Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked

Posted by Zonk on Sat Sep 15, 2007 04:24 PM
from the i-believe-this-is-called-comeuppance dept.
qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: TorrentSpy Ordered By Judge to Become MPAA Spy 372 comments
PC Guy writes "TorrentSpy, one of the world's largest BitTorrent sites, has been ordered by a federal judge to monitor its users. They are asked to keep detailed logs of their activities which must then be handed over to the MPAA. Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy's attorney responded to the news by stating: 'It is likely that TorrentSpy would turn off access to the U.S. before tracking its users. If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.'"
[+] Your Rights Online: MediaDefender Denies Entrapment Accusations 104 comments
Ortega-Starfire writes "We've previously discussed the subject of MediaDefender setting up a site to catch movie pirates. Ars Technica covers the response from MediaDefender, which basically states the entire thing was a mistake and was only an internal site they forgot to password protect, and that they were not using this with the MPAA. The article asks: 'If this is true, why did MediaDefender immediately remove all contact information from the whois registry for the domain? Saaf said that after everything hit the fan, the company decided to take everything on the site down because it was afraid of a hacker attack or "people sending us spam." Yes, spam. The MPAA's Elizabeth Kaltman also chimed in to say that they had no involvement with MiiVi: "The MediaDefender story is false. We have no relationship with that company at all," she told Ars.'"
[+] Torrentspy Disables Searching For US IPs 277 comments
dr_strang writes "Torrent indexing site Torrentspy.com appears to have disabled torrent searches for IPs that originate in the United States. Instead of a results page, users are directed to this page, which states: 'Torrentspy Acts to Protect Privacy. Sorry, but because you are located in the USA you cannot use the search features of the Torrentspy.com website. Torrentspy's decision to stop accepting US visitors was NOT compelled by any Court but rather an uncertain legal climate in the US regarding user privacy and an apparent tension between US and European Union privacy laws."
[+] Your Rights Online: TorrentSpy Must Preserve Data In RAM For MPAA 489 comments
Transient writes "Reaffirming a magistrate's earlier decision, a federal judge has ordered TorrentSpy to begin keeping server logs as it defends itself against an MPAA lawsuit. In her opinion, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper interpreted federal discovery rules broadly. ' Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM — even if not permanently archived — makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules.' Given that TorrentSpy has limited access for users in the US, the ruling may be moot. But it does set a precedent for other, similar cases. 'Under this interpretation, any data stored in RAM could be subject to a subpoena, as at a basic level it is a "medium from which information can be obtained" just like a hard drive. '"
[+] Your Rights Online: Court Rules Against TorrentSpy In MPAA Email Suit 130 comments
mikesd81 writes "C|Net reports that a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy against the MPAA, accusing it of intercepting the company's private e-mails, was tossed out of court this week. Even though a U.S District judge ruled that the MPAA broke no rules, the MPAA does admit it paid $15,000 to obtain private e-mails belonging to TorrentSpy executives. The MPAA's acknowledgment is significant because it comes at a time when the group is trying to limit illegal file sharing by imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies. From the article: 'Ethically, it's pretty clear that reading other people's e-mail is wrong,' said Lorrie Cranor, an associate research professor and Internet privacy expert at Carnegie Mellon University. 'Being offered someone else's e-mails by a third party should have been a red flag.' TorrentSpy is appealing the decision." This is just not a good week for those guys.
[+] Leaks Prove MediaDefender's Deception 230 comments
Who will defend the defenders? writes "Ars Technica has posted the first installment in their analysis of the leaked MediaDefender emails and found some very interesting things. Apparently, the New York Attorney General's office is working on a big anti-piracy sting and they were working on finding viable targets. It also discusses how some of the emails show MediaDefender trying to spy on their competitors, sanitize their own Wikipedia entry, deal with the hackers targeting their systems, and to quash the MiiVi story even while they were rebuilding it as Viide. Oh yes, they definitely read "techie, geek web sites where everybody already hates us" like Slashdot, too."
[+] Your Rights Online: MediaDefender's BitTorrent-Based DOS Takes Down Revision3 323 comments
Sandman1971 writes "Over the long Memorial Day weekend, Revision3 was the target of a malicious Denial Of Service Attack which brought R3 to its knees. After investigating the matter, it was discovered that the source of the attacks came from MediaDefender, the famed company hired by the MPAA and RIAA to try and stop the spread of illegal file sharing. The kicker? Revision3 was taken down for running a bittorent tracker to distribute its own legal content."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:27PM (#20618527)
  • by Aim Here (765712) on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:33PM (#20618575)
    If you read the emails, apparently utorrent is their favourite torrent client, since it allows them to 'interdict' torrents, whatever that means. Whatever they're up to, that surely warrants a campaign to boycott the client in favour of free software torrent clients where these sorts of deficiencies can at least be fixed by anyone who cares.

