Ortega-Starfire writes "We've previously discussed the subject of MediaDefender setting up a site to catch movie pirates. Ars Technica covers the response from MediaDefender, which basically states the entire thing was a mistake and was only an internal site they forgot to password protect, and that they were not using this with the MPAA. The article asks: 'If this is true, why did MediaDefender immediately remove all contact information from the whois registry for the domain? Saaf said that after everything hit the fan, the company decided to take everything on the site down because it was afraid of a hacker attack or "people sending us spam." Yes, spam. The MPAA's Elizabeth Kaltman also chimed in to say that they had no involvement with MiiVi: "The MediaDefender story is false. We have no relationship with that company at all," she told Ars.'"
Interestingly, the word "bullshit" does not derive from the excrement of a cow. Etymologically, it derives from the word "bull", or some homophone of that, which people uttered to mean what we now mean when we say bullshit. Think, "bullocks" or something. "That's bull!" Then, at a time when people also used the word "shit" to mean a similar thing, people began concatenating the two words, for effect, and it became very popular indeed.
That is true. That is not bullshit -- nor bull, nor shit.
Hmm. I'm only slightly kidding. Sociopath is probably not the right diagnosis for them. I'm not a psychaitrist or psychologist, and don't have enough access to their records or their personal behavior, especially that of the notoriously secretive Cheny in his "undisclosed locations" to make such a diagnosis. But at the level of delusion they're operating at, can you consider them sane?
Also, make no mistake, people who are profoundly insane have existed at the highest levels of power throughout history. Ronal
A slightly used bridge in Brooklyn. I'll sell it cheap, I promise.
As PT Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute. Sadly for the MPAA, this got covered too widely and we aren't all suckers. I certainly hope some Attorney General somewhere is looking at this.
If MediaDefender have an "internal" website, password protected or otherwise, with copyright content and the MPAA swears blind that they have no working relationship with MediaDefender, can we we to expect the MPAA to charge MediaDefender with copyright theft?
We can only hope, then when MediaDefender gets slaughtered [or ties up the MPAA], other companies will think twice about helping the MAFIAA to break the law.
I doubt anything will happen to MediaDefenders. Same reason nothing will happen to the Bush twins for making a CD for their father [slashdot.org]. Selective prosecution [wikipedia.org] is allowed as long as you aren't selecting on something not allowed by law: race, religion, etc.
Honestly I don't think they expect anyone to believe them. What probably happened is they thought that they had a great idea and didn't bother to run it through the legal dept. (if they even have one) and realized now that they really screwed the pooch. So they issue a statement like this to hopefully stave off the eventual and inevitable legal actions that are going take place.
What probably happened is they thought that they had a great idea and didn't bother to run it through the legal dept.
Well I do not really know... when Sony made available their Rootkit encumbered CDs I am sure they had it very well planned, of course when the thinks go bad the corporations just wash their hands. I think in this case is even worst as such corporations (Sony, Universial, BMG, etc) are hiding behind the RIAA name *and* then paying companies such as Media Defender to do the dirty work...
What probably happened is they thought that they had a great idea and didn't bother to run it through the legal dept.
Advice a bunch of us received form an employment lawyer regarding (ex)substance abusers and the American with Disabilities Act:
What would you rather have: sitting across the table from the drunk being sued for at most $50,000 for not hiring him; or sitting at the same table because he was drunk or high and killed a little kid while on the job. Your choice.
That situation is hardly comparable to "program that searches users hard drives."
Legalities aside, this should very well be a public relations nightmare for them, and so of course they want to distance themselves. The fact they're likely to get away with it only irks me slightly less than the original story.
If anyone has a record of the site Anywhere could they please email, or host so that it can be viewed by the community if this falls into obscurity through lack of evidence then nothing will ever get done.
PLEASE
Or their downloader application that was in fact a trojan acting as spyware. Imagine the can of worms THAT would be if disassembled. Seeing servers contacted and what it reported, what user information it might have got from the Windows registry for more than the IP address (must have been a reason they wanted to run it locally), etc. No wonder they started to sweat.
