Slashdot Mirror
MediaDefender Explains Itself
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."
Both government facilities and hospitals both rely on BT for a number of things. The government's idea of a database file is many gigabytes in size. Moving those around is MUCH cheaper and easyer with BT. Hospitals that are affiliated with universities usually do some sort of medical research on-site and also send/receive data to the campus. BT is used a lot with sending around things like DNA maps and decoded genomes; that sort of thing.
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.
I don't think you can use the unauthorized access if it was a public tracker, but i agree that i don't see how a DoS can be legal under ANY circumstance.
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 )?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
While it was publicly accessible, I don't believe it was a public tracker, in that users other than Revision 3 staff should not have been able to upload new torrents to it; unless my understanding of the situation is completely off.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
To increase speed, their tracker would track for any torrent id.
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.
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.
Suse vivo vixi victum reduco is ea id creatura absit decessus a facultas Linux! Dev root, dev root!
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?
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!"