    Oh, and the rumors of them being behind the spyware-encrusted ziptorrent were false; that one seems to have been MediaSentry's doing.
    • First google result for bittorrent interdiction [google.com] is a resume [linkedin.com] from a former MediaSentry (a competitor of MediaDefender) director. The juicy bit (in case it goes away):

      Director of Interdiction Development
      MediaSentry Div of SafeNet
      (Public Company; 501-1000 employees; SFNT; Computer & Network Security industry)
      September 2004 -- November 2005 (1 year 3 months)
      Lead team of software developers and systems engineers developing interdiction solutions for P2P networks.
      Designed and deployed new Linux based 300+ host distributed infrastructure for p2p decoy distribution with automated command, control and monitoring. Designed and deployed network of filtered eDonkey servers. Managed roll out of new BitTorrent interdiction infrastructure. Implemented multiple p2p file trading clients on hosts utilizing VMware.

      It seems like it's basically a distributed network of clients that feed garbage data, trying to slow down everyone's downloading. Sadly for them it seems that uTorrent defeated [utorrent.com] their work:

      After more in-depth analysis...we've determined that the new version DOES affect our interdiction in a negative way. They've added a new "bt.ban_ratio" field that takes into consideration how many good pieces a client has uploaded.
      [....]
      We still see a lot of hash_check fails...but now the only peers getting banned are ours. This also affects MediaSentry's interdicted torrents. They are no longer effective on the newest version either.
      • by Aim Here (765712) on Saturday September 15 2007, @05:18PM (#20618975)
        Not the whole story. They must have made it work again, because this one is dated September 7th, later than the email you quote:

        Subject: RE: utorrent
        From: Daniel Lee
        To: Randy Saaf , qa ,
                        torrents
        Cc: Ty Heath , Jay Mairs

        Yep, we checked yesterday and interdiction still works on the latest
        version.

        • Interdiction (Score:5, Informative)

          by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Saturday September 15 2007, @06:03PM (#20619321)
          From ARSTechnica article in the "News" section of Mediadefender.com - http://www.mediadefender.com/news/20070318_ARSTechnica.pdf [mediadefender.com])

          Four main methods

          Decoying. This, in a nutshell, is the serving of fake files that are generally empty or contain a trailer. The goal is to make legitimate content a needle in a haystack, so MediaDefender works hard to ensure that its copies of files show up in the top ten spots when certain keywords are searched for. Everything about the file is tailored to look like the work of pirates, from the file size (movies are often compressed enough to fit on a CD) to the naming conventions to the pirate scene tag. With massive bandwidth and plenty of servers, the company has little trouble in getting these decoy files to appear at the top of search results, but decoying has a down side: the bandwidth. Because MediaDefender actually serves these large but bogus files, it incurs a significant bandwidth bill by using this technique.

          Spoofing. Spoofing sends searchers down dead ends. MediaDefender coders have written their own software that interacts with the various P2P protocols and sends bogus returns to search requests, usually directing people to nonexistent locations. Because most people only look at the top five search results, MediaDefender tries to frustrate their first attempts to download a file in hopes that they will just give up.

          Interdiction. While the first two techniques try to prevent searchers from locating files, interdiction prevents distributors from serving them. The tool is generally used when media is leaked or newly released; the goal is to slow its spread in those crucial first days. MediaDefender servers attempt to create constant connections to the files in question, saturating the provider's upstream bandwidth and preventing anyone else from grabbing the data.

          Swarming. Though he acknowledges the BitTorrent networks can be hard to disrupt, Lee points out that MediaDefender can use "swarming" to make life more difficult for users trying to download copyrighted content. BitTorrent works by using a hash file to reassemble a file from many pieces, each of which may have been downloaded from a different user. MediaDefender simply serves up its chunks of these files, but instead of providing the proper data, its chunks contain static or nothing at all. When the file is eventually reassembled by the user, it may contain clicks, silent spaces, or odd skips. This can make the viewing/listening experience less pleasurable, but it's most effective with software downloads since even small errors can prevent programs from running.
  • by BlueParrot (965239) on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:35PM (#20618593)
    Ok, normally I don't like the DMCA, but PLEASE , come on Media Defender, do DMCA this. Pretty please, with sugar on the top... you know you want to... I mean you have to beat your own incompetence somehow...
  • by unity100 (970058) <unity100 AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:35PM (#20618595) Homepage Journal
    If it is a long hair working as a code grunt/sysadmin in their it lot, may god make his/her hair glitter with sunshine and rustle in gentle, warm winds.
  • by kwabbles (259554) on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:36PM (#20618605)
    I can't stop laughing. Oh hoh... my stomach. LOL
  • Inflation (Score:5, Funny)

    by athdemo (1153305) on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:37PM (#20618607)
    I thought these two were some of the best.

