MediaDefender Explains Itself 395
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wired has an interview with MediaDefender in which they try to explain why they attacked Revision3, which uses BitTorrent to host its own content. Somehow it eluded MediaDefender that they had injected fake content into Revision3's tracker, so when Revision3 changed configuration to forbid this injection, MediaDefender's systems saw it as a pirate tracker with lots of illegal content (which MediaDefender had put there) and attacked. In other words, everything they did was intentional except for the choice of target. Given that they have 9 Gbps of bandwidth dedicated to denial-of-service attacks against torrent trackers, all anyone needs to do is to trick them into attacking a hospital or government facility. MediaDefender has never been very competent, after all."
Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
Unauthorized access and Denial of Service attack.
I'm not quite sure of the details though, were they using a bug to plant the torrents or was the tracker just negligently configured?
The above matters for whether they were hacking(non-geek) or simply using it without authorization.
anyway, "bad boy!" to MediaDefender, surprise surprise.
But will the shit stick all the way to those truly responsible?
I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they have gotten away with it for near a decade, even though many have pointed out the illegality of it.
And they expect, once again, to get away with it.
And because, this will become even more fuel for them (and the **AA) towards pushing making P2P software entirely illegal, regardless of it's use. Does this last section make sense? No? So what? Do you really think it has to? Look at their other arguments for making P2P illegal - do they make sense? Didnt think so. ;-)
And of course, because it will help them push forward the pending legislation that would make their actions (whatever they are) legal - irrespective of current law.
So... I think it makes perfect sense - at least from their twisted viewpoint.
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:5, Funny)
Why would a Wookie live on Endor? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why would a Wookie live on Endor? (Score:5, Funny)
You can see here, the Router orbiting the forest moon of Endor. Although the download systems on this Router are not yet operational, the Router does have a strong defense mechanism. It is protected by a firewall which is generated from the nearby forest moon of Endor.
The firewall must be deactivated, if any torrent is to be downloaded.
Once the firewall is down, our servers will create a tracker, while our admins hack into the system and attempt to inject the fake contact.
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:5, Interesting)
If you abandon all attempts at logic and what we the
1. Bittorrent is only used for distributing illegal content. (Whoopsie, that's not always true)
2. Anyone who's running a bittorrent tracker is therefore distributing illegal content. (Only true if 1. above is. And if the entire world has identical copyright laws.)
3. We can determine who's using this tracker by persuading it to track the details of specific files and then subpoena the IP address of anyone who connects to us to download them. (Whoopsie! We can identify an IP address but it turns out that turning that into a guaranteed-correct person's name is actually quite difficult)
4. If they attempt to defend themselves (eg. by blocking the fake files injected in step 3 above), then they're as good as admitting guilt and also they're making it impossible for us to subpoena anything. Therefore, the correct course of action is to take their system off the Internet. (Whoopsie! Except that almost any country with even vaguely up to date laws would consider this highly illegal - and if our target is a legitimate tracker, it may get investigated).
Makes some sense if you're selling a service which claims to stop p2p.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, anybody know of any patently identical incidents where this happened? If so, it debunks the folloing point.
I'm not taking their side, but the way I read this, the explination "our servers did it" indicates that they had things configured in such a way that they never made the connection between the two incidents. They tapped Rev. 3 to seed false torrents. Separately, they set up DoS attacks on servers hosting lots of torrents, but never made the connection as to what happens when their seeding l
Re:I CONFESS!! IM GUILTY! Can I get off the hook n (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Informative)
Take down letters, ISP turning your account off due to court order, sure.. But an intentional DoS? WTF?
Since when does 2 illegal acts cancel each other out ( not to mention no illegal act was being committed by Revision3 anyway )?
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there's the part where they openly admit to using DoS attacks against trackers. That part is really brilliant. I'd like to see what law they're looking at where that's a "grey area".
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
What do we have here ? We have evidence, a confession, and implicit admission of guilt (their system is designed to blast servers). What are we waiting for ? Jesus ain't coming back, so we're going to have to purge these bastards ourselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you'd have the police come and take you away.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't they just hire any lawyer for legal advice and then press charges themselves? It would stnd to reason that if you have the right to be your own lawyer for defense your could be your own lawyer for prosecution of crimes committed against you.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ankle-biters sometimes have a purpose ...
