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!

Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the i-believe-this-is-called-comeuppance dept.

Security 427

qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."

cancel ×

427 comments

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

I have looked into the news, and i just felt that (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20618519)

this is something big.

real big.

Re:I have looked into the news, and i just felt th (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 7 years ago | (#20618533)

All we need now, is a CIA cover-up.

this is in the wild now (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20618577)

nothing can cover it up

Re:this is in the wild now (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 7 years ago | (#20618645)

That's that they WANT you to believe!

Re:this is in the wild now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618895)

Yeah, like the Zyprexa Kills torrent.

Brought the Eli Lilly Corporation to its knees I tell you, to its fucking knees.

Re:this is in the wild now (1)

jackharrer (972403) | about 7 years ago | (#20619049)

Hopefully it will get to news.bbc.co.uk, as it's regarded as one of still pretty credible news outlets.
Does anybody know how to submit it to them?
Or maybe some tabloids? The Sun, Daily Mail... sounds like a task for Sunday!

Hahahaha, no. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618565)

It is big. But I doubt there will be any sensible outcome. What will likely happen is that this will be talked about for a couple of days, soon enough some other story will come along, and people will forget all about it.

Re:Hahahaha, no. (5, Informative)

spikestabber (644578) | about 7 years ago | (#20618685)

Their SSN's, home addresses, birthdates, wages and all are included in a spreadsheet attachment. They're screwed.

Re:Hahahaha, no. (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | about 7 years ago | (#20619263)

Haha... Oh boy are they screwed... Maybe people can give this story the 'pwned' tag that it so rightly deserves.

Are you sure? (3, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | about 7 years ago | (#20618873)

I wonder if Ray Beckerman (NYCL) would be able to use this? He's been trying to get discovery about what MediaDefender is up to from the RIAA for ages, last I heard, and hasn't gotten jack. Considering they're now open to all, I wonder if they could be used in court?

After all, you may remember how MediaDefender paid someone to hack into TorrentSpy's email. I'd call this turn-about...

Re:Are you sure? (2, Insightful)

Kelz (611260) | about 7 years ago | (#20618923)

One would imagine it would be extremely hard to get any of this into evidence. But might it be used to lower MDs credibility with a judge, so that the judge would force a discovery?

Re:Are you sure? (5, Interesting)

SL Baur (19540) | about 7 years ago | (#20619177)

I wonder if Ray Beckerman (NYCL) would be able to use this?
I doubt it, but I'm not a lawyer and he is, so I'd expect him to Do The Right Thing.

Actually, I'm in awe of him. I read the deposition he conducted earlier in the year against an RIAA "expert" witness yesterday (yeah, yeah mod me down for violating /. etiquette in not only reading TFA but also the attached links). Reading the transcript was even more fun than reading about SCO's chapter 11 filing. Brilliant man.

Re:Hahahaha, no. (1)

gravos (912628) | about 7 years ago | (#20619149)

I guess what I am wondering is whether we find their vigilante attitude towards stopping downloads more or less distasteful than the RIAA's more typical sue-and-destroy strategy.

Distance? (2, Insightful)

Poromenos1 (830658) | about 7 years ago | (#20618525)

They didn't just distance themselves from the company, they were going to relaunch it under a totally new name/look while still making sure it couldn't be tracked back to them. Doesn't this constitute entrapment?

Re:Distance? (4, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | about 7 years ago | (#20618563)

They didn't just distance themselves from the company, they were going to relaunch it under a totally new name/look while still making sure it couldn't be tracked back to them. Doesn't this constitute entrapment?


Generally speaking, entrapment only applies to law enforcement and the government. RIAA still isn't there yet, thankfully. OTOH, a good lawyer could probably spin it as morally equivalent in principle for a jury.

Re:Distance? (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 years ago | (#20619181)

In additional to only applying to agents of law enforcement or those acting as such, entrapment also only applies to making you commit a crime that you wouldn't otherwise make. So unless either the old or the new company did that, it wouldn't be entrapment. And if there was entrapment, it wouldn't have anything to do with their secret change.

