Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cloud Firm MediaFire Flags Malware Samples For DMCA Violation, Bans Researcher

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the guess-we're-learning-this-lesson-the-hard-way dept.

Piracy 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."

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Could be legit (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264511)

Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?

Re:Could be legit (3, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264563)

Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?

I agree, lets get them to stand up and take a bow. I don't think it's reasonable to hold an anonymous copyright and let all that hard work go unrecognized.

Re:Could be legit (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264911)

Since LeakID now claims ownership of this malware, can't we sue them for all damages it causes? After all, there likely wasn't a EULA with the 'malware'

Re:Could be legit (1)

Almost-Retired (637760) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265777)

That is just novel enough of an idea that I think it would work!

Does anyone have the address of these jerks so we know what court district or country we'd have to file the damage suit in?

Triple damages to be applied of course, since they would have zero problems doing that to any one of us.

Hell of an idea, hitch up the legal horses and take 200 heaping loads of it to the appropriate courts.

Cheers, Gene

Re:Could be legit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265799)

I'm a bit confused about how it found malware in compressed and encrypted files, assuming the compression and encryption was the work of the researcher, because such a person would certainly know better than to just repeatedly upload typical, in-the-wild payloads that would match signatures... and then bitch about being blocked. Right?

One would be them running their standard anti-malware through the same notification process as their dmca takedowns. A total non-issue... they just need a new email template. The other is kinda creepy and interesting.

Re:Could be legit (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266641)

They didn't find malware, they found a filename or a hash value that matched something in their library, and issued a takedown notice.

Re:Could be legit (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265049)

And while we're at it, let's take a lovely photograph and get all your names as a wonderful memento of the occasion!

soon anti spy apps can be banded under DMCA (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264627)

soon anti spyware apps can be banded under DMCA

Re:soon anti spy apps can be banded under DMCA (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41264837)

soon anti spyware apps can be banded under DMCA

This is a masterfully crafted electrum spyware app. All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality. It is finely colored with dimple dye. It menaces with spikes of cat and is banded with rings of copper.

Re:soon anti spy apps can be banded under DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41266159)

Bravo good sir.

Re:soon anti spy apps can be banded under DMCA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41266275)

Ah, I see one of your software craftsdwarves, Urist McCompilington, was taken with a secretive mood. Good job. I'm glad you had the electrum, cat, copper, dye, and a good software workshop available.

Of course, now that he's a Legendary Softwaredwarf, you'll never be able to get him to haul rocks or tend to the wounded in the hospital again.

Re:Could be legit (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264757)

Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?

I little part of me hopes that it is the rightful party that's behind the takedown. I'd think we'd all be happy to give them what they deserve.

Re:Could be legit (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265243)

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.

Re:Could be legit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265283)

Sue the service provider for what? They can take down your content all they want according to the TOS. You can file a suit against the bogus DMCA filer but the service provider can take things down regardless.

Re:Could be legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265559)

Sue the service provider for what?

I don't blame them for taking the files down. The DMCA is a piece of garbage; you lose your safe harbor status if you don't shoot first and ask questions later.

Re:Could be legit (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267067)

Sue the service provider for what? They can take down your content all they want according to the TOS

The trick is you have to pay them. Then they owe you service. If their TOS states that they can take your money and then take down your files at any time, that's a completely one sided contract which aren't typically ruled valid by the courts, even in the corporate USA.

Re:Could be legit (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265877)

>>That implies that without a valid complaint, there would be a cause for action against the service provider. People need to start suing

Yes. You pay taxes to support the courts. Might as well start using them.
Or take the easier action and just file a DMCA response that says the files are not copyrighted. The ISP has to restore the files. If they don't, then sue them.

Re:Could be legit (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267739)

Or take the easier action and just file a DMCA response that says the files are not copyrighted. The ISP has to restore the files.

As I understand the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, this is incorrect.