Saaf said that after everything hit the fan, the company decided to take everything on the site down because it was afraid of a hacker attack or "people sending us spam."
Thank god Google doesn't have the balls (or rather lack of them) when running YouTube!
Either MediaDefender is among the most spineless IT organizations I've ever been unfortunate to hear of, or they're big fat liars.
Actually, given the sequence of events, it seems they're both.
I wish I had saved some screenshots of the site while it was up and I could access it. Is there any caches? It was advertised even more heavily than The Pirate Bay. I'll leave it at that.:-p Speaking of which, it would be very interesting if someone have still saved their download client / spyware. Please please let someone have it and be skilled enough to disassemble what it did!
If you want proof, look at the quality of their backpedaling.
...the entire thing was a mistake and was only an internal site they forgot to password protect...
Riiiiiight. I'd love to use that the next time the RIAA comes knocking. "Honest! I thought that P2P application was only on my local net. I forgot to password protect it."
Notice how that works for them but would be insufficient for us.
Anyone consider that they set it up on purpose with the intention of getting caught and sued for the overall goal of having nobody trust new sharing sites? Then they knock out the good old current ones and everyone's too scared to go anywhere else. Yes I know that's ridiculous and will never work but I think that's what they're doing.
The site's Whois history [domaintools.com] information is available from a site that archives that info. It costs $15 per month.
They show Whois changes on 2007-03-11,
2007-07-03,
2007-07-04,
2007-07-05, and
2007-07-06. So if anybody needs to prove anything, the truth is out there.
miivi.net info is still available on whois. The contact points to a miivi.com email address and the same snail-mail address: Registrant:
Miivi, inc.
2461 santa monica blvd
d-520
santa monica, CA 90404
US
310-954-3300
Administrative Contact:
Chang, Jonathan info@miivi.com
2461 santa monica blvd
d-520
santa monica, CA 90404
US
310-954-3300
Technical Contact:
Chang, Jonathan info@miivi.com
2461 santa monica blvd
This is the sort of behaviour you can expect from people who believe that the ends justify the means. I've noticed similar thinking in a few authority figures, too...
Strangely enough I got there when going to mediadefender.com, then P2P Marketing (LOL), and then "Successful campaigns".:-S
What a weird name for an FTP though. Note this though:
In addition to anti-piracy solutions, MediaDefender also offers a Leak Alert service. Our industry leading Leak Team scours Newsgroups, Usenet, and BitTorrent sites to see what cracked/pirated content has most recently leaked. Upon discovery, MediaDefender will download the leak and either send it or provide a secure ftp login for customers to sample the pirated material.
Maybe it's that FTP? But why would it be linked to like that on their site?
I belive they only host clips there or something (???), but why would they link to that as "Successful campaigns" if it's the FTP... It's just material they leeched of some Usenet place, perhaps to later give their customer (movie company, whatever) a password to their FTP and show "look what we found, we're doing our job!". But a "successful campaign"? Eehh... I think it's also a funny way of maintaining customer relationships too.:-)
Interesting that the domain mivii.com [mivii.com] (not miivi.com) redirects to firstload.de, which seems to be a service very similar to the now defunkt miivi.com, except in German. You download their client software which is proported to "speed up downloads", while they offer terabytes of movies, games, software, music and more.
Firstload.de has been online since October 2005, it's registered to "Verimount FZE LLC" which seems to have no connection to MediaDefender or any other such anti-p2p company. Perhaps the purpose of MediaDefender's miivi.com had something to do with firstload.de? A phishing scheme in progress? miivi and mivii would be easy to confuse...
"MediaDefender was working on an internal project that involved video and didn't realize that people would be trying to go to it and so we didn't password-protect the site," Saaf said. "It was just an oversight from that perspective. This was not an entrapment site, and we were not working with the MPAA on it. In fact, the MPAA didn't even know about it."
