Slashdot Mirror
Cloud Firm MediaFire Flags Malware Samples For DMCA Violation, Bans Researcher
chicksdaddy writes "A malicious software researcher finds herself in company with First Lady Michelle Obama and science fiction author Neil Gaiman: booted from the Web by hard-headed copyright protection algorithms, according to the Naked Security blog. Mila Parkour, a researcher who operates the Contagio malware blog, said on Thursday that she was kicked off the cloud based hosting service Mediafire, after three files she hosted there were flagged for copyright violations and ordered removed under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The files included two compressed and encrypted malicious PDF files linked to Contagio blog posts from 2010. The firm responsible for filing the DMCA take down notice was Paris-based LeakID, which describes itself as a 'digital agency ...founded by experts from the world of radio, television and Internet.' LeakID markets 'Leaksearch,' an 'ownership tool that will alert you within seconds if your content...is being pirated.' According to Parkour, Mediafire received a notice from LeakID claiming that it was 'acting on behalf of the copyright owners,' though the owners and presumed copyrighted content weren't named."
Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
In the absence of any real penalty in the laws for filing false takedown notices, it seems to me that everyone should simply start filing takedown notices on every single thing they find on the net anywhere until the hosting companies realize that it is a total mess, and start demanding more than an automated statement, something like proof, a statement of the work it is supposed to actually violate, etc.
Clearly if these files were compressed and encrypted, any hash or content match was random, and virtually any executable code or encrypted file might trigger a match with whatever engine these take-down artists were using.
Perhaps there is a business opportunity to set up a company in East Timor or some such place that would automatically file a counter notices (putback), which then requires the takedown artists to file suit, or shut up. This puts the cost burden back on them, and at worst case, an improperly accused person has a ten day interruption of availability.
As long as the hollywood darlings are in office I see no chance of this ever being corrected via legislation. The best bet is to get it to topple over of its own weight.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Charge these organizations a nuisance fee for false positives. Problem solved.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
LeakID (and/or their client) just claimed copyright over malware. Not just any malware, but targeted malware against a corporation for the intent of theft of intellectual property and unauthorized access of computer systems.
IANAL, but LeakID should then be held liable and responsible for their "copyrighted works".
Shouldn't this be considered a third strike for the whole concept of automated DMCA takedowns?
soon anti spyware apps can be banded under DMCA
I want to see more "content bots" arbitrarily taking down all sorts of high-profile legitimate streaming, youtube postings, government PSAs and legitimate licensed content. Anything to make the problem more visible.
I could even dream that it would spark some serious conversations around how ridiculous it is, but I'm too cynical today.
(captcha: Sentinel)
One takedown at a time.
Next Licensing, tickets and penalties
I wonder if this isn't a good thing to have happening as frequently as it is and to highly visible victims. Maybe some laws will get passed/changed to make automatic detection/takedown illegal. It is hard to send a computer program to jail for fraudulent takedown notices, but if a person or lawyer (are they people?) signs the takedown notices then there is someone to blame and send to jail for fraud.
I guess I don't actually believe what I wrote because I am too cynical of our current corporation/politician love fest, but one can dream!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
So it's pretty darn obvious she's doing a lot of dangerous, crazy stuff. They were right to ban her.
#DeleteChrome
I hope that is Paris, Texas, since a company in Paris, France has fuck all to do with the United States' DMCA laws.
Considering that her husband's political policies are directly responsible for sh*t like this happening. (If you don't believe me, then why did he appoint a former RIAA chief to his cabinet?)
She was kicked off...
No worries, she will grab on to the horizontal bar, swing 360 degrees around it then flip, somersault and land with a graceful roll.
The fact that the files were virus by definition (self-replicating) should void any DMCA rules. That's kind of like pissing from a roof top and charging everyone below for window cleaning services, even if no one wanted it.
-------- -1 for SUCK IT!
He must have torrented AVG.
Gaiman and Obama had their live streams interrupted interrupted by brainless content robots. This guy was kicked off a service by his fellow carbon-based units after some content violations were flagged. Except for the fact that it's all part of the IP wars, there's no parallel at all.
...file suit against the malware authors and then subpoena LeakID's records to identify them.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Copyright is generally assumed for any work that benefits society. Can you even claim copyright on something like a virus, or other piece of maulware? I wonder if there's a legal argument that Maulware is profane, and not eligible to begin with. Might be interesting if this line of reasoning is ever pursued.
This signature intentionally left blank.
Tis just yet another example in the ever growing exhibit hall of reasons not to trust the cloud. If you do not want to bother setting up your own IT services, you should be hiring somebody to set them up for you. The best option is to do it yourself (not rocket science these days) and maintain total control.
There are lots more sob stories coming regarding people and their misplaced trust in cloud services.
Until there are greater protections for my rights and until the legal system sorts out the details of how I am going to "legally" consume media, the excitement about "the Cloud" will lead me to store my information in "the Drive."
get your money back and use a different site to store your files
There is a always someone that will pay attention if you ask for your money back
...just stop the attacks and prodce those returns? Asking too much?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If my company got a DMCA takedown notice that was "on behalf of someone" then we'd tell them to "shove it up their ass." I don't know why mediafire would obey such idiotic semi-anonymous requests other than to look better than megaupload from a legal perspective.
without any recourse is going to get bitten sooner or later. Anything stored on a third party's machine, whether it's Mediafire, google docs, your yahoo email account, flickr, your bitcoins stored in someone else's "bank", or your Diablo 3 account with some virtual sword that you bought with real money, can go bye-bye just like that. Proceed accordingly.
The files included two compressed and encrypted malicious PDF files linked to Contagio blog posts from 2010.
So, how did LeakID determine these were copyright violations? They'd have to be breaking encryption on servers' contents and that would be a DMCA violation as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
With more advanced DMCA seeking software, it will notice that certian HUmnas have genetics very sinilar to those genetics that universities and companies have patented.
The genetics while different, will be similar enough to cause the DMCA software to 'delete' the infringer immediately and without appeal. As it goes on, the software will notice all DNA is similar and based upon the samer building blocks and decide that every living thing infringes on the basic patents of those companies and universities and begin deleting all life...
And that's how Skynet was born, not as a defense program, but as a copyright and patent protection program...
JasonAW3
Would one of our French colleagues care to append his wikipedia page please....
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herv%C3%A9_Lemaire[wikipedia] :)
I'm presuming it's the software that's malicious, not the researcher.
I know that in all cases, the threat of DMCA action is really what is at stake here. The DMCA is a damaging piece of one-sided legislation that no only hurts people in the US but all over the planet.
It's time this is brought before a judge I think. What is stopping this from happening?
C'mon Google. You've got a dog in this race too!
The files were said to be encrypted, so how could anyone identify the files as a violation of copyright? Either someone encrypted the file with a Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring, or LeakID is throwing false positives in an effort to run up the tab on its customers. I strongly suggest anyone subscribing to LeakID's service seriously review their billing statements.
the summary is a quote from another source and therefore someone else's content stolen and distributed for free on slashdot to anyone who likes the headline.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
If the specific content (a URL) and owner of that content were not identified in the DMCA claim, then it was not a valid claim and the provider had no business removing any content or access.
> LeakID claiming that it was 'acting on behalf of the copyright owners,' though
> the owners and presumed copyrighted content weren't named."
I thought the law required names and addresses of owners.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
start killing the laws and the politics?
ie. start contributing to the free internet and start boykotting the idiots?