    >From: Watson, Jeff (WBR)
    >To: Octavio Herrera; leaks
    >Cc: Bird, Jennifer
    >Sent: Sun May 13 10:49:59 2007
    >Subject: Re: # LP illegal album downloads

    >MediaDefender folks - please let us know roughly how many Linkin Park albums have been downloaded since the leak. Album is called Minutes To Midnight. Thanks.


    >From: "Octavio Herrera" >
    >To: "torrents"
    >Cc: "Gilberto Vargas" >, "Ben Grodsky" >, "Rick Moreno" >
    >Subject: Fw: # LP illegal album downloads
    >Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:24:59 -0700

    >Torrent team, can you give us a sense of how many dowloads of tis album there has been off bt. We are not protecting on bt so the bigger the better.


    I really hope Warner reads this gold.
  • by BlueParrot (965239) on Saturday September 15 2007, @05:15PM (#20618941)
    From: Randy Saaf
            Sent: Wed 11-Apr-07 21:24
            To: Jay Mairs; Ben Grodsky; Ty Heath; Ivan Kwok; Ben Ebert
            Subject: Fw: .edu filtering

            Team

            Universal is curiouse if we have any historical data over the last 3 months that show whether .edu IP addresses on p2p have gone down.

            They want to see if their lawsuits are getting students to stop using p2p (take a moment to laugh to yourself).

            Let me know if anyone has any ideas.

            R

            --- Original Message ---
            From: Benjamin, David
            To: Randy Saaf
            Sent: Wed Apr 11 18:11:50 2007
            Subject: .edu filtering

            How are you doing with this?
            Thanks
            db
    • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by forkazoo (138186) <wrosecrans@gmaiS ... com minus distro> on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:31PM (#20618563) Homepage

      They didn't just distance themselves from the company, they were going to relaunch it under a totally new name/look while still making sure it couldn't be tracked back to them. Doesn't this constitute entrapment?


      Generally speaking, entrapment only applies to law enforcement and the government. RIAA still isn't there yet, thankfully. OTOH, a good lawyer could probably spin it as morally equivalent in principle for a jury.
      • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kjella (173770) on Saturday September 15 2007, @05:45PM (#20619181) Homepage
        In additional to only applying to agents of law enforcement or those acting as such, entrapment also only applies to making you commit a crime that you wouldn't otherwise make. So unless either the old or the new company did that, it wouldn't be entrapment. And if there was entrapment, it wouldn't have anything to do with their secret change.
    • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Atlantis-Rising (857278) on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:33PM (#20618581) Homepage
      You can't be entrapped in civil court. Entrapment is a statutory creation of criminal law. (Sorrells v. United States, although later supreme court precedent leads us to believe that rather than the statutory creation theory, they are moving more towards dealing with entrapment in a supervisory sense.)
    • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Abalamahalamatandra (639919) on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:39PM (#20618633)
      As people have said, entrapment only applies to law enforcement types.

      In the civil arena, I believe unclean hands [wikipedia.org] would be more applicable, especially if you can trace Media Defender back to the RIAA via contracts and such.
    • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wordplay (54438) <geo@snarksoft.com> on Saturday September 15 2007, @04:46PM (#20618709)
      I imagine that a clever lawyer could point out that they're attempting to sue over a transaction of which they were an active part. If I give you something outright, it would likely be impossible for me to sue to get compensation later. If I give it to you while wearing a disguise, I'm not sure that principle doesn't apply.

      A -really- clever lawyer could point out that since the RIAA has been documented as giving their stuff away, that anyone downloading from anywhere might have a reasonable belief that it was coming from the "authorized" source in disguise. I don't know that it would fly, but seems like there'd be a non-zero chance of diluting RIAA's argument in the entire body of cases.

      On a side note, seems like this would give the artists cause to sue the RIAA, for distributing their work in a manner that's likely not covered by their contract (though with artist contracts in RIAA member companies, who knows--maybe they have the right to give it all away for free.)
      • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dgatwood (11270) on Saturday September 15 2007, @05:22PM (#20618995)

        I'm glad you pointed that out. If this company, acting as an agent for the plaintiff (a movie company, for example), participated in the distribution of this content via P2P, then that constitutes a tacit approval of P2P distribution of the content by the plaintiff, thus making any further P2P distribution of that content potentially authorized by the copyright holder, and thus not a copyright violation.

        Further, even if the person did not actually get it directly from an agent of the copyright holder, the rights holder distributing in such a way that causes it to be automatically redistributed by anyone who receives it (P2P) could constitute deliberate abandonment of the copyright (at least for the purposes of personal, noncommercial use) by the copyright holder.

