Matthew Garrett (mjg59) wrote,
Matthew Garrett
mjg59

Seth Oster, executive VP and chief communications officer of the MPAA, told Ars that the notice came over the Thanksgiving holiday when their offices were closed. "As soon as we came back and discovered that there had been someone who had raised some concerns, we removed the software," Oster said. "Anytime anyone raises any reasonable concern we look at it because we take copyright very seriously at the MPAA." He also denied Garret's assertions that the ISP was involved in the takedown, saying that the MPAA chose to take the toolkit offline.

(from Ars)

The bit about Thanksgiving is basically accurate - I contacted them at 15:52 Pacific time (23:52 GMT) on Friday the 23rd of November, saying that I'd take further action if things hadn't been fixed by close of business on the following Friday (the 30th). While I'm happy to accept that this might have cost them Friday and Monday (if the MPAA are the sort to offer a 5 day long weekend), that's still 4 business days of response time. I telephoned them on Friday morning (around 10AM Pacific time) and was told I'd get a call back shortly. By Saturday it seemed likely that this wasn't going to happen, so emailed the ISP. At 19:13 Pacific time on Saturday, I received an email from the ISP informing me that they were going to contact Paul Egge at the MPAA. There was an ISO available from the MPAA site until at least 09:22 Pacific time (17:22 GMT) on Monday the 3rd of December, which had been removed by 23:00 or so GMT (the next time I checked).

So, to summarise. The infringing material was still available the best part of 9 days after the original notification was sent. At least 4 of those 9 were business days. The material was not removed until after I had contacted the ISP and they had informed me they were going to contact the MPAA. Further interpretation is left to the reader.
Tags: advogato, ubuntu
Subscribe

  • Supporting UEFI secure boot on Linux: the details

    (Update January 18th 2012 - you probably want to read this for details on why the technical details described below are not the difficult bit of the…

  • UEFI secure booting (part 2)

    Updated: Three things happened to defuse this situation: Microsoft mandated that it be possible to disable Secure Boot on any Windows certified…

  • UEFI secure booting

    Since there are probably going to be some questions about this in the near future: The UEFI secure boot protocol is part of recent UEFI…

  • 27 comments
  • 27 comments

Comments for this post were locked by the author

  • Supporting UEFI secure boot on Linux: the details

    (Update January 18th 2012 - you probably want to read this for details on why the technical details described below are not the difficult bit of the…

  • UEFI secure booting (part 2)

    Updated: Three things happened to defuse this situation: Microsoft mandated that it be possible to disable Secure Boot on any Windows certified…

  • UEFI secure booting

    Since there are probably going to be some questions about this in the near future: The UEFI secure boot protocol is part of recent UEFI…