So let me get that right. They register a short catchy domain name, for that "internal-only project", host the site on that domain, a site that loudly advertises full free movie downloads.. and they didn't expect anyone to come by!
Imagine their shocked faces when one morning they checked the logs and saw hundreds of people from outside visiting their site! Surprise! And so, what they did? Nothing, they left it running.. that is, until someone wrote the investigation of who's behind the site.
So what was that internal project about anyway? Was it movie server for them to watch movies during lunch breaks? Isn't this violating copyrights in some sort? And why would they produce an application that scans your harddrive and reports media files back to mothership. I mean, do they SO lack control of their own employees?
Bottom line is: jesus, they aren't even TRYING to fool us. Idiots.
Bottom line is: jesus, they aren't even TRYING to fool us. Idiots.
Which indicates (as others have said here) that this outfit is either a. run by fools or b. into something a bit more devious. Personally, given the caliber of their employers, I'd vote for the latter.
Which indicates (as others have said here) that this outfit is either a. run by fools or b. into something a bit more devious. Personally, given the caliber of their employers, I'd vote for the latter.
What bothers me, they obviously have no problem with this idea, and they may try again (but covering their tracks better). I wonder how they'll use the collected evidence in court that way though.
There's something wrong when you offer "full movie downloads!" on your site, and just checking it out constitutes a
1. The company (Media Defender) was offering a program containing spyware. 2. The alleged available films where uploaded by them, hence *they* where committing the crime (illegally distributing copyrighted content... unless they had the right to do it).
Just because something is made law does not mean that the problem of whether it is a "moral" thing to do suddenly disappears.
I mean, just slavery and women's rights are pretty obvious examples (to most) of laws that were morally wrong, but still the law of the land -- it didn't suddenly become wrong when the law was changed, it was always wrong, but the law was a bad law.
As far as comparing this situation to honeypots in the security realm -- that's utterly hilarious. Crackers steal data, deface web pages
It is the theft of a service. Just because you're copying digital bits instead of stealing a physical disc does not mean the nature of the crime has changed.
Not even. It would be a service if it was something that isn't simply consumed... like cleaning my house, or shoveling my driveway. This is simply creating a copy of some data.
You are taking the property (intellectual or physical) of someone else against their wishes; that is theft.
Nope. Again, it is simply copying some data -- if it were being taken,
This agreement is, of course, implicit, but it is the basic tenet of a capitalistic-- or, indeed, any barter-based-- society; unless the product is EXPLICITLY provided free of charge, you are assumed to have to pay for it.
I've not seen any signs explicitly saying that air is free, but it is. I think you'll find that everything that is for sale has an explicit price attached, rather than the other way round. It seems like you're using a circular argument here: we say that it's stealing because "we" defin
No, they're more than welcome to do that... nobody here is up in arms about someone running a honeypot. That's pretty basic technique in these parts. Most of us here also know better than to download an illegal torrent from any old Web site anyway, and certainly wouldn't install a proprietary download program. What is wrong about their action is the same as what was wrong with the Sony rootkit. They downloaded and installed a client application without informing the user as to its full capabilities. If it
So when various companies set up honeypots to catch crackers, that's cool.
But the MPAA sets up a honeypot to catch thieves, that's bad?
What did this have to do with theives? This was a (very poor) attempt to catch people copying specific bits. Copying bits from one place to another has nothing to do with theft...
And don't moralize to me about "sharing" of content.
"Don't moralize to me..." (Insert moralizing to reader right after)
See any irony here? Mmmhmm...
The law of the land says you can't do it. Until the law is changed, that's the way it is.
Yes, and the law is ALWAYS morally sound, of course. Business interests would NEVER enter into it.
Nope, that's still not theft, it's infringement, fraud if you're angry, piracy if you're Jack Sparrow. Theft is a completely different crime and calling infringement theft is like calling kidnapping rape. They're both bad but they're still not the same thing.