They have a safe harbor from copyright liability if they restore them in response to a proper counter-notice, and if they do not restore them they lose the safe harbor benefit they had with regard to any cause of action the user may have had -- but the DMCA doesn't create a cause of action requiring restoration, so unless the service provider has an obligation imposed outside of the DMCA to restore the material -- such as a contractual obligation to the user -- losing the safe harbor benefit with respect to actions by the user is a non-event, since there was no cause of action available in the first place.

Re:Could be legit (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267675)

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.

This inference is incorrect. The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA protect a service provider (under certain conditions) from copyright liability provided they take down material once they receive a compliant takedown notice, and from any liability they might otherwise face for taking down material in response to a takedown notice meeting its requirements (provided they take other steps required in the safe harbor provision), and also provides similar safe harbor for them if they restore material that was taken down in response to a counter-notice that meets the requirements in the DMCA.

Whether or not there would be any cause of action (e.g., for breach of contract for the takedown, or under copyright for the restoration) for any particular act within the safe harbor provisions depends on facts beyond the existence of the takedown/restoration and the deficiency of the notification.

The reason the superficially-symmetric safe harbor provisions for notice/takedown and counternotice/restoration aren't really symmetric is because in many cases service providers relationships to users are structured in a way specifically to avoid any cause of action for taking down material posted by the user for any reason whatsoever, and often are structured to allow more extreme measures (like no-notice cancellation of service.) Consequently, the main safe harbor those service providers care about is the one for copyright liability that applies so long as they always takedown material when a proper a takedown notice exists, which is satisfied if the set of takedown they will accept is a superset of the set of the DMCA-compliant notices.

Re:Could be legit (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265371)

Why does every conversation have to be about Sony?

Re:Could be legit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265617)

When you design self-replicating pieces of software, you shouldn't complain when people get unauthorized copies.

In the absence of teeth... (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264531)

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.

In the absence of any real penalty in the laws for filing false takedown notices, it seems to me that everyone should simply start filing takedown notices on every single thing they find on the net anywhere until the hosting companies realize that it is a total mess, and start demanding more than an automated statement, something like proof, a statement of the work it is supposed to actually violate, etc.

Clearly if these files were compressed and encrypted, any hash or content match was random, and virtually any executable code or encrypted file might trigger a match with whatever engine these take-down artists were using.

Perhaps there is a business opportunity to set up a company in East Timor or some such place that would automatically file a counter notices [wikipedia.org] (putback), which then requires the takedown artists to file suit, or shut up. This puts the cost burden back on them, and at worst case, an improperly accused person has a ten day interruption of availability.

As long as the hollywood darlings are in office I see no chance of this ever being corrected via legislation. The best bet is to get it to topple over of its own weight.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41264683)

This is happening to a friend of mine who is being stalked. An offshore firm has obtained access to her FB pictures, and filed takedown notices on every single one she has, even the ones from her phone. FB got tired of the DMCA notices (even though there was -zero- copyright liability anywhere) and suspended her account.

I guess the answer is to hold your photo collection offshore and just link to the contents, or have one link to blog, etc.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (5, Insightful)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264765)

Why isn't this little story of yours made public? This would be a perfect opportunity to blackeye FB and the DMCA.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265387)

When an AC posts a story like this it's likely a lie. That's why it isn't being made public.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (0)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267809)

Brought to you by the Facebook Department of Public Relations. Thanks, you ever so credible AC, for your insightful commentary.

Perhaps you should suggest that the person share their story on Facebook! That'd work.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266649)

What's another black eye gonna do? Nothing. FB and the DMCA are both covered top to bottom in bruises, and they stand tall and proud, begging for more, they can take it. Oh well, this is the system we built. The tendency will be to reenforce it. DMCA not working? We need more!

Re:In the absence of teeth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41264779)

The stalker has done her a favor by driving her off facebook.

Is it even possible to stalk someone who lives on facebook? Sort of like complaining about peeping toms at a nudist colony.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265619)

but clothed peeping toms deserves compliant in a nudist colony !

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266491)

I'd like more details on this. There are offshore digital stalking services which will, for a fee, use DMCA notices to harass the target of your choice?

