Slashdot Mirror
Flight-Sim Maker Threatens Legal Action Over Reddit Posts Discussing DRM (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Today's controversy begins with a Reddit thread that noted FlightSimLabs' A320 add-on installing "cmdhost.exe" files in the "system32" and "SysWOW64" folders inside the Windows directory. The strange filename and location -- which seems designed to closely match those of actual Windows system files -- made some Reddit users suspicious, especially given FlightSimLabs history of undisclosed installations. FlightSimLabs responded on Facebook last Thursday by saying that the files came from third-party e-commerce service eSellerate and were designed to "reduce the number of product activation issues people were having." This system has been acknowledged in the FlightSimLabs forums in the past, and it apparently passes all major antivirus checks.
The "controversy" over these files might well have died down after that response. But then FlightSimLabs' Simon Kelsey sent a message to the moderators of the flightsim subreddit, gently reminding them of "Reddit's obligation as a publisher... to ensure that any libelous content is taken down as soon as you become aware of it." While ostensibly welcoming "robust fair comment and opinion," the message also warns that "ANY suggestion that our current or future products pose any threat to users is absolutely false and libelous." That warning extends to the company's previous password-extractor controversy, with Kelsey writing, "ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous." "I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this, and I trust that you will take appropriate steps to ensure that no such libel is posted," Kelsey concludes. A follow-up message from Kelsey reiterated the same points and noted that FlightSimLabs has reported specific comments and demanded they be removed as libelous.
The "controversy" over these files might well have died down after that response. But then FlightSimLabs' Simon Kelsey sent a message to the moderators of the flightsim subreddit, gently reminding them of "Reddit's obligation as a publisher... to ensure that any libelous content is taken down as soon as you become aware of it." While ostensibly welcoming "robust fair comment and opinion," the message also warns that "ANY suggestion that our current or future products pose any threat to users is absolutely false and libelous." That warning extends to the company's previous password-extractor controversy, with Kelsey writing, "ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous." "I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this, and I trust that you will take appropriate steps to ensure that no such libel is posted," Kelsey concludes. A follow-up message from Kelsey reiterated the same points and noted that FlightSimLabs has reported specific comments and demanded they be removed as libelous.
Somebody send that pompous jackass this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Even if these are executables are benign now, they have names that might cause folks to ignore them and their activities. So, we start off with names for their "security" binaries that those who are more cautions about such things might describe as being already at least somewhat deceitful.
And who knows what additional functionality might be added in an update?
Of course, I am sure that no software publisher would ever do anything malign like I might have unintentionally implied. I am sure that FlightSimLabs is a completely honorable company with nothing but the best interests and well being of their customers in heart and mind. So, this is all just a ridiculous hypothetical.
Check your premises.
I know that DCMA and Safe Harbor laws allowed copyright holders (and trademark holders) to get content taken down. But I thought that libel was something that forum sites were protected against. Otherwise, why is Musk/Trump/Hillary not getting every anti-Tesla/pro-Muller/anti-PrivateEmailServer story taken down from /.?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
... "please do not buy our product".
Got it. Won't touch this with a 100M pole.
Great marketing there, guys.
Is that you?
I guess the reasonable way to handle this would be a sticky post at the top and make people click through to see the detail.
sound good?
... the message also warns that "ANY suggestion that our current or future products pose any threat to users is absolutely false and libelous."
I wasn't aware that FlightSimLabs could see into the future.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous
Screenshots were produced by an employee of the company depicting the compromised accounts of an individual. Not only makes this the claim not a libel but someone at the company is apparently guilty of CFAA violation.
Ezekiel 23:20
"I would hate for lawyers to have to get involved in this"
Translation: "I'm pretty sure I don't have a case here, so let me try intimidation first".
I haven’t been keeping up with flight sims for years but if I come back I’ll keep them on my don’t buy list.
> You do not make legal threats on the Internet. It should be rule 71. Or 86.
You don't make threats against free speech unless you have something to hide.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
IANAL but Reddit is skating near Defamation per se.
Doesn't defamation require fame, not infamy?
file name looks like an virus if any thing they need to make so the #1 link of google is says that it's safe and it's part of the app. And also give easy to read detail on why it's named that and not say FlightSimLabsdrm.exe
Comment removed based on user account deletion
good-faith security research is an DCMA exemption! so they should take it court.