Re:Distance? (4, Informative)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | about 7 years ago | (#20618581)

You can't be entrapped in civil court. Entrapment is a statutory creation of criminal law. (Sorrells v. United States, although later supreme court precedent leads us to believe that rather than the statutory creation theory, they are moving more towards dealing with entrapment in a supervisory sense.)

Re:Distance? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 7 years ago | (#20619325)

when two civilians do it isn't it called conspiracy?

Re:Distance? (3, Informative)

ctishman (545856) | about 7 years ago | (#20618583)

Regular people (like you or me or, in the court's eyes, the RIAA) can't commit entrapment. It's a police-only crime.

Re:Distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618621)

They didn't just distance themselves from the company, they were going to relaunch it under a totally new name/look while still making sure it couldn't be tracked back to them. Doesn't this constitute entrapment?
entrapment involves the use of a technique that ends up in a crime being committed that under normal conditions would not have happened. would the crime have been committed without mediadefender setting up a trap? in all probabiliy it would. It would just happen elsewhere. it isn't strictly entrapment but it sure is evil.

Re:Distance? (4, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 7 years ago | (#20618823)

entrapment involves the use of a technique that ends up in a crime being committed that under normal conditions would not have happened. would the crime have been committed without mediadefender setting up a trap? in all probabiliy it would. It would just happen elsewhere. it isn't strictly entrapment but it sure is evil.

If they hadn't set up the website, this specific "crime" COULDN'T have happened.

Think about what you said, with respect to, for example, VICE squads:

"Would Joe have been busted for possession of marijuana if the cop didn't sell it to him? In all probability he would have; it would just have happened elsewhere."

This is incorrect. It would NOT have happened; he MIGHT have been busted for possession of OTHER marijuana sold by someone else. On the other hand, he might not.

All of this is moot anyway, as you can't be entrapped in civil court. If they passed federal charges (under the DMCA), then an entrapment suit might possibly be in order if those entrapping were operating "above the law". Otherwise, either THEY were committing a crime by distributing the content, or those downloading weren't committing a crime as they would have been given legal permission to download the data. The worst thing they could be asked to do if those distributing the data didn't have permission to do so would be to remove their copy from their computer by the court. Of course, in most sane countries, possession of copywritten data isn't a crime, infringement, or anything similar; only distribution is. All you can be sued for is breach of contract in civil court (assuming there was some sort of contract).

Re:Distance? (4, Interesting)

Abalamahalamatandra (639919) | about 7 years ago | (#20618633)

As people have said, entrapment only applies to law enforcement types.

In the civil arena, I believe unclean hands [wikipedia.org] would be more applicable, especially if you can trace Media Defender back to the RIAA via contracts and such.

Re:Distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618743)

> As people have said, entrapment only applies to law enforcement types.

Not a problem at all! Just do some out-sourcing and in fact this is happening.

Re:Distance? (1)

insertwackynamehere (891357) | about 7 years ago | (#20618863)

"When Civil Blood Makes Civil Hands Unclean" .. is that where the term "Unclean hands" comes from? Civil court.. unclean hands law.. :P Actually I am curious, though.

Re:Distance? (5, Interesting)

Wordplay (54438) | about 7 years ago | (#20618709)

I imagine that a clever lawyer could point out that they're attempting to sue over a transaction of which they were an active part. If I give you something outright, it would likely be impossible for me to sue to get compensation later. If I give it to you while wearing a disguise, I'm not sure that principle doesn't apply.

A -really- clever lawyer could point out that since the RIAA has been documented as giving their stuff away, that anyone downloading from anywhere might have a reasonable belief that it was coming from the "authorized" source in disguise. I don't know that it would fly, but seems like there'd be a non-zero chance of diluting RIAA's argument in the entire body of cases.

On a side note, seems like this would give the artists cause to sue the RIAA, for distributing their work in a manner that's likely not covered by their contract (though with artist contracts in RIAA member companies, who knows--maybe they have the right to give it all away for free.)

Re:Distance? (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about 7 years ago | (#20618995)

I'm glad you pointed that out. If this company, acting as an agent for the plaintiff (a movie company, for example), participated in the distribution of this content via P2P, then that constitutes a tacit approval of P2P distribution of the content by the plaintiff, thus making any further P2P distribution of that content potentially authorized by the copyright holder, and thus not a copyright violation.