Interesting... what other services do they provide, and do they charge any more for, say, wealthy coal magnates who spread FUD about climate change and who are trying to buy the white house?

Not that I think DMCA notices are going to stop them, just I'd like to annoy them out of pure spite.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264823)

There's a solution for this, just create a law that requires all international DMCA requests to send it through snail mail for processing. An optional online tool should be allowed, but only under an agreement that you're liable under US law for false DMCA requests.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265671)

All DMCA requests must be handled under US law. The DMCA is US law. Those foreign companies can't make DMCA requests in a foreign country because US law only applies in the USA, so your counter must also be made under US law (in the USA).

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266685)

No, please, don't create another law. Let's remove the one that's causing all this trouble.. Pffft! Like that'll happen..

Re:In the absence of teeth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265035)

I'm sorry but your post makes too much sense and this is a DMCA takedown notice that your post is probably protected by someone else who has common sense. Slashdot please remove his post as per this DMCA notice.

Thank you

Re:In the absence of teeth... (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265125)

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.

All easily solved by simply saying that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is inconvenient. It's a simple motion to file in most jurisdictions -- if I live in Texas, and I sue you in New York, you can request the venue (that is, where the court is located, not which laws apply) be changed to New York, as you are the defendant and the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove damages, etc. It's all under the 'innocent until proven guilty' -- and not granting such a motion would prejudice the defense.

Unfortunately, such just and fair legal concepts have been thrown out... and nobody gives a damn. People are busy protesting crap like mortgage defaults, while the judiciary falls apart to the sound of silence.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266779)

In the meantime, you're still offline... How can we circumvent that?

Re:In the absence of teeth... (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265339)

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... (2)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265601)

First, you do not need to go to France or some other country to file charges on the firm or person making fallacious DMCA take down claims. It is a US law used to protect copyright owners and when it is used incorrectly, a US court can decide penalties or corrective action.

Second, perjury is not the only penalty associated with fallacious DMCA take downs. Any damages caused by the take down plus legal fees can be recovered in much the same way as and that would be from where the harmed party exists. You would not need to go to France in order to sue a french company that used a false claim with a US law to harm you by removing your legitimate content. The DMCA protects only the network provider, not the user or the entity making the claim and regardless of where the legal entity making a claim resides, they sought out you in your hosting company's location to harm you with the false claims.

This is no different then a French citizen coming to wherever you live or do business and punching you or filing incorrect police reports resulting in your arrest and legal harassment (actually imagine he is the body guard of someone else when this happens). You would not need to go to France to seek justice. You just need to go to anywhere they hold assets to collect any awards issued by the court and that can generally be done without leaving your lawyer's office. But if you sue the french company as an agent of the copyright holder, the copyright holder or the person/company employing them will be vicariously liable and you may be able to collect without trying ti seize or attach to assets in foreign lands.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265783)

You can seek justice in a US court.
But you can't collect. Most of the time you can't even collect with a judgement in hand from a US court against a US company. They simply stone wall you.
You have zero chance of collecting from a guy working out of a loft in Paris.

So if you had a point, it was lost by your naivety of the real world.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (2)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266017)

You attach to assets they hold like the claimed copyrighted works and report the debt to the credit bureaus so the company has to clear it in order to do business or suffer penalties in trying to do so.

This is why you sue the agent and the owner who will be liable too.

If I was the only person suing, you might have a point. But if everyone who has been wronged by these things sue, then they cannot escape the reality.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266195)

You can not "attach" physical assets without the aid of Police.
Most Police ignore judgements unless they are very high amounts.

Most financial assets will be kept off shore, out of the reach of US courts.
Even if they had US assets, they are not going to tell you about them, and they are not even going to show up before a judge and explain why not.
They will simply ignore you.

The only way you get anything is go after them in their own country, and hope the US judgement isn't laughed out of a French court.

You've got no chance of collecting for perjury anyway, because its a crime, not a civil matter, and the police are not going to Paris for you.
Get over it.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266463)

You can not "attach" physical assets without the aid of Police.
Most Police ignore judgements unless they are very high amounts.