I kind of feel sorry for them. I've worked as an IT professional for small companies for my entire career so far, so I can understand the frustration that could come from rampant piracy, particularly for such a nice market company that probably doesn't have much in it's bottom line to begin with. Whilst it doesn't entirely excuse any bullying tactics they did against Reddit.. given some of the vitriol (and I'd even go so far as to say "rabid" for some comments I've seen) is so excessive that I could understand how upset it could make them.
Keeping in mind that even in the "furore" from back in February, whilst they did distribute malware in one of their packs, my recollection is that it was explicitly designed to only activate for a single specific user that had been rampantly pirating and distributing their software. I can understand how frustrated that piracy could make them, particularly if they were unable to identify the culprit any other way. Let's face it.. law enforcement agencies like the FBI (or their country's equivalent) likely wouldn't make piracy done against small companies a major priority. I'm not saying that it wasn't ill advised, but it seems like all too many people are using the instances to jump on a "let's insult them / they're the bad guys" bandwagon.
FlightSimLabs (FSLabs) admitted to distributing remote hacking tools, intending to use them illegally. Any company who requires normal application software to be installed with admin rights is run by morons and anyone who actually installs such outside a VM is likewise. Especially after the company by their own admission proved themselves to be a criminal organization as well as criminally incompetent.
"ANY suggestion that any user's data was compromised during the events of February is entirely false and therefore libelous."
The fact that the filenames were confusingly similar to Windows filenames is not in dispute.
The fact that this confusion caused the users to believe that their data may have been compromised does not seem to be in dispute.
The fact that the users' data that is held in their brains - that is, what they reasonably believed to be true (i.e. that their computer was compromised when [if the publisher is to be believed] it was was in fact not true) - was compromised does not appear to be in dispute.
So, even if the users' data on their computers was not compromised, the events led them to reasonably believe false things, which may constitute a compromise of the data in the users' wetware.
In other words, even if they are not victims of a computer hack, they are victims of social engineering or perhaps more charitably victims of the publisher's reckless disregard for how a reasonable person would perceive their actions.
I don't know the law in such cases so I am not in a position to recommend anyone sue over this, but it might be worth asking a competent licensed attorney for advice.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ah, yes.. Triggered are we?
I think a lot of people need a crash course on what the 1st amendment (or any right recognized by the constitution) means and doesn't mean and what legal "rights" they protect and from whom..
The US Constitution is pretty clear that it is designed to describe how government works (specifically the federal government) and the bill of rights is designed to tell the government what it may NOT do, what rights the government may not limit.
The important thing to realize is the 1st Amendment only says the government may not infringe your right to speak what you like, publish what you choose or practice your religion. So if Reddit wishes to take your posts down, they may, as they are not the government. Now if Reddit was government owned or the government was ordering Reddit to remove or censor posts, THEN there would be an issue.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
This is the company that installs password loggers on their customer's computers. Why anyone would still do business with them is beyond me.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
no, it distinctly reads as "please rape my company. burn it to the ground, internet. You don't have the LULZ, 4chan!"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And now conversations of your DRM are not just on reddit, they're all over the net. Welcome to the Streisand effect, guys.
Ah, the proprietary software world's version of a security audit.
It obfuscates itself like malware, smells like malware, but the suspected attacker says it's not malware. Therefore: it's safe and doesn't work against the user's interests!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Don't forget to tell them how you feel.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
He's not triggered, he's just some shill trying to sow canned discord. He's probably not even American.
It may not be libel even if it isn't true, if it's stated as an opinion. E.g., were I to claim that "I feel the would would be improved if Flight-Sim went bankrupt.", then even if I were to not actually feel that way, it still wouldn't be libel. OTOH, were I to state "The world would be improved if Flight-Sim went bankrupt." I might need to prove that it was a true statement to avoid libel. Or at least I might be libel for libel if they could prove it was a false statement.
OTOH, IANAL, so take these comments with the appropriate amount of salt. But that's the way I understand the law.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Do not say "I think you are an alcoholic piece of shit and should go fuck yourself.".
Say: *"America* thinks you are a unit of excrement and should go fornicate with yourself, *anonymous sources report*."