Further, even if the person did not actually get it directly from an agent of the copyright holder, the rights holder distributing in such a way that causes it to be automatically redistributed by anyone who receives it (P2P) could constitute deliberate abandonment of the copyright (at least for the purposes of personal, noncommercial use) by the copyright holder.

I'm not saying that argument would necessarily hold up in court, but if I were in charge of a media company, I would not be doing anything nearly this stupid and reckless.

Re:Distance? (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 years ago | (#20619101)

I imagine that a clever lawyer could point out that they're attempting to sue over a transaction of which they were an active part.

I imagine that they would not sue over content that people downloaded from their honeypot, but rather used information gleaned (such as IPs) to target these people and see what they had downloaded from other torrent sites.

Re:Distance? (4, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 7 years ago | (#20619307)

Keep reading. He posits that the existence of honeypots lends credibility to the argument that *ANY* download *MIGHT* be coming from a legitimate source. We know the RIAA is distributing songs via P2P, and we know they are disguising themselves, so why can't we assume that the guy sending us music right now is really the RIAA in disguise, making it legal?

Re:Distance? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 7 years ago | (#20619225)

though with artist contracts in RIAA member companies, who knows--maybe they have the right to give it all away for free.

Well, if you look at iTunes etc. it mostly says Copyright (2006) Universal, Inc. or somesuch. So I figure they sell the copyright outright in return for royalties, though I suppose it could have some limitations on how they sell it and such.

Re:Distance? (2, Interesting)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | about 7 years ago | (#20619257)

Yes I can see a prosecution of downloaders might be hampered by how they were caught, if they were handed (corrupted) files by copyright holders themselves (RIAA/MediaDefender or allies). But 2 points you may have missed:

1) On a Windows system I've once seen a URL being opened as a direct result of playing some video file. Maybe there still exist similar leaks on many (unpatched) client systems out there, that allow arbitrary code execution. In that case: install some monitoring software, gather system info, identifiable data an so forth, and voila: you might proceed to prosecute that person not for sharing the video you handed him/her, but for all other illegal activity done using that computer. Failing that, an inside look in a file sharer's machine could be very helpful for rights holders.

2) By feeding corrupted downloads to users, you make their experience less satisfying, so that said users may turn away from using things like BitTorrent. Or give BT / file sharing in general a bad reputation (as in: works difficult, downloads often crap). That would also serve your purpose (although I expect the result to be minimal unless you succeed in causing mayor disruption of the file sharing network).

--Don't tell me this sounds good, and you won't me on your team. Up yours! File sharing may be illegal in some cases, but in general I don't feel it's unethical, or that it helps society at large to prevent it. Try and convince me otherwise, with solid arguments.

Re:Distance? (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 7 years ago | (#20619309)

OK, so not entrapment, but what about violating FTC laws if they lied on their charter of incorporation (is that the term of the paperwork compiled for incorporate a company?)

Torrent or it didn't happen (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618527)

Re:Torrent or it didn't happen (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 years ago | (#20618945)

Nothing like the slashdot effect to boost the speed of a torrent!

Will we be able to legally tie this to RIAA ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20618535)

If so, then riaa is in knee deep s*it

Re:Will we be able to legally tie this to RIAA ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618617)

If so, then riaa is in knee deep s*it
Keep dreaming. The RIAA has bought so much of your political system that they can basically do whatever they want. Even if it can be tied directly to the RIAA, which is doubtful, a select few people will take the fall and business will continue as usual.

Or maybe (1)

goldcd (587052) | about 7 years ago | (#20618573)

they just got sick of trapping people for the RIAA and the RIAA getting to shake them down for cash.
Let torrent stuff you have copyright on (for example emails that've been stolen from you) and sue for cash yourself...

They seemed to appreciate utorrent (5, Interesting)

Aim Here (765712) | about 7 years ago | (#20618575)

If you read the emails, apparently utorrent is their favourite torrent client, since it allows them to 'interdict' torrents, whatever that means. Whatever they're up to, that surely warrants a campaign to boycott the client in favour of free software torrent clients where these sorts of deficiencies can at least be fixed by anyone who cares.

