Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

MediaDefender and the Streisand Effect 206

Posted by kdawson from the making-it-ever-so-much-worse dept.
Foldarn writes "It looks like MediaDefender, in an effort to quell the explosion of negative publicity over its leaked email archive, has instead done the opposite (also known as the Streisand Effect) and spread it even more widely. Ars Technica is reporting that MediaDefender has sent scary-lawyer letters to two popular BitTorrent sites, MegaNova and IsoHunt, demanding that they remove the offending content. Both sites have responded with derision. Also, Ars notes that MediaDefender seems to be behind a DDoS attack against the site that originally leaked its email." Final word to Ars's Ryan Paul: "MediaDefender's entire business model has been based on recognition of the inescapable fact that litigation cannot stop the spread of content on the Internet, so it is ironic that the company has turned to legal threats."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MediaDefender and the Streisand Effect More

MediaDefender and the Streisand Effect

Comments Filter:

  • As the proverb goes (Score:4, Funny)

    by tygerstripes ( 832644 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:46AM (#20679349)
    He who lives by the sword, dies by the questionable business model.

    • New leak! (Score:5, Informative)

      by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:11AM (#20679541) Journal
      There is a new leak now! it is the source code of some of the MD applications in Piratebay [thepiratebay.org].

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        There are also some interesting statistics [mediadefen...enders.com] created from the leaked tracking databases. The statistics include what times of the day and week are most popular for P2P pirates and which fake files have been uploaded the most.

        More updates, leaks and news at:
        http://mediadefender-defenders.com/ [mediadefen...enders.com]

      • Screw the source code! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:38PM (#20685297) Homepage Journal
        Check their emails. What're they protected with? Their e-mail messages are protected by the free version of AVG -- copyrighted software that, for business use, requires a purchase to use. THEY ARE COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS, THEMSELVES! Hypocrites, every last one of them!

        • Re:Screw the source code! (Score:5, Informative)

          by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @02:39PM (#20686419)
          They steal source code too, example:

          MovieMakerModule.cpp Line 497: // Stolen code, begin
          Line 560: // Stolen code - end

          If you're going to steal code, it's not a good idea to put in comments announcing it's stolen. Of course scumbag crap is what they're about, so they probably are just fine with copy/pasting code.

  • They wanna play the legal game huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:46AM (#20679351) Homepage Journal
    Well maybe someone should turn them in to the FBI for violating federal computer crime statutes.

    • Re:They wanna play the legal game huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:49AM (#20679373)
      Oh not, the FBI isn't interested in big companies that break computer laws. They are interested in teenagers and organized crime. But flash your corporate charter, and suddenly, you aren't a hacker, you are defending the profits of a major content studio from hackers who are using deCSS.
      • The FBI goes after anyone who breaks laws. If MediaDefender broke the law, then, yeah, they should be prosecuted.

        The question is, what law did they break? It's not illegal to post fake versions of Universal's music when Universal gives you the legal rights to do exactly that. The only thing would be, if they did do denial of service attacks. However, if the target site is outside of American jurisdiction, it is not entirely clear that this is a crime.
        • In theory, yes, the FBI should prosecute them. In practice, I doubt it will happen.

          Speaking of theory, as long as they are operating here in the states, a denial of service attack is breaking the law. At the very least, they probably knocked out a few of their ISP's routers during the attack, which is technically harmful to their ISP. IANAL, but I think that is a violation of the law.

    • ...by which I'm hoping you mean "submit them to" the FBI, and not "give them the same purview as".

      I mean, their practices may be similar, but that's an unfortunately telling ambiguity.

    • Not only are they DDoSing sites, but take a look at their emails. Notice what they're protected with? AVG FREE EDITION. They're not only violating Federal Computer Crime statutes but also in violation of Grisoft's copyright.