Still, if you look at the SCO case, "don't hold your breath" is good advice. MediaDefender will just go bankrupt. Mind you, R3 could use this as an excuse for LOTS of discovery, and post the results as video news. "Today we got the perl scripts that are the heart of MediaDefender ..."
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Informative)
In a criminal case, the "victim" is not the individual, but rather society as a whole. The State brings the charges, because the state is the "victim." That's why the individual doesn't get to decide whether or not charges are filed, or have the final say in punishment. The individual victim's recourse is to file a civil suit.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:4, Informative)
Well, we do have the informal notion of "pressing charges". Basically, in many cases the testimony of the victim is crucial to a prosecution winning the case. Hence if the victim refuses to testify, the case must be dropped, or the victim compelled to testify. Compelling a victim to testify is terrible form, so it is not uncommon for the case to be dropped, or formal charges never filed if the victim indicates that they are not willing to testify. Further, I am not certain, but there might be cases where victims rights would prevent the compelling of testimony.
However, there are Common Law countries, where private prosecution is possible. AIUI, generally, in those places any attorney that has been admitted to the bar of the court (i.e. is a barrister) can file criminal charges by following the exact same procedure the Prosecutor's Office follows. From that point forward, the case is treated no differently than any case brought by the Prosecutor's Office. The Office can terminate the prosecution or assign a new prosecutor (i.e. assume control of the case), just like with it's own cases.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The State brings the charges, because the state is the "victim." That's why the individual doesn't get to decide whether or not charges are filed, or have the final say in punishment.
As far as I know, that is only true for commonwealths because the commonwealth is supposed to take over those kinds of decisions for the greater good for all...or something like that.
I hope that's not the case, or else I've wasted the last few years of my life, and a lot of money... :)
(IANAL yet, but hopefully very soon!)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:4, Interesting)
The basic problem is "how do you get criminal law applied to a corporation in any meaningful way?" Which includes preventing them from being "business as usual" until the end of the trial.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Informative)
They wouldn't host arbitrary torrents, only track them.
They saw it was being used by other people so they disabled that.
You know the rest.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
There are actually serious laws against this. If you or I did this, we'd spend quite some time in jail, and have to pay quite a large amount in fines. The criminal and civil penalties are not small. Not to mention the probability of losing (the "right" to) Internet access for some period of time (by court order). It's happened before (and been covered here).
But... how much you want to bet that MediaDefender gets off with less than a slap on the wrist?
With luck, at the very least, MediaDefender will lose the civil suit brought against them and pay that way.
Foot, meet mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
But that they have a big fat pipe dedicated to conducting DOS attacks? Jesus F. Christ, that's like saying that I have a car dedicated to running down pedestrians I don't like. If that's not a confession of premeditation, I don't know what is.
To put it in perspective, the western criminal system (as far as I understand it, and IANAL) tries, or theoretically should try, to establish the degree of intent (or "mens rea" = "guilty mind") in an act. So for example, if a shingle off my roof fell on the a passerby's head, although what happened is the same and the guy is just as dead, you can have very different punishments based on the nuance of being classified anywhere between "direct intention" (I actually intended to have shingles fall on him/someone) and "criminal negligence" (I had no flippin' clue that the roof is in that bad condition, though a reasonable person should have foreseen and inspected it regularly.) The worst you can do is not only go for "direct intention", but also basically say, "oh yeah, it wasn't a momentary act of rage, it was planned all along."
So these guys have basically been paying all along for a pipe _dedicated_ to breaking the law? They actually had a plan to break the law, and month after month paid the bill on the resources set aside for only that purpose? Geesh. I hope that a few executives land in state jail there.
Not only shamed, but pied as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I'd compare a DOS more to a mugging than a pie in the face. That attack disrupted Revision 3 quite thoroughly for a while, and even knocked off their other servers.
But what I'm saying is: now imagine that, as a private person, John Doe goes to trial for something like that: John Doe was breaking into a house, the owner woke up and found him, and John promptly knocked him out. And it turns out that John Doe had bought a blackjack just for that: to whack anyone
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually they can't get away with the "fake torrent" stuff either - the torrents they put up were for copyright material, which they then tracked to see who was downloading the stuff. In other words, they enabled copyright infringement, then went after the downloaders with "we know you've been infringing - contact the settlement center."