What are you talking about? You do not need the police to put a lien on a building or car or copyrighted work. All you need to do is file the proper paperwork with the appropriate agency.

Most financial assets will be kept off shore, out of the reach of US courts.
Even if they had US assets, they are not going to tell you about them, and they are not even going to show up before a judge and explain why not.
They will simply ignore you.

That is true in only certain instances. Most foreign banks cooperate with US court orders if they do business with the US. You may have to hire a lawyer in the other country to show a judge the US court order and request the comparable order be made. You cannot just attach to something without a court order or other legal right to do so. You are not walking in off the street saying Jimbob owes me money, lock this account until he pays me.

You've got no chance of collecting for perjury anyway, because its a crime, not a civil matter, and the police are not going to Paris for you.
Get over it.

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong point. I have never said you would be going after them for perjury. You can sue people for acts they take that damage you in some way if you can quantify the damages. Loss of business or reputation and legal fees incurred because of the wrong is one of those ways, What happens with a fraudulent take down notice is that someone is erroneously making a legal claim against you. They owe for any damage that error causes just like if they walked down the street and assaulted you.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

bobbutts (927504) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266229)

everyone should simply start filing takedown notices on every single thing they find on the net anywhere until the hosting companies realize that it is a total mess

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267899)

They already know it's a mess. They are just using these incompetent services because the big media companies are making that a condition of getting hosting business from the big media companies. You need to find a hoster that does the DMCA takedowns the old fashioned way, by printing them out and putting them in the INBOX of the company lawyer.

Re:In the absence of teeth... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266523)

it seems to me that everyone should simply start filing takedown notices on every single thing they find on the net anywhere

hmmm, sounds like a good app for a BOT!

Simple solution: (5, Insightful)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264537)

Charge these organizations a nuisance fee for false positives. Problem solved.

Re:Simple solution: (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264601)

You mean kinda like the charges of perjury that can be levied against them already according to the terms of the DMCA?

Re:Simple solution: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41264713)

Reread the terms, most unfortunately, only part of a proper DMCA takedown notice is made "under penalty of perjury", and it's not the part most of these vandals (with apologies to the Vandals) get wrong.

Re:Simple solution: (5, Interesting)

jkflying (2190798) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265025)

As AC alluded to, they can only be charged with perjury if they don't have rights to the work they claim is being infringed. If your work is nothing to do with the work they claim is infringed, you have no recourse. So to troll the system all you have to do is have a random copyright on something, and claim everything you see infringes on it.

Re:Simple solution: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41266603)

This sounds like a job for Anonymous.

DMCA takedown notice all the things.

Re:Simple solution: (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265681)

These organizations and the people/organizations who employ them are already subject to damages and legal fees their take down notices cause. The DMCA does not protect the person making the claim or the accused, just the netowrk operator if certain steps are taken.

Re:Simple solution: (2)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266521)

a rather simple solution would be to attach a deposit to filing a DMCA notice. if the notice is unchallenged, or eventually goes to court and is won, then the deposit is returned.

if the notice is challenged, and the organization does nothing, then the content is restored and they lose their deposit. or if it goes to court and the challenger loses the case, then they also lose the deposit. maybe even have the deposit automatically be awarded towards the legal fees of the defendant in this case.

the deposit doesn't necessarily even have to be all that large. if it suddenly costs money to file a DMCA, the filers will at least double check before they file. right now it seems the really have no penalty if they are wrong, so they file first and ask question later.

Hold them to the fire (5, Interesting)

Rurik (113882) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264595)

LeakID (and/or their client) just claimed copyright over malware. Not just any malware, but targeted malware against a corporation for the intent of theft of intellectual property and unauthorized access of computer systems.

IANAL, but LeakID should then be held liable and responsible for their "copyrighted works".

Re:Hold them to the fire (3, Insightful)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264719)

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:Hold them to the fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41269075)

Or report LeakID for providing material support for terrorists.