  • Torrents... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:48AM (#20679359)
    ...for those of you haven't already downloaded them.
    http://thepiratebay.org/search/mediadefender/0/3/0 [thepiratebay.org]

    And the unofficial MediaDefender-Defender website.
    http://www.mediadefender-defenders.com/ [mediadefen...enders.com]

    #MediaDefender-Defenders @ EFNet

  • people never learn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by randuev ( 1032770 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @07:49AM (#20679369)
    censorship is not possible on P2P. speaking of mediadefender, if they do in fact execute DDOS attacks, they are breaking more rules than they are trying to protect.

    • Re:people never learn (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:23AM (#20679645) Journal

      Censorship is not possible on the Internet, period. Once information gets out into the wild, it will be copied and recopied (not to mention indexed by the major search engines) to the point that eliminating all copies would take inordinately large amounts of time and effort. Imagine if MediaDefender had to sue everyone who had a copy of even part of one of their emails on a server? Even Bill Gates doesn't have that kind of money! Not to mention, with so many of these copies being overseas, there's no guarantee they would win in any foreign court.

      • No, censorship is possible on the Internet. It would require a concerted effort of the powers to be and some creative lawmaking but there is nothing inherent about the internet that makes censorship impossible.

        The idea that no one has bothers in the US or UK or insert big name country here, doesn't mean much. The lack of doing doesn't mean it cannot be done. And if there is a point when it does get done, people like you will make it so unpleasant that there is likely going to be mandatory jail time or somet

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sique ( 173459 )
          That's why Antigua and Barbuda has asked the WTO to impose penal tariffs on U.S. products in retailiation, namely allowing all citizens of A&B to copy and redistribute Hollywood content for free.

          The U.S. got already a cease-and-desist-letter from the WTO, and didn't comply even if the WTO council found the U.S. in violation of WTO statutes. So A&B has all rights to demand something in exchange.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by megaditto ( 982598 )

            That's why Antigua and Barbuda has asked the WTO to impose penal tariffs on U.S. products in retailiation, namely allowing all citizens of A&B to copy and redistribute Hollywood content for free.
            Which side do you think that punishes more?
          • How long do you think the WTO would last without the US participating? Not long because all those big countries would need the US for the sake of their economy.

            I wouldn't hold your breath on anything meaningful coming from this. The US has a bigger position over those countries internet so once it started, all they would have to do is pull the plug on them. So think about this, it isn't the first time the US has ignored a WTO, probably won't be the last and the entire idea of world trade means there isn't m
            • Dude, the US is the most powerful country in the world.

              They're the most powerful country in the world because of economic structures.

              The fact that these economic structures are making them more powerful than their neighbours is an indicator that they are getting more out of them than anyone else.

              Or, to put it another way, no matter how nice they all look on paper, the end result is that money flows away from this country, towards the US.

              Other countries don't need the US. They get taken for a ride by the US
              • China, India, Taiwan, and a few other countries would find themselves in an economic ruin of we stopped buying there or refused to let our companies locate shops there to re import cut rate goods back into the US.

                And when they go, they would take other countries with them. It isn't a matter of if the US would be hurt too, it is how many other countries would be hurt in the process to not let this happen.

                And yes, I remember the miraculous Canadian beef story. It boils down to Mad Cow Disease. Canada saw incr

        • Look at online gambling in the US. Sure, if you can find a company willing to take your money, your likely to get a knock on the door from federal marshals for doing so. Your credit card company would report your transactions so there is no keeping it a secrete. There is no can't invovled with censoring the Internet. It is just a matter of how.

          That's "censorship" of you creditcard, not the internet. If you could find a way of transferring money to those companies without leaving a trail in the US banking sy

          • No, it is censorship of your actions. you wouldn't be punished for using a credit card but for using it to gamble.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Panaflex ( 13191 ) *
          Caveat emptor, of course.

          Every time the government limits freedom, there must be an underlying principle of justice - it can not be arbitrary nor largely unequal. Yes, I concede that it would be possible to have a limited censorship on the internet - as we have seen in China.

          But make no mistake - there is no such thing as complete censorship in any society.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dougmc ( 70836 )

        Censorship is not possible on the Internet, period.