Since they were working with the blessing of the **AA, what that means is that anyone downloading from one of those torrents isn't guilty of copyright infringement, since the download was made available with the knowledge and consent of the **AA.
Discovery is going to be really nasty in this case.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They charged someone with the power to act on their behalf (MediaDefender) who presumably had permission to upload these files to the the internet via Bittorrent. They *KNOW* how Bittorrent works and theres no way in hell they're gonna be able to claim ignorance on that after all the campaigning they've done to try to kill P2P ever since the Napster days.
By uploading it on bittorrent they knew that others would grab peices from others thus reducing the load on their servers (which is what
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, in this case, it sounds like the tracker in question was open, and so other people started using it to track infringing files without Revision3's knowledge or consent. MediaDefender notices this and adds fake content, as well as presumable connecting to non-fake content and requesting pieces to gather evidence against the uploaders.
Now when Revision3 made the change, MediaDefender thought that this tracker had become a private tracker (one of those password needed-trackers) when in fact it just stopped tracking files other than those Revision3 had intended it to track.
MediaDefender then begins DoSing the server, trying to take down this "private tracker". Even at this point MediaDefender was completely unaware that this was tracker intended for Legal content only, or that it was Revision3's tracker in particular. As far as MediaDefender knew, it was just another tracker that was tracking infringing content.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't fscking matter if it was or was not "another tracker that was tracking infringing content". It doesn't matter that MD was "completely unaware that this tracker was intended for Legal content only." It is criminally illegal in the US to 1) hack into other people's systems 2) DOS other people's systems - (and here's the point you seem to miss in your apologia) regardless of any criminal activity on those systems. Full stop.
There is no wiggle room for MD here especially since they have admitted to the crimes. The only thing that could save them is the corporate cash defense - "we have a lot of money, and corporations run by a higher law so we're obviously not guilty." Unfortunately, that one seems to work all too well today.
Re:Mediadefender is the Punisher (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
is in control of one or more botnets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok - read your post.
The solution is to get Mediadefender's provider(s) to block the packets at source or, as I suggested further up, to deploy a few ounces of Semtex (or C4 if you're that primitive) on the fibre from each of MD's colocation sites.
Realistically, if I was running a co-lo site and someone complained about a DOS attack, I'd block all outbound traffic from the relevant servers as a matter of courtesy until the owners explained themselv
Now, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, theyre working for the **AA organizations, the darlings of congress, for whom no human rights violations are too great a cost, for whom ACTA is being negotiated to subvert those pesky public interest groups and constitutional protections present in every industrialized nation on earth, and for whom judges suspend several constitutional protections for due process.
In other words
Re:You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry what? When has the **AA ever violated human rights? Sure they're scumbags, but try to keep a little perspective. They're not exactly selling people into slavery.
The solution to the problem of them being "in" with congress is to give congress, and the government in general, less power. Power is abused. Always. This seems to be a pretty good example of that.
Reference?
Re:You forget, they're the "darlings" of congress. (Score:5, Funny)
There's even a poster [russiablog.org].
Re:You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly, but threatening a lawsuit that will result in someone owing money to them for the rest of their life is a little too close to indentured servitude for my liking.
Re:You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, but that's the risk people knowingly take when they decide to infringe the **AA's copyrights. They had to consciously think "I know I can get a huge fine for this, but I'm going to do it anyway." Is it really too much to expect people to take responsibility for their actions?
Right now, the legal choices are:
There is no "Disregard the law and do whatever you want" option. If they're willfully breaking the law, it shouldn't be a very big surprise when they get punished for it. And right now the penalty for copyright infringement is a big fine.
Re:You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:5, Informative)
Except there have been cases where the person did not violate their copyrights. They don't prove someone did it before threatening or suing them, and those people who are innocent still have to fight to prove they're innocent. Then the RIAA holds up paying damages in court for years -- like the case where they tried to claim they shouldn't be liable for attorney's fees. I can't recall the specifics but they were found to be wrong and the defendant then sued them for costs and they called her claimed attorney's fees "outrageous" then refused to publish their own lawyer fees*. It was on Slashdot a few months ago.