Re:Hold them to the fire (3, Insightful)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265211)

Maybe they just claimed copyright on the original PDF and are holding the malware infested version as merely an infringing derivative work?

Third Strike (2)

Mike Van Pelt (32582) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264607)

Shouldn't this be considered a third strike for the whole concept of automated DMCA takedowns?

Re:Third Strike (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267465)

The DMCA was designed to let copyright holders take out stuff on the internet they don't like. It's doing that. Allowing automated "spam bot" DMCA filings is a feature not a bug.

More of this, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41264701)

I want to see more "content bots" arbitrarily taking down all sorts of high-profile legitimate streaming, youtube postings, government PSAs and legitimate licensed content. Anything to make the problem more visible.

I could even dream that it would spark some serious conversations around how ridiculous it is, but I'm too cynical today.

(captcha: Sentinel)

Re:More of this, please (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265547)

lets hope that some annons start filing take downs of all political speachs and ads the election season that would get them to fix the dmca takedown system really fast.

(note i am not suggesting anyone do this.( just in case it does and is tracked back to me))

How to build a regulated Internet (2)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264733)

One takedown at a time.

Next Licensing, tickets and penalties

Perhaps this is good? (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264745)

I wonder if this isn't a good thing to have happening as frequently as it is and to highly visible victims. Maybe some laws will get passed/changed to make automatic detection/takedown illegal. It is hard to send a computer program to jail for fraudulent takedown notices, but if a person or lawyer (are they people?) signs the takedown notices then there is someone to blame and send to jail for fraud.

I guess I don't actually believe what I wrote because I am too cynical of our current corporation/politician love fest, but one can dream!

Re:Perhaps this is good? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265297)

You miss the point. The reason that auto-take-down exists is so that current copyright holders can cut huge swaths through anything they feel "Might" infringe on their copyrights, and therefore should be expunged from the planet as we know it. They care less than a wit about collateral damage, improper take-down, and illegal or immoral applications of the laws they've ramrodded through governments around the world. They want to control the content, and force you and me to pay. If along the way the throw the baby out with the bath water, I'm sure for a reasonable price they'll let you rent your own baby back of course that will include proper limitations on use and ownership.

Come on - her last name is "Parkour" (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264755)

So it's pretty darn obvious she's doing a lot of dangerous, crazy stuff. They were right to ban her.

Re:Come on - her last name is "Parkour" (1)

plover (150551) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265813)

I'm just glad she's not running from the problem.

Re:Come on - her last name is "Parkour" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41268145)

The DMCA is still an annoying obstacle to be crossed over, preferably in a linear way.

Paris? (3, Interesting)

toriver (11308) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264827)

I hope that is Paris, Texas, since a company in Paris, France has fuck all to do with the United States' DMCA laws.

Re:Paris? (5, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265009)

Thanks to international copyright agreements, French (and a shitload of other countries') copyrights apply in the US as well. And since you don't have to be a US citizen to take legal action to a US company or citizen under US laws, they can. It's the same reason why a certain Swedish site can be sued for infringement of US copyrights according to Swedish laws.
You see it's a trade-off between security and freedom; companies gain security in exchange for citizens losing freedom.

Re:Paris? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265357)

Actually, it's in Paris, Australia, and this is all a car gymkhana gone wrong

Seriously, why shouldn't a French company provide DMCA-related services? It's a possible source for more stupid France-bashing jokes, but aside from that I deon't see the issue.

Re:Paris? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266667)

% telnet francenet.fr 25
220 mailserver.francenet.fr ESMTP MAIL Service, Version: 3.1156. Please don't shoot. We surrender!
(connection closed)
% _

The Obama This Is Very Funny (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264891)

Considering that her husband's political policies are directly responsible for sh*t like this happening. (If you don't believe me, then why did he appoint a former RIAA chief to his cabinet?)

Re:The Obama This Is Very Funny (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265191)

Another question is the Envoy Act, which creates an undersecretary and hundreds of new envoys in embassies to do as Christopher Dodd (former D senator, now MPAA president) requests, would be proposed by Lamarr Smith (R-TX) when presumably, the nation can't afford such things.