Oh, and the rumors of them being behind the spyware-encrusted ziptorrent were false; that one seems to have been MediaSentry's doing.

Re:They seemed to appreciate utorrent (1)

cnettel (836611) | about 7 years ago | (#20618663)

Well, what would stop them from keeping an older version if that's somehow beneficial to them (or make minor changes to a client to disturb the protocol)?

Re:They seemed to appreciate utorrent (3, Interesting)

Aim Here (765712) | about 7 years ago | (#20618919)

That's not the problem. The idea is that it's easier for MediaDefender to disrupt bittorrent when the other users are using utorrent.

I don't know exactly what interdiction involves (it's a military term so I can make a guess) , but it seems to be an exploit in utorrent that they use to disrupt downloading of utorrent users. The less people use utorrent, the harder it is for MediaDefender to practice this 'interdiction'. MediaDefender seems to be quite worried every time a new version comes out, and they do try to get their customers to use utorrent when checking torrent sites to see that their files are being spoofed properly.

Some of this stuff could conceivably be used by MD's customers to sue MediaDefender for deliberately misleading them as to the effectiveness of their spoofing, like this one, when Amy Winehouse' record company wants to come and see how well they're doing:

From: Ben Ebert
To: Randy Saaf; Tabish Hasan; Ben Grodsky; Jay Mairs
Cc: qateam
Sent: Wed Jun 27 09:23:42 2007
Subject: Re: umgi

Neil is asking for this now, let's give him amy winehouse on the sites I listed below. We need to make
+sure they are usiny utorrent since our decoys are not as strong as they could be. If you can influence
+the methodology have them download the top 15 with a short time frame like 2 hours.


Oh, and their emails do show them avidly reading slasdot and Digg and the like whenever a scandal affects them. So hello and welcome, to all you grifters taking the piss out of corporate record executives in ineffective-but-lucrative-peer-to-peer-spoofing land!

Re:They seemed to appreciate utorrent (1)

cnettel (836611) | about 7 years ago | (#20619201)

Ah, yep, realized that a bit after posting....

Interdiction (4, Informative)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | about 7 years ago | (#20619321)

From ARSTechnica article in the "News" section of Mediadefender.com - http://www.mediadefender.com/news/20070318_ARSTechnica.pdf [mediadefender.com] )

Four main methods

Decoying. This, in a nutshell, is the serving of fake files that are generally empty or contain a trailer. The goal is to make legitimate content a needle in a haystack, so MediaDefender works hard to ensure that its copies of files show up in the top ten spots when certain keywords are searched for. Everything about the file is tailored to look like the work of pirates, from the file size (movies are often compressed enough to fit on a CD) to the naming conventions to the pirate scene tag. With massive bandwidth and plenty of servers, the company has little trouble in getting these decoy files to appear at the top of search results, but decoying has a down side: the bandwidth. Because MediaDefender actually serves these large but bogus files, it incurs a significant bandwidth bill by using this technique.

Spoofing. Spoofing sends searchers down dead ends. MediaDefender coders have written their own software that interacts with the various P2P protocols and sends bogus returns to search requests, usually directing people to nonexistent locations. Because most people only look at the top five search results, MediaDefender tries to frustrate their first attempts to download a file in hopes that they will just give up.

Interdiction. While the first two techniques try to prevent searchers from locating files, interdiction prevents distributors from serving them. The tool is generally used when media is leaked or newly released; the goal is to slow its spread in those crucial first days. MediaDefender servers attempt to create constant connections to the files in question, saturating the provider's upstream bandwidth and preventing anyone else from grabbing the data.

Swarming. Though he acknowledges the BitTorrent networks can be hard to disrupt, Lee points out that MediaDefender can use "swarming" to make life more difficult for users trying to download copyrighted content. BitTorrent works by using a hash file to reassemble a file from many pieces, each of which may have been downloaded from a different user. MediaDefender simply serves up its chunks of these files, but instead of providing the proper data, its chunks contain static or nothing at all. When the file is eventually reassembled by the user, it may contain clicks, silent spaces, or odd skips. This can make the viewing/listening experience less pleasurable, but it's most effective with software downloads since even small errors can prevent programs from running.