* "Objection, your honor!"
"On what grounds?"
"...It's extremely damaging to my case!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of the tens of thousands of lawsuits the RIAA has filed, the vast majority have settled because the defendants were guilty. You don't hear about those cases because they're not very interesting, don't make the RIAA look bad, and they go against the group think on sites like Slashdot, Digg and Reddit.
Making a few mistakes doesn't mean they lose the right to defend their copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't "settle because they're guilty". They settle because
it's far cheaper to settle than to defend. We see this bullshit with
patents all the time. We have obvious and clear examples of why your
principle is clearly wrong.
So why do you choose to apply it to individuals where it is obviously
bogus for corporations?
Another citizen vs. corp double standard?
Re:You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:5, Informative)
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Re:You forget, theyre the "darlings" of congress. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody in the US has ever been arrested for downloading music.
Copyright infringement is a civil matter, and so far the **AA has always correctly handled it through the courts.
How is the **AA violating anybody's privacy? My understanding was they put fake listings on tracker sites, and sued for copyright infringement when people attempted to download from them. It's a bit of a leap to assume an IP identifies a single person, but it's usually correct. I'd almost agree with you if they were actively infiltrating Tor networks or using man in the middle attacks against SSL connections, but convincing idiots to download and share files with them isn't a privacy violation in my book.
Besides that, the internet in general is public. traceroute shows 12 machines between me and slashdot, and any one of them can monitor, log, or otherwise view my traffic at their whim. For better or worse, anonymity on the internet usually assumes the other person isn't trying very hard to find out who you are.
Re:Now, really? (Score:5, Informative)
"In May 2008, MediaDefender was publicly accused of allegedly being the source of a distributed-denial- of-service attack on Revision3. Jim Louderback, Revision3 CEO charged that these attacks violated the Economic Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Federal Bureau of Investigations is currently investigating the incident."
Although that may have been written as of 5 minutes ago... plus the FBI isnt exactly notorious for accomplishing things in any sort of justified, or timely manour, and may very well side with MediaDefender.
Re:Now, really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now, really? (Score:5, Funny)
Non-mainstream event (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-mainstream event (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I work for a small ISP and DoS attacks really piss me off because they seem to have about as much accuracy as a shotgun. Depending on the attack, it can sometimes affect more than just then intended target. I'd really like to see media defender get raped for this, but I know how these thing usually seem to wo
It's not illegal... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until then, denial of service & unauthorized access charges shouldn't have much trouble sticking.
The only reason Revision3 wouldn't take this all the way through trial is if MediaDefender offers them a pile of money greater than what R3 would win with a guilty verdict.
Fry. (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me why MediaDefender gets away with inserting fake data labeled as copyright-violating material into someone else's server and then going all vigilante on them. If you own the copyright you might be able to get away with it as its no longer in violation of copyrights since its yours, but since MediaDefender doesn't own them directly..
That on top of the damages they have caused this company, in either time, money, or business damages.
Re:Fry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming for a brief moment that copyright infringement is theft, just for the purpose of this analogy...
If I broke into your house and put someone else's stuff in your room, then phoned the police that you have stolen property in your room... how nice would that be?
I only have one question: how can we retaliate?
Re:Fry. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I broke into your house and put someone else's stuff in your room, then phoned the police that you have stolen property in your room... how nice would that be?
If I broke into your house and put someone else's stuff in your room, then waited until you came home and then smashed all your car windows with baseball bat while sceaming "theif" and your stood by in confused amazement, and then after I got done with that called the cops on you about the stolen property in your room... how nice would that be?
No very nice, and if anyone else tried it, even if you had really stolen the property and put it in your room my actions would still be a crime of their own. MediaDefender are criminals and the people operating those servers can't be so ignorant of the actions not be accountable for them. We might not be able to get the kingpins but at the very least the doers should be arrested and charged. I know slashdot does not like to go after the little guy but MediaDefenders developers, network, and server admins deserve jail time! If my boss asks me to do something illegal I am still obligated to refuse otherwise the law will hold me responsible. Its imporatant that even these little guys get PUNISHED. The only way you stop getting organizations like MediaDefender from being above the law is to make sure nobody will work for them, because no salary they can offer will be worth doing time for!