You smell something? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is true. That is not bullshit -- nor bull, nor shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But at the level of delusion they're operating at, can you consider them sane?
Also, make no mistake, people who are profoundly insane have existed at the highest levels of power throughout history. Ronal
For Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
As PT Barnum said, there is a sucker born every minute. Sadly for the MPAA, this got covered too widely and we aren't all suckers. I certainly hope some Attorney General somewhere is looking at this.
playing that card are we? (Score:3, Funny)
Next victim - MediaDefender (Score:5, Interesting)
Something fishy here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Riiiiiight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I do not really know... when Sony made available their Rootkit encumbered CDs I am sure they had it very well planned, of course when the thinks go bad the corporations just wash their hands. I think in this case is even worst as such corporations (Sony, Universial, BMG, etc) are hiding behind the RIAA name *and* then paying companies such as Media Defender to do the dirty work...
Beautif
Legal Dept.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Advice a bunch of us received form an employment lawyer regarding (ex)substance abusers and the American with Disabilities Act:
What would you rather have: sitting across the table from the drunk being sued for at most $50,000 for not hiring him; or sitting at the same table because he was drunk or high and killed a little kid while on the job. Your choice.
Legal departments only gives legal
Re: (Score:2)
Legalities aside, this should very well be a public relations nightmare for them, and so of course they want to distance themselves. The fact they're likely to get away with it only irks me slightly less than the original story.
Would LOVE to have a look at the cache/source (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
One thing is for sure... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank god Google doesn't have the balls (or rather lack of them) when running YouTube!
Either MediaDefender is among the most spineless IT organizations I've ever been unfortunate to hear of, or they're big fat liars.
Actually, given the sequence of events, it seems they're both.
I wish I had saved some screenshots of the site while it was up and I could access it. Is there any caches? It was advertised even more heavily than The Pirate Bay. I'll leave it at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Suddenly an image formed in my mind: Thousands of netizens gathering and yelling "HACK POWER!".
Companies have more power than citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want proof, look at the quality of their backpedaling.
Riiiiiight. I'd love to use that the next time the RIAA comes knocking. "Honest! I thought that P2P application was only on my local net. I forgot to password protect it."
Notice how that works for them but would be insufficient for us.
the REAL conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Whois history is available, for a price. (Score:5, Informative)
The site's Whois history [domaintools.com] information is available from a site that archives that info. It costs $15 per month.
They show Whois changes on 2007-03-11, 2007-07-03, 2007-07-04, 2007-07-05, and 2007-07-06. So if anybody needs to prove anything, the truth is out there.
miivi.net info still available (Score:2, Informative)
Registrant:
Miivi, inc.
2461 santa monica blvd
d-520
santa monica, CA 90404
US
310-954-3300
Administrative Contact:
Chang, Jonathan info@miivi.com
2461 santa monica blvd
d-520
santa monica, CA 90404
US
310-954-3300
Technical Contact:
Chang, Jonathan info@miivi.com
2461 santa monica blvd
"flexible" ethics (Score:2)
Haha... (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF? Hacker challenge!
Strangely enough I got there when going to mediadefender.com, then P2P Marketing (LOL), and then "Successful campaigns".
What a weird name for an FTP though. Note this though:
Maybe it's that FTP? But why would it be linked to like that on their site?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it really could be an FTP of warez? Haha.
mivii.com -- firstload.de? (Score:5, Informative)
Firstload.de has been online since October 2005, it's registered to "Verimount FZE LLC" which seems to have no connection to MediaDefender or any other such anti-p2p company. Perhaps the purpose of MediaDefender's miivi.com had something to do with firstload.de? A phishing scheme in progress? miivi and mivii would be easy to confuse...
I leave the speculation to you.