        Censorship of certain things is not easy on the Internet, but it's not impossible. If there is something that has a severe penalty for having, and few people want anyways, and even having it has a really strong stigma against it, it's effectively censored even for those who do want it. Case in point? Child pornography. Yes, there's some on the Internet, but it's very effectively censored. And the few cases where it can be found on the Internet, it's generally either 1) very carefully hidden and prot

      • Not to mention, with so many of these copies being overseas, there's no guarantee they would win in any foreign court.
        Why would isoHunt, a Canadian company, agree to comply with a properly written DMCA takedown from an American law firm?

        Especially considering how much derision they've shown towards MediaDefender.
        • They would have to have something to take down first. If I understand correctly, isoHunt is merely a search engine, and they don't have any files to take down (even less than "normal" torrent sites)
  • "They are shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted."

    Always liked that phrase.
  • You want to bet that they (MediaDefender) should be more worried about what their clients make of the emails about them? 'Cuz you know they have a copy, and they ARE reading them. Can't unscramble an egg.

  • Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ilex ( 261136 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:09AM (#20679527)
    Ironic that MAFIAADefenders business model is based on stopping content leaking out onto P2P networks.

    When they can't even stop their own internal emails and phone calls from leaking you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe their claims. To make matters worse they resort to legal nasty grams and censorship to try and suppress the evidence of their incompetence which makes them look all the more the fool.
    To really put the cherry on the cake they're now resorting to illegal DDOS attacks, which for the most part have also failed.

    If they were in any other business it would already be over for them, sadly for us, fortunately for them their clients are just the sort of gullible people who will keep doing business because they can't face the real truth. Their business model has failed.

    Sadly we haven't heard the last of MAFIAADefender.

    • When they can't even stop their own internal emails and phone calls from leaking you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe their claims. To make matters worse they resort to legal nasty grams and censorship to try and suppress the evidence of their incompetence which makes them look all the more the fool.

      One word: Diebold

    • Their job isn't really in stopping the content, it is to frustrate users into thinking paying for the stuff is easier and less time consuming. It is to break the model the P2P sites are using.

      They can fail to remove the content in it's entirety and still succeed in their goals. I remember some sites that would take 20 downloads before getting a file that worked. To many, that site just became a "they never have the stuff" or it is too much bother, lets goto Itunes or Rapsody and get it. And these people are

    • Ironic that MAFIAADefenders business model is based on stopping content leaking out onto P2P networks.

      When they can't even stop their own internal emails and phone calls from leaking you'd have to be pretty gullible to believe their claims.

      Maybe they should have hired one of the RIAA's lawyers instead of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.

      Oh wait.
      Even the RIAA's lawyers can't file a legally sound complaint.
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/17/0246203 [slashdot.org]

    • To make matters worse they resort to legal nasty grams and censorship to try and suppress the evidence of their incompetence which makes them look all the more the fool.

      Wait, who are you talking about here? The RIAA or MediaDefender?
    • I feel a bit dirty prefacing this with "to be fair", but... To be fair, their sales argument is probably that they slow the spread of new content rather than stop it completely. If a few of those who download a movie get a fake instead of the real thing, a few of those might end up seeing the movie in a theater instead.

      I really don't think it's a flawed business model. We're talking millions of potential customers per movie. If just a thousand viewers find p2p downloads a hassle because of fake files or sl

    • To really put the cherry on the cake they're now resorting to illegal DDOS attacks, which for the most part have also failed.

      I keep reading this, but where does it say it was 1) a DDOS attack that took them down and 2) from MediaDefender. Not in this article at least; it's just speculative. Couldn't it just have been from the massive public interest during these events, impacting this major P2P news site? Has Slyck.com told their logs indicate this (their IP range) or what?

