The MPAA has sent Linux Australia a notice of infringement, demanding that the group cease providing access to two copyrighted movies, called Grind and Twisted. However, Twisted and Grind are not movies but software and their copyrights are not controlled by the MPAA.
In this case, the threats do not seem to have casued any real problems. But what happens when they send these letters to someones ISP? Won’t the ISP simply pull the plug on the site in question to avoid problems? It will then be up to the site owner to show the ISP that the files are legal. Shouldn’t it really be the other way around?
Linux group rebuffs Hollywood piracy charge | CNET News.com
Slashdot | MPAA Sends Linux Australia Dubious Takedown Notice
Update: Slashdot: MPAA Blames Linux Australia Notice on Human Error
![[FSF Associate Member]](http://www.cyberlaw.se/kalle/wp-content/upload/fsfbutton.png){kind=small}
![[Electronic Frontier Foundation]](http://www.cyberlaw.se/kalle/wp-content/upload/eff-button88x31.gif){kind=small}
3 comments so far...
MPAA not in touch with reality
Regarding the post by Karl Jonsson on how MPAA falsely has contacted Linux Australia on copyright infringement issues, I found this text on MPAA’s site: Anyone with information on suspected video piracy operations is urged to call the MPAA at 1-800-NO…
I agree. Then again the MPAA and RIAA have convinced the decision makers that since its too hard to sue individuals, its easier to just talk to the ISP – they’ll act fast as it’s their business that’s on the line. But the ISP should be considered a technology enabler and therefore shouldn’t be held responsible for infringements (Betamax case).
Just my 2c
I agree. The more I think about it (and I actually do that a lot) the more I think that ISPs should not be liable at all. Sometimes, when I’m in a radical mood
, I think that ISPs should not even be allowed to remove/block stuff unless required by law, i.e. after a court decision.
leave a reply