Re: (Score:2)
emails (Score:2)
Response and analysis (Score:5, Insightful)
"MediaDefender was working on an internal project that involved video and didn't realize that people would be trying to go to it and so we didn't password-protect the site," Saaf said. "It was just an oversight from that perspective. This was not an entrapment site, and we were not working with the MPAA on it. In fact, the MPAA didn't even know about it."
So let me get that right. They register a short catchy domain name, for that "internal-only project", host the site on that domain, a site that loudly advertises full free movie downloads.. and they didn't expect anyone to come by!
Imagine their shocked faces when one morning they checked the logs and saw hundreds of people from outside visiting their site! Surprise! And so, what they did? Nothing, they left it running.. that is, until someone wrote the investigation of who's behind the site.
So what was that internal project about anyway? Was it movie server for them to watch movies during lunch breaks? Isn't this violating copyrights in some sort? And why would they produce an application that scans your harddrive and reports media files back to mothership. I mean, do they SO lack control of their own employees?
Bottom line is: jesus, they aren't even TRYING to fool us. Idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Which indicates (as others have said here) that this outfit is either a. run by fools or b. into something a bit more devious. Personally, given the caliber of their employers, I'd vote for the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
What bothers me, they obviously have no problem with this idea, and they may try again (but covering their tracks better). I wonder how they'll use the collected evidence in court that way though.
There's something wrong when you offer "full movie downloads!" on your site, and just checking it out constitutes a
No Business Dealings (Score:2)
OK folks, you heard it from the MPAA, they have no business dealings with these people AT ALL. Does this hold up to scrutiny of fact?
Internal illegal sharing site ? (Score:2)
Actually, STOP P2P and piracy and they'll wonder (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, stop going to the source.
I say lets declare an embargo on the **AAs products for three months.
They'll be SCREAMING for us to go out and buy their shit...
Completely Reasonable Explanation (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm..
"And we're not even an IT company!" (throws down smoke bomb, the smoke clears)
"Look! We're a pet shop, selling fluffy bunnies and puppies for happy people to take home. Look at the fluffy bunny, so cute!"
Re: (Score:2)
No suprise here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The robots file can tell spiders to ignore it -or- to index it just not to cashe it. Google's spiders respect the "don't cashe" option.
I can spell cache... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. The company (Media Defender) was offering a program containing spyware.
2. The alleged available films where uploaded by them, hence *they* where committing the crime (illegally distributing copyrighted content... unless they had the right to do it).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because something is made law does not mean that the problem of whether it is a "moral" thing to do suddenly disappears.
I mean, just slavery and women's rights are pretty obvious examples (to most) of laws that were morally wrong, but still the law of the land -- it didn't suddenly become wrong when the law was changed, it was always wrong, but the law was a bad law.
As far as comparing this situation to honeypots in the security realm -- that's utterly hilarious. Crackers steal data, deface web pages
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not even. It would be a service if it was something that isn't simply consumed... like cleaning my house, or shoveling my driveway. This is simply creating a copy of some data.
Nope. Again, it is simply copying some data -- if it were being taken,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This agreement is, of course, implicit, but it is the basic tenet of a capitalistic-- or, indeed, any barter-based-- society; unless the product is EXPLICITLY provided free of charge, you are assumed to have to pay for it.
I've not seen any signs explicitly saying that air is free, but it is. I think you'll find that everything that is for sale has an explicit price attached, rather than the other way round. It seems like you're using a circular argument here: we say that it's stealing because "we" defin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So when various companies set up honeypots to catch crackers, that's cool.
But the MPAA sets up a honeypot to catch thieves, that's bad?
What did this have to do with theives? This was a (very poor) attempt to catch people copying specific bits. Copying bits from one place to another has nothing to do with theft...
And don't moralize to me about "sharing" of content.
"Don't moralize to me..." (Insert moralizing to reader right after)
See any irony here? Mmmhmm...
The law of the land says you can't do it. Until the law is changed, that's the way it is.
Yes, and the law is ALWAYS morally sound, of course. Business interests would NEVER enter into it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)