Re:The Obama This Is Very Funny (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265329)

Obama is responsible for the DMCA that was passed before he was ever in political office?

Re:The Obama This Is Very Funny (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265369)

Friend, it is true that the Dems are suckling at the Hollywood teat hard and long, but don't you for a moment think that Hollywood won't or doesn't invest in the other side too, because in the end, they have far more interest in getting their agenda passed than who does the passing.

Mila Parkour (3, Funny)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264893)

She was kicked off...

No worries, she will grab on to the horizontal bar, swing 360 degrees around it then flip, somersault and land with a graceful roll.

So let me get this strait - it was a virus... (1)

Igot1forya (2609733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41264915)

The fact that the files were virus by definition (self-replicating) should void any DMCA rules. That's kind of like pissing from a roof top and charging everyone below for window cleaning services, even if no one wanted it.

Re:So let me get this strait - it was a virus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265349)

I don't see anywhere in the title/summary that claims that it was a virus - just that it was malware. Now I am an average /. reader, so I might have missed something, but I don't see that you have any basis for this (correct) pedantry over malware taxonomy.

Re:So let me get this strait - it was a virus... (1)

Igot1forya (2609733) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265703)

Yup, I'm a retard... going back to my hole now. :(

That damn pirate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41264923)

He must have torrented AVG.

Dumb Parallel (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265195)

Gaiman and Obama had their live streams interrupted interrupted by brainless content robots. This guy was kicked off a service by his fellow carbon-based units after some content violations were flagged. Except for the fact that it's all part of the IP wars, there's no parallel at all.

Someone injured by this malware needs to... (3, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265253)

...file suit against the malware authors and then subpoena LeakID's records to identify them.

It's an interesting question. (1)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265255)

Copyright is generally assumed for any work that benefits society. Can you even claim copyright on something like a virus, or other piece of maulware? I wonder if there's a legal argument that Maulware is profane, and not eligible to begin with. Might be interesting if this line of reasoning is ever pursued.

Re:It's an interesting question. (1)

chartreuse (16508) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267575)

Copyright is generally assumed for any work that benefits society.

Not true. That's a paraphrase of the Constitutional language, yes, but there's plenty of copyrightable materials that are of minimal or negative benefit to society: The Turner Diaries, say, or [insert completely crap Hollywood movie here].

And of course anyone might disagree about what is or is not of social benefit, depending on their particular ideological/political/financial/social/etc filters. One person's Ulysses is another's 50 Shades of Gray. They're both equally copyrightable, though, and the First Amendment sez that the government can't distinguish between them (the only major exception afaik being if it's something highly classified).

Don't trust the cloud! (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265419)

Tis just yet another example in the ever growing exhibit hall of reasons not to trust the cloud. If you do not want to bother setting up your own IT services, you should be hiring somebody to set them up for you. The best option is to do it yourself (not rocket science these days) and maintain total control.

There are lots more sob stories coming regarding people and their misplaced trust in cloud services.

Re:Don't trust the cloud! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265779)

I couldn't agree more. The Cloud is a HUGE scam in my opinion. You are basically giving all your data to someone else, and crossing your fingers that you can get it back. How many people, and IT people at that, need to get burned before they realize this is a bad idea? Cloud = Bad. And it seems like every time I hear about a high profile Cloud issue, its with some one that seems like they are just storing a handful of files. Flash drives and hard drives are crazy cheap these days.

Re:Don't trust the cloud! (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266701)

In the 1960s and 70s, and even 80s, the idea of centralized computing services shared by many users made a lot of sense. Most people couldn't afford computers or great computing power, nor did they have a need for such resources. The solution was to have a university, lab, or business purchase a big powerful computer and users would use dumb terminals to interact with it. It worked great.

