made the mountain out of the molehill. Thankfully the situation was de-escalated before the rest of her life was ruined over absolutely nothing, but that it can happen at all is terrifying.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday May 28 2021, @05:04AM (5 children)
I appreciate the point, and am glad to hear that your brush with "CP" didn't end horribly. You're right - "should not" is an opinion. I intended for it to be read as such, but may not have been clear.
I guess the problem with any example of laws/morals is that all morals are relative to the time and place that they exist within. Slavery was perfectly fine a while back. Torture to extract confessions was also normal if we go back to Medieval times. We have decided that those things are no longer morally acceptable and therefore have laws against them now.
For some people, there will never be a piece of speech that should be censored. Others will draw the line elsewhere (e.g. CP, Hate Speech, Swear words, incorrect use of pronouns). Would my original argument have had more weight if my example had instead been "yelling Fire in a crowded theatre"?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday May 28 2021, @02:54PM
How do you use bittorrent to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre? :-)
I guess a misuse of bittorrent that most people would agree should be illegal is to use it to distribute private information about someone without that person's consent.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 29 2021, @12:05AM (3 children)
These past few years have given me new appreciation for how diabolically clever propagandists are at twisting language. When you say "legitimate use", you fall into another one. An analogy (that includes a car): Is it a legitimate use of a car, road, firearms, and a mask, and running shoes, to use these things to rob a bank? It's not legit to rob a bank. The means is not the issue. Suppose the bank robber uses a horse instead of a car? Bit conspicuous, since this isn't the 19th century any more, but it could still work. Might even work better because the horse can be set free and might wander far on its own. An abandoned car just sits where it's left, making it a bit harder to shake the pursuit. However details of that sort are non-sequiturs.
We are not going to give up our cars and roads and other useful things because they can be used for wrong. When you buy a car, used or new, you are not asked to promise that you will not use the car to commit crime. Heck, for all I know, you aren't asked that sort of stuff either, when buying a gun. Sure, sure, they do a background check. But we are asked that when we sign up for Internet service, heck even when we connect to WiFi at some restaurant or other business. Why? Pure propaganda, that's why. Trying to condition people into thinking of computer networking as inherently naughty, as providing an especially easy path to slide down into Hell and go to the Devil.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Saturday May 29 2021, @03:58AM (2 children)
Let's go back to the actual topic we were debating, per your earlier post above:
I'm not trying to conflate the car with a robbery, or the gun with the shooter - that's on you. I am simply refuting your earlier assertion that there are no illegitimate uses of Bittorrent, when there clearly are ways in which it can be used for illegitimate activity.
Yes, some downloading can be illegal. Check the statutes. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant, it's a statement of fact that US law (and the laws of most other countries) prohibits the downloading of certain material. I agree with you that bittorrent shouldn't be banned because it can be used for some illegitimate activity, but that's not what we were arguing above. You were arguing that no downloading should be illegal at all, regardless of the medium.
Your complaint about the cleverness of propagandists twisting language can be equally applied to your last post, when you tried to change the topic. Interesting.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday May 29 2021, @07:58AM (1 child)
Just about anything can be used for illegitimate purposes. The severity of the illegal actions the thing enables, and the ease with which they can be perpetrated, varies considerably. For instance, guns make it extremely easy to murder. Cars, too, can be very dangerous. But a computer network connection? By itself, it can in no way compare to guns or cars in damage potential. Indeed, they ridiculously overstate the "damage" a network connection can cause, inventing supposed harms that are entirely illusory. Also, there is ""damage" that is perfectly acceptable and normal. For instance, whenever you choose to eat at one restaurant, you "damage" all the other restaurants. We call that kind of damage marketplace competition, and embrace it as not only acceptable, but desirable. Copying is even more of a public good, being, among other things, an absolutely vital component of education. Networking is death on toast to information monopolization, control and hoarding. Harmful to the hoarders, good for the people.