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for the correction.
Re:Fry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Retaliate is not the word I would choose, but things you can do...
1) Be nice and professional, but write your congressmen, senators and governors and tell them how you feel about the issue.
2) Write the transit providers that provide peering agreements with MediaDefenders service provider. Their service provider and the transit providers that peer with their service provider are supporting their actions indirectly. If their service provider refuses to continue service with Media Defender then they will be forced to move. If other transit providers refuse to peer with their / or a service provider that supports their actions, their service provider will be forced to change their business position or go out of business.
3) MediaDefender is primarily funded by copyright holders, the irony being that the copyrighted works have absolutely no value if there is no demand. If XYZ studio, producer or artist employs the services of MediaDefender, do not purchase their products. Simple.
Re:Fry. (Score:5, Funny)
Kaffee: It was oregano, Dave. It was 10 dollars worth of oregano.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Yeah, but your client thought it was marijuana.
Kaffee: My client's a moron that's not against the law.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee, I have people to answer to just like you do. I'm going to charge him.
Kaffee: With what? Possession of a condiment?
Re:Fry. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In my country (the Netherlands) you cannot sue someone over something that is a crime in itself.
Joe wants to kill John and hires Jack to do it. He pays Jack a million â. Then, Jack does not kill John. This is fraud (or something like that, breach of contract, you name it) and would be punishable if the main act were legal. Killing a person is not legal, thus, Joe does not have a case.
I think... (Score:5, Funny)
Who is more destrictive? (Score:4, Interesting)
I saw its time for a little civil disobediance (Score:3, Interesting)
If MediaDefender is allowed to
1. use Revision3's tracker in an unauthorized mannor
2. DOS them
Then I say we are free to ignore any laws we don't like with regaurd to MediaDefender. Dose anyone know where their offices are? Since they seem so fond of vandalism I say some local Slashdot'ers drop by and do a little painting.
Re:I saw its time for a little civil disobediance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not nearly so despicable as a government that ignores the rule of law for those who curry its favor and provides no legal means for those wronged to secure justice. We'll see what happens with MediaDefender, but I severely doubt anyone will be held to any meaningful degree of responsibility over this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I can't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't DoSing also a Homeland Security issue? Shouldn't their ISP have cut them off when they started doing illegal things like automatically targeting innocent companies with illegal DoS Attacks?
If someone did to MediaDefender what they do to EVERYONE ELSE, they'd be screaming bloody murder!
Finally, what if they DID actually DoS a company that caused someone to be hurt or die. Would they be liable for pre-mediated murder?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In what world is dos'ing a company which leads to someone dying equal pre-meditated murder??? Even doing something to someone which kills them, and is something that was at least likely to kill them, but you are shown to have not intended them to die is only manslaughter. Dos'ing someone which inderectly leads to someones death is nothing of the sort, there is no intent, and you can argue just as easily that who ever you dos'ed is just as responsable for allowing such a thing to lead to someones death. What situation is going to cause this anyhow, are they going to hook a router onto someones pacemaker or something?
While I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and that is the way things -should- be, it isn't in every case.
A few years back, i think in 1999 (give or take a couple years as im not sure) I remember reading an article where someone cracked into a hospitals blackberry management server while on the inside of the hospital network, which he accidentally broke and took down their blackberry communications for a time. He was not only charged with the normal computer trespass laws, but also with some we
Revision 3 is lucky! (Score:5, Funny)
Congress Will Act... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cheers!
Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Explain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to explain? The bottom line is MediaDefender attacked another commercial entity.
If someone throws a stink bomb through a brick & mortar storefront window, forcing the store to close, do you think the police would allow the offender to get off with saying, "oops"?
A Good Defense (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if that now becomes a viable defense. If MD can get in to leave files, so could anyone else
Inexcusable (Score:5, Funny)
injected fake content? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean if i'm hosing legal content, and they come along and inject fake/illegal content then sue me how the hell is that stand up in court?