      I searched Slyck for "ddos" but couldn't find anything:

      Antispam groups come under heavy DDoS attack June 14, 2007
      Estonian DDoS - a final analysis June 3, 2007
      EveryDNS Under Botnet DDoS Attack December 4, 2006
      bluetack server being DDoS'd? November 13, 2004

      Why do so many think it's them and not just some other random fluke due to the lately very turbulent P

    • Note what virus protection is used on the MD emails. Hello, massive copyright violation with LOADS of dated proof as to how long they've been illegally running a not-for-business version of AVG. Ironic, indeed.
  • Try to put the toothpaste back in the tube. I dare ya.

    Pandora's box also comes immediately to mind.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *

      Try to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

      Superman did it in that new crappy Richard Donner cut of "Superman 2." But that guy is from Krypton.

  • all we could ask for would be they showed their true colors, and boy, are they doing a good job showing it !

  • These are no longer "Trade Secrets" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kwandar ( 733439 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:17AM (#20679595)
    I note with interest that Sheppard Mullin (generally a good law firm in my experience, irrespective of their current client) are claiming that the items are "trade secrets". They've lost the argument before they started. The cat was out of the bag, and those emails have been seen and distributed far and wide. As such, these are no longer "trade secrets" (like the formula to coke). Their only recourse is against the Media-Defender Defenders whoever they may be. Good luck ever finding them, and if they do then what? Odds are that their total net worth is far less than what Media-Defender are paying Sheppard Mullin (they aren't cheap!!) :)

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @10:11AM (#20681205)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kwandar ( 733439 )
        Good points; I'd even mod you up, but you're responding to my comment :)

        I agree that courts may well allow that these are trade secrets ont he basis that they been released through no fault of their own; however there is a practical limitation to this. The information hasn't just been released locally, or in the United States, but worldwide.

        The US courts don't even have jurisdiction in those locales, and if the Court looks at the big picture are they going to want to enforce an impossibility? I'm not even

  • SCO Merger? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chapter80 ( 926879 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:20AM (#20679619)
    This seems like a perfect time for Media Defender and SCO to announce a merger.

    Potential Nasdaq symbols: STNL, ASST, ASTNL

  • Political Filtering of Email by Hotmail and AOL [slashdot.org]. M$ seems to be better at suppressing the news here than the MAFIAA is at suppressing the Media Defender story, but it won't last long.

    • They fact that they've been blocked by five major mail vendors (AOL, Hotmail, MSN, WebTV and Yahoo) doesn't suggest 'news suppression', it suggests an over-zealous spam filter. They say they send out a lot of emails, and someone else pointed out that if a lot of those addresses have been closed down, they will get added to the spam filter.

      It's only in your head (and, it seems, theirs) that this appears malicious. If this was really happening, don't you think that Slashdot emails to MSN addresses would be bl

      • It's only in your head (and, it seems, theirs) that this appears malicious. If this was really happening, don't you think that Slashdot emails to MSN addresses would be blocked too?

        It's hard to tell if Slashdot emails are being blocked or not, but that's just more cause to advocate free software and a free internet. The only way to prevent abuse is to outlaw involuntary filtering. The right to use bandwith as you please should be legally protected. Restrictions for harmless activity with what you hav

        • It's hard to tell if Slashdot emails are being blocked or not... The only way to prevent abuse... The right to use bandwith as you please... Restrictions for harmless activity... unAmerican

          Can you cut the rhetoric out and make your point? Which is, I assume, that you would rather filter your mail yourself than have your provider do it for you?

          Plenty of services do that (Gmail for example), and you're perfectly free to join those instead, but don't be surprised when notoriously well-spammed sites like Hotmail start to be a bit more proactive with preventing spam from inconveniencing their users.

  • Torrentspy E-mails (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 20, 2007 @08:42AM (#20679833)

    The courts recently ruled that the MPAA did no wrong when obtaining Torrentspy private e-mails: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/31/1334245 [slashdot.org]

    How is this any different aside from the fact that it is now the torrent sites gaining access to "Big Business" e-mail? Oh, right...

  • Necessary Futurama quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by cpaalman ( 696554 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @09:12AM (#20680207)
    Prof. Farnsworth: "This will not stand!" (people talking surprised together) "I'll take you on, you air balling bozos"
    Bubblegum: "You old man? Hu! Sweet Clive, laugh derisively at him."
    Sweet Clive: "Ahaha, ahaha, aahahaha."

