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."
Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
When you're being accused of violating one of the draconian MAFIAA laws, you are guilty as charged - until, of course, you are proven innocent
That researcher, although having the account restored, still being blocked of accessing any of the disputed materials
And the worst of all is, an American law, is dictating the behavior of the Internet, a worldwide structure.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought, the way DMCA was supposed to work is:
1. Claim filed.
2. Content taken down.
3. Counterclaim filed.
4. Content restored until a court order is received to take it down permanently.
Why does it so often seem to end at step 3?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the DMCA was only supposed to be usable in the US against US firms?
Is it me or is this the second or third similiar takedown that slashdot has had up in the past month or two that was a DMCA claim being made by a foreign firm, possibly against a foreign individual or entity?
Don't fear the idiot across the pond. Fear the idiot next to you who borrows the other idiot's club :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fear the idiot next to you who borrows the other idiot's club :)
Speaking of idiots and clubs, who wants to claim copyright on a bunch of malware anyway? Isn't that like saying "Hey, I'm a cyberterrorist and I don't want you looking at my tools?"
Just saying, sometimes it's tempting to troll right back.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the DMCA was only supposed to be usable in the US against US firms?
Is it me or is this the second or third similiar takedown that slashdot has had up in the past month or two that was a DMCA claim being made by a foreign firm, possibly against a foreign individual or entity?
Don't fear the idiot across the pond. Fear the idiot next to you who borrows the other idiot's club :)
According to their wikipedia entry MediaFire is based in the US (Texas), AFAIK you don't have to be a US citizen to sue a US organization in a US court for breach of US laws (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). Especially if the MediaFire datacenter is in the USA. It's interesting to note that under the DMCA you seem to be guilty until proven innocent.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:4, Interesting)
According to their wikipedia entry MediaFire is based in the US (Texas), AFAIK you don't have to be a US citizen to sue a US organization in a US court for breach of US laws (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
Nope, you are spot on. In civil cases you can usually sue in either the country where either party is based or in the country where the transaction took place.
Normally though you always sue in your own country in order to force your opponent to have to deal with the hassle of finding representation in a foreign country and sending witnesses half way round the world. Unless of course one country has such bat shit crazy laws in your favour as in this case :)
This is actually a good point. Maybe the DMCA was designed to help US lawyers by generating this additional revenue stream for them as companies flock to the US legal system to file this crap. In which case it will only change when an equivalent amount of revenue has been lost to overseas as tech companies abandon the US and that does not seem to have happened yet.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA notices are free to file and are filed outside of the court system (they're just notices sent directly between two parties without a court clerk involved) so your lawyer angle doesn't seem plausible.
They might be free to file but who would know how to file one?
If a foreign company wants to file any sort of legal notice in the US it will almost always hire a local layer to do so since they will already have the expertise. I know it is not that difficult but this is just how business works, it is always easier to out source this to a US based legal company than it is to pay someone to figure out something even if it would only take them a few minutes. This also provides more surety of it being done right
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. law applies to every country in the world. People stupid enough to think otherwise usually end up on a plane to the U.S. wondering why their government extradited them so fast.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought, the way DMCA was supposed to work is:
1. Claim filed.
2. Content taken down.
3. Counterclaim filed.
4. Content restored until a court order is received to take it down permanently.
Why does it so often seem to end at step 3?
Because step four is voluntary since keeping the content up is usually voluntary to begin with (even contracts are usually written such that they can be ended by either party on a whim). If step four were not voluntary, then a sneaky party could force a company to host material it objected to (a photoshopped image of its board of directors eating kittens) by having a friend claim a "mistaken" DMCA notice, then until the court order is obtained (never), the company would be forced to keep the objectionable
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:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the DMCA is horribly unbalanced. Fail to honor a claim and you become a contributory infringer. Fail to honor a counterclaim and ... nothing. Make a patently false claim and ... nothing.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
Horribly unbalanced laws are easy. You americans can force attention by abusing this law in a planned denial of service attack.