Re:injected fake content? (Score:4, Interesting)
Full mp3s on their website (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Full mp3s on their website (Score:5, Interesting)
heres a listing of files
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/HBO_Watcher.avi [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/HumanWeapon_Karate_SneakPeak.mov [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/JAY-Z_LIMEWIRE.wmv [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/Kanye_West-Graduation-Stronger.zip [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/MP3_Music_Sponsorship_Presentation.ppt [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/MediaDefenderP2PDemo.exe [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/MediaDefender_one-sheet.pdf [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/MediaDefender_presentation-8_15_07.ppt [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/Sample_p2p_MarketingReport.ppt [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/Sprint%20-%20Parking%20-%20H264.mov [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/Timbaland-The_Way_I_Are.zip [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/jayz_coca_cola.wmv [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/lebron_yall.wmv [mediadefender.com]
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/sampleReport.ppt [mediadefender.com]
heres a screenshot of the folder
http://b.imagehost.org/0325/Image2.jpg [imagehost.org]
and here is a mirror of the folder contents
http://ifile.it/_rcytws3/mediadefender [ifile.it]
Re:Full mp3s on their website (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/MP3_Music_Sponsorship_Presentation.ppt
You will note that these files are "sponsored". Media Defender gets a company to sponsor an MP3 then they put that MP3 on the popular file sharing networks. The MP3 album art is an advertisement for that sponsor instead of the actual art. The Kanye West song on here is sponsored by "Boost".
If you are downloading a Media Defender distributed and corporate-sponsored MP3, then is that corporation paying for my license through their advertising?
MafiaDefender (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Uh (Score:5, Informative)
BitTorrent is a legitimate method of distributing data, no matter what kind of data. It just happens to be a great way to send your entire mp3 collection to 12 friends in very little time and that's why people associate it with piracy and the like.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This does highlight one important point for us. How do we protect our trackers form hosting any old thing?
Re:Uh (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of a BT tracker. Yeah, right.
In Revision3's case, there might have been illegal file sharing occuring - thats only a civil case if memory serves - and certainly MediaDefender's attack was criminal. In the hospital's case, MediaDefender would risk becoming downright murderers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the fuck? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Things I'm fairly sure of. Revision3 had a security hole. MediaDefender saw the security hole, and seeded it with fake files. Revision3 noticed these fake files and disconnected them. As a result, MediaDefender - either due to misconfigured servers or malice - DOSed Revision3.
Not sure if pirates were using the security hole. It would seem a bit pointless given that there are plenty of pr
Re:above the law? (Score:4, Informative)
Nope.
And anyone who wants to look at the "howto" for this stuff, go HERE:
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ccmanual/01ccma.html#F [usdoj.gov].
That's the applicable one.
Since Revision 3 is also in California, they have an open-and-shut case against Media Defender for civil damages.
Please note that vigilantism is _not_ something that justifies breaking US federal or state law. From the POV of Media Defender, the best they can get away with is pleading guilty to conspiracy, especially since they admitted in public that they're engaged in vigilante "net justice"
--
BMO - For Great Justice
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually when that happens, it's because someone tried to save someone else's life or defend his own.
But since this is all about tort and not about saving life and limb, it's more likely for the judge to say to MD that "You
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In practice, this situation didn't come up much and I think most states have dropped it. They leave it to the prosecution's discretion in dropping those charges.
BTW the canonical example is probably assaulting somebody in order to stop/prevent a rape. This might sound like a no-brainer, but what if the would-be r
Re:Mail Servers (Score:5, Informative)
sales@mediadefender.com
info@mediadefender.com
jobs@mediadefender.com
president: try herrera@mediadefender.com, oh@mediadefender.com,
ceo: try randy@mediadefender.com (personal), saaf@mediadefender.com or rsaaf@mediadefender.com
controller: try: rr@mediadefender.com, rousselet@mediadefender.com
parent company: artistdirect (stock ticker: ARTD)
Investor relations: ir@artistdirect.com
Chairman: diamond@artistdirect.com
CEO: try villard@artistdirect.com, dv@artistdirect.com
Auditors: Gumbiner, Savett, Finkel, Fingleson & Rose, Inc
rgreene@gscpa.com (Ronald Greene) http://marketcenter.findlaw.com/scripts/display_profile.pl?id=173844 [findlaw.com]
Have fun.