  • US disrespected (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @09:51AM (#20680857) Homepage

    Meganova's response says. "In case you haven't noticed, this site is located in Europe (I hope you can point it out on a map) where your stupid copyright claims have no base."
    Can we see a connection between the official US government disregard of "silly" things like international treaties against torture, and now this disrespect by some Europeans of claims based in US law? Europeans just aren't following the US example any more. For instance, to the EU, Microsoft is officially an abusive monopoly; in the US they've been given a pass. So it's not just European individuals, but top government bodies which no longer respect US sensibilities and precedents.

    Between Media Defender and Media-Defender Defender, both sides are playing dirty. That's far worse for a "legitimate" corporation to do than for a loose confederation of mostly teen hackers, so in a sane world Media Defender would be stripped of its corporate charter and dissolved. But the US has tried to establish as its new norm that there is no law for corporations, no punishment for their harms to society or nature. The blowback from this, from regions of the world - especially the EU - that still have norms of law applying to all (except French leaders while in office, but that's another story), will be major.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by robbiethefett ( 1047640 )
      It really bothers me when people refer to this policy as "new" as if the U.S. never had things like robber-barons and big-oil-controlled-government. The woes of the industrial revolution are coming back, just in time it seems, since most Americans don't seem to remember high school history class.

      Corporations and their umbrellas are the triangle shirtwaste's of our age. Instead of being chained to a sewing machine, we are chained to our electronic devices. Of course they aren't "ours" as we are only le

  • MediaDefender Anti-Piracy Tools Leaked (Score:5, Informative)

    by wwmedia ( 950346 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @09:58AM (#20681001)
    just in

    MediaDefender Anti-Piracy Tools Leaked [torrentfreak.com]
    • Thanks for that, I really hope that after knowing their algorithm, we can counter them more efficiently. I'm just sick tired of those "uncensored / full / full version" .zip/.exe/.com fake files that appear in all my queries. They're like P2P SPAM.
  • I am worried that the soon-to-be-unemployed forces of both SCO and MediaDefender will get together somehow and form a new venture.

  • Ars notes that MediaDefender seems to be behind a DDoS attack against the site that originally leaked its email.

    Wouldn't that be even more illegal than what they're already doing?

  • It could be a 09F91102... or a Sony Rootkit.

    What I mean is, how many people actually remember what magic number started with 09F91102? It was the hype of 2 months (or was that 3?) ago. Doubt anyone but the most dedicated anti-DRM people remember what it was about.

    Sony and its Rootkit troubles certainly lived for longer. Why is that? Maybe because it wasn't a one-time hype. The "forbidden number" was news for about 3 days. Maybe a week. Afterwards? Dead. Sony and its Rootkit lived on longer. Why? Because Son

  • Media Defender...it's a series of ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bmo ( 77928 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @11:57AM (#20683069)
    Asstunnels.

    FTFA: "Dearest little asstunnels"

    Is it a tunnel within an ass or is it a tunnel made of asses?

    "You are in a series of twisty little asstunnels, all alike. It is dark in here. You might be eaten by a gerbil"

    --
    BMO
  • Final word *from* Ars's Ryan Paul.

    Sheesh.

  • Oh my god... they are stupid... (Score:3, Informative)

    by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Thursday September 20, 2007 @01:51PM (#20685587)
    When the e-mails were leaked I called for them to DMCA it as that would effectively confirm the leaked information as authentic while doing nothing to prevent its spread. I sarcastically ended that comment with "you have to outdo your own incompetence somehow". Little did I know they were actually going to be that fucking stupid. There is a reason the military, NRC, CIA etc.. has a policy of never confirming or denying leaks. Doing so would essentially confirm/debunk the accuracy of the leaked information. Good job MD, you just made a mistake most people have known not to do for more than a century. Idiots...
  • the FBI should raid their offices and lock them all up for this sort of crime.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close