Set up a group that issues takedowns against the sites of:
* Your political parties
* Your politicians
* Governmental sites
* Major content providers and their retailers
The politicians will not enjoy this, not in the middle of an election campaign. And the content providers might notice some lost sales when their advertising is taken down for bogus infringement.
Then the system will change. Ideally the dmca goes, more realistically there will be punishment for frivolous takedowns. But that is enough, one can then punish trigger-happy dmca abusers in the future.
And if the punishments are too mild at first - set up a company for another round of targeted takedowns. When the punishments come, this company goes bankrupt and no one really gets punished. Repeat until the law improves sufficiently.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
Horribly unbalanced laws are easy. You americans can force attention by abusing this law in a planned denial of service attack.
Set up a group that issues takedowns against the sites of:
* Your political parties
* Your politicians
* Governmental sites
* Major content providers and their retailers
The politicians will not enjoy this, not in the middle of an election campaign. And the content providers might notice some lost sales when their advertising is taken down for bogus infringement.
Then the system will change. Ideally the dmca goes, more realistically there will be punishment for frivolous takedowns. But that is enough, one can then punish trigger-happy dmca abusers in the future.
And if the punishments are too mild at first - set up a company for another round of targeted takedowns. When the punishments come, this company goes bankrupt and no one really gets punished. Repeat until the law improves sufficiently.
This will only work for a short time until they catch on. Then they can simply use the provisions in the USA-PATRIOT Act, the various Executive Orders, and the revised NDAA to treat those responsible as "illegal/enemy combatants" and have them secretly killed or abducted and imprisoned indefinitely.
"In Soviet..."
ummm :-/
Ah, screw it!
It's gotten so bad those jokes are more tragedy than comedy anymore.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
"I have altered the deal, pray that I do not alter it further" - Darth Vader
You'll bet that the RIAA/MPAA wil lobby for even worse copyright laws than DMCA for the politician. So let sleeping dogs lie.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the DMCA is horribly unbalanced. Fail to honor a claim and you become a contributory infringer. Fail to honor a counterclaim and ... nothing. Make a patently false claim and ... nothing.
Not true. A false claim can result in a lawsuit; as per Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. IANAL, but she may have a case against the company that files the claim.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
I think he was talking about service providers like MediaFire here.
Service providers can be sued for ignoring the DMCA complaint, they cannot be sued for ignoring a counterclaim. They can't be sued in the resultant court case either, but they can expect to run into lots of expenses.
Therefore the cheapest and safest way to deal with DMCA for a service provider is to simply honor the DMCA complaint and do nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Service providers can be sued for ignoring the DMCA complaint, they cannot be sued for ignoring a counterclaim.
If you've paid for service and they refuse to provide it, you can indeed sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they'll just exercise their option to terminate for any reason. They might or might not give you a refund for the month in progress.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was talking about service providers like MediaFire here. Service providers can be sued for ignoring the DMCA complaint, they cannot be sued for ignoring a counterclaim. They can't be sued in the resultant court case either, but they can expect to run into lots of expenses. Therefore the cheapest and safest way to deal with DMCA for a service provider is to simply honor the DMCA complaint and do nothing else.
I agree - the only reason I pointed out that the person who was claimed to have posted infringing material can sue someone who "makes a patently false claim..."
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, yes. In practice they exercise the right to terminate at any time just to make sure they don't get sued by a wealthy copyright holder. (Nominally, they put the material back, then take it right back down in the same instant under their termination clause).
It's all related to the elephant in the room, that any sufficiently wealthy party can effectively punish or even bankrupt a less wealthy party at any time by filing an expensive lawsuit.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Funny)
Please understand, LeakID is working on figuring it out, but every time they try and open the PDF to see if it's actually infringing or not, it erases their entire computer.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, making a false claim is considered a perjury, but that clause is almost never enforced.
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.
Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY. The attitude seems to be that it's safer/cheaper/sadistically funnier to keep penalising your own customers than to gamble on safe harbor.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually if you're dealing with a foreign company, they'd probably do it on the claim that the Berne Convention only requires that nations honor each other's copyright C&D requests and the putback provisions of the DMCA aren't covered by it at all, ie the French can sue after a proper putback because they don't care about that part of the law.
Re: (Score:3)
But although the point stands: America is definitely bullying the whole world when it comes to copyright issues, as far as I understood, this researcher is actually based in the US.
- Team America, World Police. America, f*** yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
Not only USA. See the French.
So... copyright idiots (= Content mafia) is killing the net.
Somewhere in their cloud. (Score:5, Insightful)
A virus researcher is, of course, sufficiently wise to have local copies of all files because relying on a "cloud" provider is as sound as relying on that kid down the road who promises to keep all your personal documents safe in his dad's filing cabinet for a handful of sweets.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF such a "researcher" would even WANT with such an account is a mystery.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
There really is only two ways this case should EVER be allowed to go:
1) LeakID admits they don't actually have any kind of ownership over the malware. LeakID gets sued for knowingly sending false C&D notices under DMCA (or equivalent, not a lawyer).
2) LeakID claims to have ownership of the malware. LeakID gets sued to oblivion for creation and distribution of malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Is a false C&D a civil or criminal offense? If it's criminal, good luck getting anyone to file charges.
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Civil - there is at least one case of someone winning over a wrongful takedown. I can't remember the name now. I suspect it's probably not worth the time/money of a lawyer, which is why the content industry feels they are so safe in just blanketing with takedowns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should that not just be perjury?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.leakid.com/ [leakid.com]
"our leaksearch ownership tool will alert you within seconds if your content is being pirated."
ridiculously unprofessional site.
they've got Lorem ipsum's for product descriptions and gramatical mistakes all over the place.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1) LeakID admits they don't actually have any kind of ownership over the malware. LeakID gets sued for knowingly sending false C&D notices under DMCA (or equivalent, not a lawyer).
You misread the DMCA. All you have to attest to is that you represent a rights holder whose rights are allegedly infringed. Not "the" rights holder, "a" rights holder. If you represent any rights holder, you can allege anything you want, about any file anyhere, without even a good faith belief that it is accurate and that'
But don't fforget (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Explain.
The cloud is a liability. (Score:1)
1 - The cloud is a liability.
2 - Companies in the US occupied territories are liabilities.
3 - The cloud host was spying on user files and reporting to 3rd parties.
On the plus side (Score:3)
On the off-chance that this blows up into some high-tech conspiracy-theory spy thriller, Mila Parkour has the perfect name for the protagonist of said thriller. I assume the whole thing will culminate in a white-knuckle chase across the rooftops of Paris as Ms Parkour skilfully evades MediaFire's hired goons.
Virus researcher? Cloud storage? (Score:2)
I can see how the average person would find services like mediafire and dropbox useful, because they don't have the knowledge to setup their own server. But as soon as you are awarded (or awarded yourself) the researcher title in any field of computing, you should not hand your files over to someone else for storage. But if you do, and something happens, you should suffer the consequences and not make it onto the front p
No surprise; Daniel's a dick. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had to deal with this guy before when Mediafire took out my entire account instead of the single file that was reported. Even with the company who filed the DMCA notice getting involved, he still wouldn't reinstate the files. Don't bother complaining to Mediafire about him either, because he's the one that gets your complaints. And his reaction to them is to close your support ticket and suspend your account.
"Daniel G", as he shows up on the support site, is a power tripping dick.
That Parkour girl (Score:2)
I'm not sure they really want to mess with a Parkour girl... [youtube.com]
so besides all that (Score:2)
Whois LeakID? (Score:2)
Leakid v. Grub [linuxquestions.org]
Leakid v. Weird TV [blogspot.co.uk]
Return of the RAR? (remember usenet?) (Score:2)
The blog says LeakID is using bots to crawl Hotfile links. Wouldn't their copyright search algorithms be easily defeated by packing files into password protected RAR files before uploading them to a file hosting site?