Now we have technology that is so much better than the older methods, of distributing physical media, that there is no contest whatsoever, it's over, and digital is the clear winner. It's that lopsided, like a foot race between an Olympic sprinter in his prime, and an octogenarian on crutches. But Big Media doesn't want to give up on the octogenarian, and demands the race be run, with it rigged to the extreme so that it is all but impossible for anyone to miss that it is rigged. They of course argue that it's only fair that the Olympic sprinter be handicapped. Well, yes, and, you know, something should be done to make it more of an even contest. This glibly ignores the fact that this isn't a game, and we, the people, should have no interest in making it "fair", just like we have no interest in hobbling cars so that horses can compete with them. If their melodrama about starving artists and fair competition and all that doesn't work, then they resort to force, hysterically threatening all the viewers to agree that, actually, the octogenarian won fair and square.
> Yes, some downloading can be illegal.
I think you are correct on that, but only because those laws haven't been challenged in court. Odds are, they'd be struck down, though that's by no means a sure bet. Legislators do that-- take the money of the special interest that wants crap laws, and enact them, knowing full well they will not hold up in court. The industry knows it too, and is careful to drop cases that look like they might lead to a strike down. The point of that strategy is the intimidation factor.
Of course downloading should never be illegal, for several reasons. First and foremost, it's not harmful. The "harm" that Big Media cries about is the same sort of harm anyone inflicts on a business by buying from a competitor. Second, no one can be sure the content is as represented and is copyrighted, until it is examined, and even that may not be conclusive. Downloading is very similar to receiving a broadcast, and that, we know, is fully legal. Radio listeners are not in any way responsible for policing broadcasts.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Saturday May 29 2021, @08:36AM
Guns and Cars do no damage by themselves - only when (mis)used by people. As to computer network connection damage when (mis)used? Ransomware groups would like a word about their recent oil pipeline activities.
If you think that CP, Libel and Classified Defence material would be made legal to download if only challenged in court then I don't think we have anything more to discuss. I think you're conflating all downloading with copyright issues - the scope of downloading is far wider than that.
If we narrow the discussion purely to Copyright then I am in favour of short terms (e.g. 10-14 years) after which material enters the Public Domain. I have no issue with content creators being given a limited monopoly to capitalise on their work, but the current regime is ridiculous and hinders creativity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28 2021, @07:08PM (1 child)
well, i have the bad habit of saying things from the others' perspective and expecting people to read between the lines, even if there is not enough info for people to guess i'm doing that. I think i expect people to give me the benefit of the doubt...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28 2021, @07:11PM
also, i'm not using the term "dumb whores" because the rep was a woman. I'm saying that comcast are dumb, Suited Whores. as in sycophantic sell-outs regardless of sex of the individuals involved.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 27 2021, @10:34PM
I'm going to download Ubuntu through bittorrent right now. I've racked up around 4 accusations of copyright violations in the past year, and am ready to dump my current ISP over that, and, of course, that my "intro" rate has ended.
I've also written a few letters to governments who too slavishly bow to IP extremists demands, and go all nutso with raids, equipment seizures, and criminal trials of ordinary citizens. No response to any of the letters, of course.
Possibly the most effective thing I did was complain to the university provost of a professor of theirs who was selling his services as an expert witness to help the MAFIAA with copyright infringement cases. At first, the provost was dismissive, but when I showed him more, he changed his tune. He advised me to keep my identity quiet, no doubt to protect me from retaliation. He didn't care about the issue, what bothered him was that their professor was using the university's name to bolster his expert witness credentials. Made it seem like the U was taking sides in court cases in which they were not involved.
There is a laughable process for protesting an accusation that involves losing your anonymity to do it. So not worth it, better to play dumb, keep the Copyright Gestapo guessing.
I wish the masses would rise up and make the Pirate Party the majority party, even in the US. That'll never happen. Ditto for mass boycotting of the MAFIAA.
What else is there? A very, very long wait. Like with the US Civil War, the Union victory did not completely settle the issue, with the defeated Confederates resorting to all kinds of crap to keep the freed slaves from having any more freedom than they could help. Took another century to break Jim Crow, and end the anti-miscegnation laws. We're still fighting it today, trying to end the racism within our police forces, and stop Jim Crow 2.0.