        I'm not saying that argument would necessarily hold up in court, but if I were in charge of a media company, I would not be doing anything nearly this stupid and reckless.

        • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Sparr0 (451780) <sparr0NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday September 15 2007, @06:02PM (#20619307) Homepage Journal
          Keep reading. He posits that the existence of honeypots lends credibility to the argument that *ANY* download *MIGHT* be coming from a legitimate source. We know the RIAA is distributing songs via P2P, and we know they are disguising themselves, so why can't we assume that the guy sending us music right now is really the RIAA in disguise, making it legal?
      • Re:Distance? (Score:5, Informative)

        entrapment involves the use of a technique that ends up in a crime being committed that under normal conditions would not have happened. would the crime have been committed without mediadefender setting up a trap? in all probabiliy it would. It would just happen elsewhere. it isn't strictly entrapment but it sure is evil.

        If they hadn't set up the website, this specific "crime" COULDN'T have happened.

        Think about what you said, with respect to, for example, VICE squads:

        "Would Joe have been busted for possession of marijuana if the cop didn't sell it to him? In all probability he would have; it would just have happened elsewhere."

        This is incorrect. It would NOT have happened; he MIGHT have been busted for possession of OTHER marijuana sold by someone else. On the other hand, he might not.

        All of this is moot anyway, as you can't be entrapped in civil court. If they passed federal charges (under the DMCA), then an entrapment suit might possibly be in order if those entrapping were operating "above the law". Otherwise, either THEY were committing a crime by distributing the content, or those downloading weren't committing a crime as they would have been given legal permission to download the data. The worst thing they could be asked to do if those distributing the data didn't have permission to do so would be to remove their copy from their computer by the court. Of course, in most sane countries, possession of copywritten data isn't a crime, infringement, or anything similar; only distribution is. All you can be sued for is breach of contract in civil court (assuming there was some sort of contract).
    • OH RLY? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BlueParrot (965239) on Saturday September 15 2007, @05:39PM (#20619121)

      Its a pity we can't see what these paracites earn. I bet they earn more than us sysadmins :( Why hide what this scum thinks its worth.


      dev-salaries-18june2007.xls

      Sergio A. Alvarez 2,916.67 $70,000.00
      Linus Aranha 2,708.33 $65,000.00
      Dylan C Douglas 2,916.67 $70,000.00
      Benjamin Ebert 3,541.67 $85,000.00
      Norman T Heath 4,791.67 $115,000.08
      Sujay S. Jaju 2,708.33 $65,000.00
      Andrew H. Kim 2,291.67 $55,000.00
      Ivan Y Kwok 4,166.67 $100,000.00
      Jed Z. Levin 2,291.67 $55,000.00
      Gerald E. Rode 2,291.67 $55,000.00
      Sheetalkumar Shah 2,708.33 $65,000.00
      Nainesh N. Solanki 2,708.33 $65,000.00
      Daeyoung Song 2,375.00 $57,000.00
      Jeffrey W. Wang 2,375.00 $57,000.00

      You were saying? :p
        • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Saturday September 15 2007, @05:43PM (#20619161)

          That is laughable given what many in the slashdot crowd consider evil. Developing closed source software for example.

          "Evil" is an exaggeration. This dislike of closed-source comes from the fact that many here instinctively realize that information, such as computer programs, some forms of art, thoughts in people heads, large integer numbers etc, do not fall under the simplistic, inane attempts to mis-apply an economic model of a "market" to things which do not have the required attributes to become "private property" and thus are not subject to "trade".

          This does not mean that we believe that artists and software developers have to go hungry, but it does mean that the method by which various misguided businessmen (usually the middle-men peddling the art/science and not creating it themselves) expect to make their living is fatally flawed (primarilly because it was constructed by businessmen for businessmen, with no regards to anything else) and, in order to be "successful", demands positively immoral and dangerous to society activities, such as attempts at truly totalitarian measures in efforts to control the flow of information in society.

          As more and more people realize this, it is my hope that some time in the future this idiotic "copyright" regime will be replaced with something that actually reflects the nature of the information and the needs of the society.

          My personal favourite for art, for example, is a modernized "patronage" system, with direct transfer of donations by patrons of art to artists themselves. Sicence is, as it should, funded by academia and as soon as the for-profit scientific journals are dispised of (efforts in this direction are under way) it will be free from this nonsense. Performance arts have no problem whatsoever since the performers are expecting payment for their labour at the gate. Etc and so on.

          It is quite possible however that a better model exists. If so I am sure someone will come up with it. Whatever it is, the notions of "copyrights" and "patents" as they stand are ... well ... patent absurdities! And what we see is simple human reaction to that undeniable fact, particularly among the younger generation whose indoctrination in these mattters is not yet effective.