It is saying the exact same thing, but curiously, this is OK in US society bot the former is not.
I do not know why, as apparently, I am not from this planet.
Why would they name their files to so closely match official Windows files KNOWING the first thoughts anyone will have will be along the lines of trojan, malware, virus ?
Why not name the damn things to reflect the program that installed them ?
Windows didn't make this company do this.
Yeah, but then DRM will refuse to run.
Please define "eurotrash" so everyone can point at you and go "see folks, this is how not to be a human being".
Well, time to contribute more to the Open Source FlightGear and put these jackasses out of business.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
...you can prove anything, so STFU or we will sue.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
So you agree with stiffing free speech? Free speech which alerts consumers to corrupt corporations spying on them at that? You, you are a prime example of eurotrash.
It's still generally the best defense, however... and probably 999 times out of a thousand would be entirely sufficient.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Various tools exist to allow you to create read only versions of your system.
Various OSes already implement that by default. Have a look at FreeBSD's runlevels.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
That's not what the 1st Amendment means. If it did mean that, then there would be no libel laws as they'd have been struck down as unconstitutional over a century ago.
Opinion doesn't necessarily meet the criterion of being potentially libellous, as you demonstrated. What you said doesn't even suggest anything negative. You could be saying "I hope company X goes out of business because they are a rival". If you said "In my opinion, all products by company X are terrible" it would be a bit more comparable.
If anyone else is interested in the password-extraction incident alluded to in the summary, here's a writeup: https://medium.com/@lukegorman... Outstanding!
Skirting, not skirting near, surely, as skirting already implies proximity?
FreeBSD doesn't have runlevels, which are a System V concept.
You're probably thinking of securelevels.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
https://forums.flightsimlabs.c...
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Why is it a good idea for the government to protect free speech and allow petitions for redress of grievances, but it's not a good idea for reddit?
Why shouldn't reddit follow the good idea that the constitution laid down for government?
The question I'm dealing with is what is legal for Reddit to do. You want to ask if it's right or not. The two questions are not the same. The constitution only addresses what is legal, each individual must decide for themselves what's right. Given it's up to you and me to decide if it was right or wrong and we are free to decide differently, I see no point in debating the moral or ethical. It is legal for non-government entities to censor speech in any way they choose so Reddit is on legal ground if they choose to take down the posts. Debating anything more, is pointless.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Libel laws are perfectly constitutional. There is no conflict with the First Amendment. By the First, there can be no law restricting your freedom of speech. And Libel laws do NOT restrict you from saying anything you want. BUT the Libel laws do allow for someone to sue for damages caused by *what* you are free to say.
Get the difference? It is subtle, but it is there.
Freedom of speech is a Western cultural concept that goes much farther than the government.
I'm not going to disagree with the cultural concept, but I was pointing out the legal constructs in play. The first amendment basically is saying that each person is allowed to decide for themselves what is right and is free to express their opinion and their reasons for believing what they believe. The government may not (and indeed, couldn't if it tried) control this freedom. Both Reddit and the author have the same rights here, the government may not get involved. Reddit is free to remove posts as they see fit and authors are free to publish (at their own expense) as they see fit, legally.
Now if you wish to make a moral judgment about what should happen here based on your belief in "freedom of speech" then have at it. If you don't like Reddit's policy or actions, feel free to put up your own site with different policies. Up to you. However, Reddit is free to do with their site what they wish to do and are not legally constrained by the 1st Amendment in any way to leave posts up, any more than a religious discussion board is required to leave the antitheists' posts where they can be seen if they choose to erase them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Burden of proof rests with the defendant? So they're supposed to testify against themselves? Glad he's not a lawyer!
-Myke
You're probably thinking of securelevels. /quote
I stand corrected.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
To be fair, every major proprietor has distributed malware and people still do business with them (proprietary software is often malware) and even people who ought to know better still choose proprietary software despite that proprietary software is inherently untrustworthy. I agree with your sentiment that one shouldn't choose to be abused but I think the fix isn't to focus on a particular proprietor or even a set of proprietors, but to see that the system of non-freedom is the real problem.
Digital Citizen
Again, what does this have to do with the word "eurotrash"?
I would expect eurotrash to comprehend.