MediaFire Restores Virus Researcher's Account But Not Individual Files 72
chicksdaddy writes "The cloud-based hosting firm MediaFire has reversed a decision to suspend the account of virus researcher Mila Parkour after Naked Security raised questions about copyright violation complaints made against her by the mysterious firm LeakID. In an email to Parkour on Friday, MediaFire's director of customer support, Daniel Goebel, said that the company was restoring Parkour's access to her MediaFire account and apologized for the interruption in service. MediaFire also said it was asking LeakID, the Paris-based firm that accused Parkour of sharing copyrighted material, to 'confirm the status of the counterclaim [Parkour] submitted.' However, the firm is still blocking access to files that LeakID alleged were violating the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a strict copyright enforcement law in the U.S."
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:4, Informative)
And the worst of all is, an American law, is dictating the behavior of the Internet, a worldwide structure.
Now now, no need to exagerate.
Under DMCA only disputed files must be removed immediately, and those disputed files must be restored immediately if a counterclaim is made.
Clearly MediaFire is applying only a very loose interpretation of this particular US law to the internet.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, making a false claim is considered a perjury, but that clause is almost never enforced.
Sadly, that is a part often mis-read by people. The DMCA requires a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Meaning, you say (not under penalty of perjury) that the information in the notification is accurate, then also say (under penalty of perjury) that you have the rights to send DMCA notices for your client.
If you're sending notices proporting that you represent MGM but you don't actually represent MGM, you're in trouble. If you *DO* represent MGM, but are wrong about the copyright violation, there is no perjury.