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."
How is any of this legal? Injecting content, false or otherwise? DOS'ing a server? They're fighting fire with fire.
--why?
Shouldn't admitting to a DOS attack in and of itself get people arrested? Who cares what the site they are attacking contains? They are committing acts of digital vandalism. Jail, please.
Even if this story makes it to the mainstream media, its not going to get much airtime. Especially since no Joe User knows what Revision3 is. There just wouldn't be enough outrage to make it a worthwile story anywhere except the geek community.
If you distribute baking soda (sell/give away/etc) and tell people that its crack, you can be arrested and held to the same liabilities as if you had actually sold crack..in fact..some states have laws to where you'd get charged for selling it, but not possession. Some will tack on an extra charge on top of possession/sale.
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.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
...that Air Traffic Control using BitTorrent to distribute approaches is quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard come out of this whole mess.
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.
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?
I can't prove it but I heard that The Planet was hosting an open tracker. We all heard what happened to them... http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/01/1715247
Dear Public, Media, and our friends Revision3: We are very, very sorry. Our servers did bad, bad things to Revision 3 and WE HAD NO CLUE!! Please, take mercy on us. Sure, our severs were snooping around their legitimate BitTorrent tracker seeding maliciously. BUT WE HAD NO CLUE! Sure, our servers recently assraped their severs into oblivion, BUT WE HAD NO CLUE!! This is all one big, misfortune event. Our Friends at revision3, we are really, really, REALLY sorry. Please, we plead ignorance. Our innocent servers honestly thought you were running an pirate operation. Please accept our appologies (Pretty please! with a cherry ontop :))) We PROMISE we will NEVER EVER NEVER do it again.
Sincerely,
MediaDefender
Someone, someday, will find a legitimate use for a torrent tracker in an hospital. But simply imagine an illegal tracker run by a rogue employee. MediaDefender uses it for its tactics. The sysadmin notices the tracker, and shuts it down. MediaDefender's Stalin organ goes amok and shuts down the entire hospital network.
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.
Also, we made this cake. For you. Please, don't ask about the teeth marks.
"Our servers did it" definitely induced a head-scratch from me. Why on earth would they have their servers set up to automatically commit serious crimes just because a server was public and then restricted access? That doesn't make sense, even from their twisted viewpoint..
After browsing their site, I found this open dir: http://www.mediadefender.com/marketing/ . How is spreading an mp3 of Kanye West or Timbaland legal? Should they now DoS their own webserver?
You know, for a while I was kinda suspecting they'll play the "we're dumb, and it was an accident" card. You know, say that it was some poorly configured system that did the injecting, and it accidentally got stuck connecting in a loop instead of once a day. Present it as some bug they didn't even know about. Blame some techie. You know, anything _except_ say "yep, it was premeditated all along to break the law." Go for criminal negligence.
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Sheesh.
I thought filesharing=communism.
There's even a poster.
Scientists now say the future will be far more futuristic than originally believed
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
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!"
That doesn't answer the question, though.
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.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.