×

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!

MediaFire Restores Virus Researcher's Account But Not Individual Files

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the bad-robot dept.

Government 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

72 comments

Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297355)

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 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297391)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297421)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (2, Interesting)

Phase Shifter (70817) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297661)

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 (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297737)

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 (3, Interesting)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297887)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298913)

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.

The DMCA exists because the Hollywood lobby is well-monied and wields a lot of influence. The consequence is that we have laws like this that are extremely lopsided in favor of Hollywood. The further consequence, of course, is that this law is basically a tool of suppression and harassment for people other than Hollywood.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about a year and a half ago | (#41309885)

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 and that is very important.

I am not sure I entirely agree with outsourcing even the most basic tasks but it is certainly popular in the business world.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298637)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41299173)

2. Content taken down.

This is where the problem starts. A website absolutely shouldn't be forced to take the content down (or risk losing safe-harbor) just because someone claims it's a copyright violation. Way to circumvent due process, DMCA.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41299379)

Because hosting companies just don't want to deal with it. "You can take your business elsewhere, we don't want to put the time and money into dealing with this mess, regardless of who is at fault."

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year and a half ago | (#41300401)

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 material up. Instead, the company still retains its rights to tell its customer "find another host", and they usually invoke that right since the customer "caused" trouble.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (3, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297419)

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 (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297469)

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 (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297573)

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 (4, Interesting)

BlueStrat (756137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297695)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298285)

"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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41299467)

The problem with your strategy is that you are not a large corporation...

Most likely scenario is that nothing happens to the content and you will be harrased in one way or another. "Oops was that your credit cards? They have been cancelled by some weird accident"
Less likely but possible scenario is that you somehow end up in court with the charges that don't apply to corporations, but do apply to you personally...

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41301891)

Less likely but possible scenario is that you somehow end up in court with the charges that don't apply to corporations, but do apply to you personally...

Just file the paperwork to incorporate yourself. For 75 bucks it is pretty cheap insurance against such shenanigans.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41300465)

The problem is there is a dis-connect with uk opinion in the us... We see it this way, Roughly translated from shit to Kings English.. The real sites being taken down ARE...
STAY CALM AND KEEP UP WITH THE LISTS BITCHES
* sick people who you want to fuck over financially - fuck cannabis dispensaries doctors and patients
* ammunition supply - fuck the spying
* guns - fuck regulation
* food supply - fuck gmo
* water supply - fuck floride
* water glass - fuck the swabbing
* cigarette - fuck the tax
* matches - fuck the dhs
* alcohol - fuck the atfbwhatever
* transportation - fuck the tsa
* misdemeanors - fuck the fake courts and non fully informed juror's who don't know about nullification
* health insurance IRS armed with guns tax - fuck forced slavery and motherfucking thugs

I can go on and on and the more I sit here the more fucking shit I poke holes through

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41300509)

Kings English to shit I meant, Fuck!

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297807)

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 (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298239)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41301171)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41303961)

Heh, as if whatever draconian agreement you signed when you joined the service doesn't allow them to terminate service for any or no reason, or force you into heavily biased arbitration if you have any dispute.

However, service providers that do not notify you that your content was removed and honor counterclaims lose their safe harbor status- just like if they do not honor claims to take down content.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41305661)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year and a half ago | (#41307737)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297825)

Pretty much. In theory failure to honour a counterclaim leaves the company open to litagation if it is proven to an incorrect claim.
I see it working about as well as the software patent system - used like club to squash competition.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41305779)

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 (4, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297839)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (2)

jeffasselin (566598) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297861)

Actually, making a false claim is considered a perjury, but that clause is almost never enforced.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (3, Informative)

Binestar (28861) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298535)

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 (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297549)

those disputed files can be restored immediately if a counterclaim is made if you trust that the safe harbor protections afforded by the DMCA will stop some rabid copyright troll with a shyster lawyer from bringing a bullshit suit against you, costing you money up front to defend it even if it's clearly without merit.

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297863)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298129)

MediaFire is asking if a Counter Claim was made from the LeakID folks. They should restore the files once it is acknowledged that they did get a Counter Claim.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41303709)

Actually, if a counterclaim is filed to restore the content, under the DMCA it must not be restored immediately - the provider must wait 10-14 days before putting it back up if they want to maintain safe harbor status (DMCA section 512(g)(3)). This really is the root of many of the DMCA woes, since both claims and counterclaims carry the same sort of restrictions and penalties, but a claim must be responded to quickly, whereas a counterclaim must be responded to slowly. Even a totally bogus claim that is immediately spotted forces removal of content for at least a week and a half.

Re:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297475)

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:Guilty until proven innocent, as usual (2)

someones (2687911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298137)

Not only USA. See the French.

So... copyright idiots (= Content mafia) is killing the net.

North Face Denali (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297397)

A North Face Denali [northface-denali.co.uk] jacket isn't cheap. Given the quality of construction and the notable materials, it also comes with a solid price tag. North Face Women Jackets [northface-denali.co.uk] understands that not everyone is ready to forgo a week of groceries to own a jacket. There is a better solution than waiting patiently for an end-of-the-season sale! A North Face Outlet store will help you to experience a North Face Men Down Jackets [northface-denali.co.uk] with less of a dent in your bank account. A North Face Outlet is stocked with popular styles that need a good home. Swing by one of the multiple North Face Down Coats [northface-denali.co.uk] Outlet locations and experience things for yourself. If you aren't located by any physical locations, hop online to your favorite outdoor retailer and have a North Face Denali shipped to your door step. It's worth it.