The difference today, is that the "cloud" is being sold as a similar sort of resource when it clearly isn't necessary. An individual can buy or build a home computer that is many times more powerful than supercomputers of just 10 years ago for very little money. They can load it up with many terabytes of storage, purchase many optional upgrades that enable functions that were only possibly in high-tech research labs a decade ago, and hook this monster of a machine up to a fairly high speed internet connection. In the dark ages of the mid-1990s, a T1 was considered to be a hot shit internet connection, useful to service all the customers of a small to middle sized ISP. At this point, I just have shitty old Comcast with upload speed cap. Despite this, my bandwidth downstream is equivalent to a dozen T1 lines and upstream, three T1 lines.

The cloud has been here for a while. It is small enough to put under your desk or in a closet, and you can actually own the whole thing without paying any monthly fees or agreeing to abide by any rules other than your own (and your ISP's) by just buying a computer!

To those who say that they use the cloud to ease administration of a large organization's IT needs? Two points: One, you're doing it wrong. Two, if it works you'll find that BYOD coupled with the Cloud will actually put you out of work.

Exciting cloud (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265427)

Until there are greater protections for my rights and until the legal system sorts out the details of how I am going to "legally" consume media, the excitement about "the Cloud" will lead me to store my information in "the Drive."

Re:Exciting cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41266431)

I think the next fileserver I build, I'm going to set the host name to "TheCloud"

all about money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265533)

get your money back and use a different site to store your files

There is a always someone that will pay attention if you ask for your money back

Will Rommey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41265569)

...just stop the attacks and prodce those returns? Asking too much?

...which is why... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#41265865)

...you don't use cloud storage for anything important.

this is what I would do (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266003)

If my company got a DMCA takedown notice that was "on behalf of someone" then we'd tell them to "shove it up their ass." I don't know why mediafire would obey such idiotic semi-anonymous requests other than to look better than megaupload from a legal perspective.

Anybody Dumb Enough to Depend On Cloud Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41266019)

without any recourse is going to get bitten sooner or later. Anything stored on a third party's machine, whether it's Mediafire, google docs, your yahoo email account, flickr, your bitcoins stored in someone else's "bank", or your Diablo 3 account with some virtual sword that you bought with real money, can go bye-bye just like that. Proceed accordingly.

Encrypted? (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41266241)

The files included two compressed and encrypted malicious PDF files linked to Contagio blog posts from 2010.

So, how did LeakID determine these were copyright violations? They'd have to be breaking encryption on servers' contents and that would be a DMCA violation as well.

And that's how the world will end.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41266965)

With more advanced DMCA seeking software, it will notice that certian HUmnas have genetics very sinilar to those genetics that universities and companies have patented.

The genetics while different, will be similar enough to cause the DMCA software to 'delete' the infringer immediately and without appeal. As it goes on, the software will notice all DNA is similar and based upon the samer building blocks and decide that every living thing infringes on the basic patents of those companies and universities and begin deleting all life...

And that's how Skynet was born, not as a defense program, but as a copyright and patent protection program...

JasonAW3

Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41267163)

Would one of our French colleagues care to append his wikipedia page please....

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herv%C3%A9_Lemaire[wikipedia] :)

Malicious software researcher? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267239)

I'm presuming it's the software that's malicious, not the researcher.

Okay, so the DMCA is or isn't directly involved? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41267789)

I know that in all cases, the threat of DMCA action is really what is at stake here. The DMCA is a damaging piece of one-sided legislation that no only hurts people in the US but all over the planet.

It's time this is brought before a judge I think. What is stopping this from happening?

C'mon Google. You've got a dog in this race too!

What kind of encryption was that?! (1)

RevSpaminator (1419557) | more than 2 years ago | (#41268459)

The files were said to be encrypted, so how could anyone identify the files as a violation of copyright? Either someone encrypted the file with a Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring, or LeakID is throwing false positives in an effort to run up the tab on its customers. I strongly suggest anyone subscribing to LeakID's service seriously review their billing statements.

what about this summary? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#41268989)

the summary is a quote from another source and therefore someone else's content stolen and distributed for free on slashdot to anyone who likes the headline.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?