HBO After "True Blood"
October 27, 2008
Belcamp, MD, 21017, US
MA, 02026, USA
Sent via: email
Re: ?? Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Television Program Entitled ???????
RE:?? Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Television Program Entitled
???????? True Blood
Dear [private], Esq. [ISP]:
We are writing this letter on behalf of Home Box Office, Inc. ("HBO").
We have received information??leading us to believe??that an individual has utilized the below-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of copyrighted television program(s) through a "peer-to-peer" service, including such title(s) as:
The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted television programs constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3).??
Since you own this IP address ([private]), we request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and/or
2) Take??other appropriate action against the account??holder under??your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.
On behalf of HBO, 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 HBO, its respective agents, or the law.
Also, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of New York and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Please direct any end user queries to the following address:
Belcamp, MD 21017
Kindly include the Case ID 661741410, also noted above, in the subject line of all future correspondence regarding this matter.
We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your prompt response is requested.
Infringing Work: True Blood
First Found: 23 Oct 2008 13:50:21 EDT (GMT -0400) Last Found: 23 Oct 2008 13:50:21 EDT (GMT -0400) IP Address: [private]
Torrent InfoHash: F237971F4F4C952E2EF2B86AE09DECA9AD1541AA
True.Blood.S01E06.720p.HDTV.x264-2HD.mkv.torrent (1,565,086,168 bytes)
|FAQ: Questions and Answers|
[back to notice text]
Question: Why does a web host or blogging service provider get DMCA takedown notices?
Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)m a safe-harbor for hosts of "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users." This safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by materials its users post, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.
In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]
Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?
Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512.
Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.
Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?
Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.
Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?
Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.
For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.
| FAQ: Questions|
| Related News|
| Related Resources|
| Other Topics|