Somewhere in their cloud. (5, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297445)

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:Somewhere in their cloud. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297715)

I agree. However in your example the most difficult part is to hand over the sweets to the child. This also might get you into trouble.

Simple solution (5, Interesting)

Calydor (739835) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297669)

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:Simple solution (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297903)

Is a false C&D a civil or criminal offense? If it's criminal, good luck getting anyone to file charges.

Re:Simple solution (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297951)

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:Simple solution (1)

The Moof (859402) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298191)

Actually, there's a provision that states if you knowingly make a false claim, it's a criminal offense as well. However, I've never actually seen that enforced.

Re:Simple solution (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298369)

Should that not just be perjury?

Re:Simple solution (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298685)

No, this is the legal system. Old laws like perjury don't apply because you need a new law with 'using a computer' appended to the end of it.

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41300119)

No - only if you false claim copyright over the material you *allege* is being infringed, not the material itself. For instance, if you issue a takedown notice for Song A claiming it infringes the copyright of your Song B, you only face a penalty if you don't actually hold the copyright to Song B. There's no penalty if it turns out you don't own Song A, even if it obviously has nothing to do with Song B.

On the other hand if you're the person who uploaded Song A, when you file the counterclaim to restore the content, you *do* face a penalty if it later turns out that Song A *does* infringe on Song B.

Re:Simple solution (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298087)

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:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298655)

// Provide alternate content for browsers that do not support scripting // or for those that have scripting disabled. Alternate HTML content should be placed here. This content requires the Adobe Flash Player. Get Flash

This is the only site that I've seen who have this stock error message with Flash disabled. Every site that I've seen at least personalizes that message for the paranoid folks in the world. It says a lot when a company won't even take the most basic of steps.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Tolbin (1446277) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298729)

With noscript you get black text on black background saying: "// Provide alternate content for browsers that do not support scripting // or for those that have scripting disabled. Alternate HTML content should be placed here. This content requires the Adobe Flash Player. Get Flash"

Re:Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298715)

Well put.

Re:Simple solution (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41300083)

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's a valid DMCA complaint.

But don't fforget (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year and a half ago | (#41297763)

"Cloud computing is the future", or at least that's what's being shoved down your throat. See how fun cloud computing is? By all means, put all your data "on the cloud".

The cloud is a liability. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41297895)

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 (2)

pnot (96038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298053)

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? (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298173)

Why on earth would a virus researcher use cloud storage instead of his/her own server?

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 page of slashdot, other than for public shaming.

No surprise; Daniel's a dick. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298293)

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.

Those virii are their IP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298443)

My thoughts would be take out an ad in the public notices sections of the classifieds in a couple of the larger newspapers (or maybe just craigslist, at least a couple of people would read that): "Had YOUR computer infected with virus X, Y or Z, or know someone who has? Lost days/weeks/months worth of work/porn/lolcat pics? We've found the guys who wrote that virus" and give LeakID's contact details. Might only be one or two people who see the note, have been affected and bother sending LeakID mail, but at least they won't be friendly letters.

Cloud Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41298691)

Just like the MegaUpload scandal, this just proves that storing any data in "the cloud" is really under somebody elses control, to do with as THEY like.

If your dumb enough to use "the cloud" then you deserve what you get.

That Parkour girl (1)

alexo (9335) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298719)

... LeakID, the Paris-based firm that accused Parkour ...

I'm not sure they really want to mess with a Parkour girl... [youtube.com]

Re:That Parkour girl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41310731)

Rehearsed martial arts routine is rehearsed. Last time someone tried to flip me by grabbing my head with their feet, I straightened up and they came with me. If I'd chosen, they'd have made an awesome punching bag, absolutely unable to do anything useful to stop me without letting go...

so besides all that (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41298789)

They're acting like this person kept the one and only copy of certain things on a file sharing site. How unbelievably stupid is that?! If that is the case, anyone deserves and FBI raid or copyright notice or random account closure or company bankruptcy so they can learn how unsafe that is. Now that their account is back online, just re-upload all the files.

Return of the RAR? (remember usenet?) (1)

camg188 (932324) | about a year and a half ago | (#41299341)

From the Contagio blog [blogspot.com] (where Mila Parkour works):

...who used LeakID services to crawl Hotfile links and file baseless copyright infringement notices en masse.

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?

If data is not in three places it doesn't exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41299683)

"Trust us" so sez the cloud service.

In all the years of using computers, remote or local, the one thing that's guaranteed is that you/we will lose the data at at least one location. Who do you trust? What do you trust? Nuthin' and nobody.

This researcher depended on a service that depended on bots to determine DMCA compliance. She should have done more research into the klowd service before handing hers over to them. Were her files encrypted???

This calls for a "They Done Me Wrong..." song posted on YouTube AND BitTorrent.

MediaFire is not a legitimate cloud provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41300649)

It's just recently trying to be, but it's entire business model was previously built on piracy. They just changed the layout of their website to reflect a more legitimate business. If they used DropBox (now with 2 factor authentication) with BoxCryptor encryption, and you wouldn't of had this problem.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...