Interdiction (1)

Xenographic (557057) | about 7 years ago | (#20618887)

Interdiction means that they're screwing up your download or otherwise hosing the torrent.

I don't have a copy of the emails, but were they very specific about when it allows them to interdict the torrent? It'd be interesting to know, because uTorrent is closed-source and it's now merged with BitTorrent, Inc.

Re:They seemed to appreciate utorrent (4, Informative)

Rufus211 (221883) | about 7 years ago | (#20618927)

First google result for bittorrent interdiction [google.com] is a resume [linkedin.com] from a former MediaSentry (a competitor of MediaDefender) director. The juicy bit (in case it goes away):

Director of Interdiction Development
MediaSentry Div of SafeNet
(Public Company; 501-1000 employees; SFNT; Computer & Network Security industry)
September 2004 -- November 2005 (1 year 3 months)
Lead team of software developers and systems engineers developing interdiction solutions for P2P networks.
Designed and deployed new Linux based 300+ host distributed infrastructure for p2p decoy distribution with automated command, control and monitoring. Designed and deployed network of filtered eDonkey servers. Managed roll out of new BitTorrent interdiction infrastructure. Implemented multiple p2p file trading clients on hosts utilizing VMware.

It seems like it's basically a distributed network of clients that feed garbage data, trying to slow down everyone's downloading. Sadly for them it seems that uTorrent defeated [utorrent.com] their work:

After more in-depth analysis...we've determined that the new version DOES affect our interdiction in a negative way. They've added a new "bt.ban_ratio" field that takes into consideration how many good pieces a client has uploaded.
[....]
We still see a lot of hash_check fails...but now the only peers getting banned are ours. This also affects MediaSentry's interdicted torrents. They are no longer effective on the newest version either.

Re:They seemed to appreciate utorrent (4, Informative)

Aim Here (765712) | about 7 years ago | (#20618975)

Not the whole story. They must have made it work again, because this one is dated September 7th, later than the email you quote:

Subject: RE: utorrent
From: Daniel Lee
To: Randy Saaf , qa ,
                torrents
Cc: Ty Heath , Jay Mairs

Yep, we checked yesterday and interdiction still works on the latest
version.

So us law abiding can't read these, right? (1)

MunchMunch (670504) | about 7 years ago | (#20618579)

What's the legality? Obviously, I doubt highly these emails can be used at a trial for any wrongdoing or unlawful behavior (say, for Miivi), but will I get into trouble just for downloading them?

Best move quick though (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618597)

While you can still get lost in the rush.

Re:So us law abiding can't read these, right? (1)

ChrisMounce (1096567) | about 7 years ago | (#20618701)

You can only get in trouble if they catch you. I don't know how difficult encrypting your BitTorrent traffic would make it to track you down, but it can't hurt.

Oh please DMCA this... (4, Funny)

BlueParrot (965239) | about 7 years ago | (#20618593)

Ok, normally I don't like the DMCA, but PLEASE , come on Media Defender, do DMCA this. Pretty please, with sugar on the top... you know you want to... I mean you have to beat your own incompetence somehow...

Re:Oh please DMCA this... (3, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | about 7 years ago | (#20618929)

This is so good. It's like reporting your stash of marijuana stolen to the police. To DMCA it is to validate its contents. All they can do is claim ignorance and say it's all a hoax.

Re:Oh please DMCA this... (1)

JordanL (886154) | about 7 years ago | (#20619209)

Not to mention the good that sending a DMCA request to The Pirate bay would do.

I wonder who did it (5, Funny)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20618595)

If it is a long hair working as a code grunt/sysadmin in their it lot, may god make his/her hair glitter with sunshine and rustle in gentle, warm winds.

Re:I wonder who did it (1)

daeg (828071) | about 7 years ago | (#20618627)

I read somewhere that the mailbox password was something like "blahbob". Really, though, if your organization is so delicate, why are your IMAP/POP3 servers publicly available?

oooor, (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20618677)

maybe it wasnt blahbob and some long hair changed it and put it in the wild ?

