Cloud Firm MediaFire Flags Malware Samples For DMCA Violation, Bans Researcher 125
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."
Simple solution: (Score:5, Insightful)
Charge these organizations a nuisance fee for false positives. Problem solved.
Re:Hold them to the fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, it might be a good idea to report LeakID to the FBI as they've publicised that they (or their client) own said malware.
Re:In the absence of teeth... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't this little story of yours made public? This would be a perfect opportunity to blackeye FB and the DMCA.
Re:Could be legit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hold them to the fire (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be legit (Score:5, Insightful)
If the authors aren't named, it's not a valid DMCA complaint. The real problem here is service providers taking down material without a valid complaint.
IIRC, the DMCA provides immunity for a service provider that takes down material persuant to a valid complaint. That implies that without a valid complaint, there would be a cause for action against the service provider. People need to start suing or there's no incentive for a service provider to obey the law.
Someone injured by this malware needs to... (Score:4, Insightful)
...file suit against the malware authors and then subpoena LeakID's records to identify them.
Re:In the absence of teeth... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The perjury claim is effectively impotent anyway. The ONLY thing you have to attest to under penalty of perjury is that you represent a(not the) rights holder who's work is allegedly infringed. That's any rights holder and any work. If you represent Prince, you can have any file removed from the internet by claiming that it is a copy of Purple Rain, even if you do not have a good faith belief that it is, and you cannot be touched by a perjury charge.
Re:In the absence of teeth... (Score:2, Insightful)
When an AC posts a story like this it's likely a lie. That's why it isn't being made public.