Re:I wonder who did it (2, Informative)

CharonX (522492) | about 7 years ago | (#20618859)

According to the .nfo one of their employees had the presence of mind to forward all e-mail to their Gmail account. I guess all that e-mail protection stuff got in the way or something.
And the password of said account was *drumroll* blahbob.

Whoever did it may be screwed, literally (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | about 7 years ago | (#20618897)

If it is a long hair working as a code grunt/sysadmin in their it lot, may god make his/her hair glitter with sunshine and rustle in gentle, warm winds.

Well it will for one hour a day when he is taken from his cell to the prison yard for exercise. Intentionally disclosing social security numbers and other personally identifiable information probably violates several statues regarding information security and privacy.

And lets not forget the civil lawsuits that will result against this person. Those RIAA execs are going to be getting this guys computers (I hope they enjoy his JPG, MPG, and MP3 collections) and everything else he owns.

Re:I wonder who did it (1)

Mex (191941) | about 7 years ago | (#20619349)

" A special thanks to Jay Maris, for circumventing there entire email-security by forwarding all your emails to your gmail account, and using the really highly secure password: blahbob"

Oh man it hurts. (5, Funny)

kwabbles (259554) | about 7 years ago | (#20618605)

I can't stop laughing. Oh hoh... my stomach. LOL

Inflation (5, Funny)

athdemo (1153305) | about 7 years ago | (#20618607)

I thought these two were some of the best.

>From: Watson, Jeff (WBR)
>To: Octavio Herrera; leaks
>Cc: Bird, Jennifer
>Sent: Sun May 13 10:49:59 2007
>Subject: Re: # LP illegal album downloads

>MediaDefender folks - please let us know roughly how many Linkin Park albums have been downloaded since the leak. Album is called Minutes To Midnight. Thanks.


>From: "Octavio Herrera" >
>To: "torrents"
>Cc: "Gilberto Vargas" >, "Ben Grodsky" >, "Rick Moreno" >
>Subject: Fw: # LP illegal album downloads
>Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:24:59 -0700

>Torrent team, can you give us a sense of how many dowloads of tis album there has been off bt. We are not protecting on bt so the bigger the better.


I really hope Warner reads this gold.

Whilst undoubtedly some astronomical value was (1)

goldcd (587052) | about 7 years ago | (#20618655)

provided, my soul begs that the answer came back as:
"Zero. Should suggest to WB that they pay people to take it."

obligatory (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618629)

torrent plz

No torrent story complete without... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618635)

...a link [mininova.org] to the torrent.

Yes, but isn't that all in .rar format? (0, Offtopic)

themusicgod1 (241799) | about 7 years ago | (#20618829)

how about something in a format unencumbered by non-free algorithms?

Re:Yes, but isn't that all in .rar format? (2, Insightful)

the angrybaby (1157319) | about 7 years ago | (#20618933)

Haven't you heard of http://www.7-zip.org/ [7-zip.org] ? Or am I just misunderstanding what your saying?

#irc.trolltalk.c?om (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618647)

ThaT *BSD is [goat.cx]

Torrent Download (2, Informative)

the angrybaby (1157319) | about 7 years ago | (#20618671)

Re:Torrent Download (1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 7 years ago | (#20619249)

Oh my god, this will be awesome. My spider sense hasn't tingled like this since the Windows 2000 source code was partially leaked!

Media Defender Defender (1)

rafael_es_son (669255) | about 7 years ago | (#20618705)

I wonder why is it taking all those botnets so long to DDOS the shit out these and other charlatans.

Re:Media Defender Defender (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619143)

It's the honor between thieves. They're on the same team.

Darn... (1)

Joseph1337 (1146047) | about 7 years ago | (#20618717)

Crap, no spicy e-mails, only geek crap... nothing to see

Re:Darn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619295)

There is a lot of interesting stuff for hackers. I wouldn't be surprised if blackhats are already using the information to get into their networks.

The mails mention a cvs repository for miivi.com. It would be interesting if the source to the MiiVi client download software was leaked, so we all could have a look at it.

Unclean Hands (2, Informative)

bmo (77928) | about 7 years ago | (#20618761)

It was only a matter of time. Heh. Not a honeypot, eh? Rrrrriiight.

I just had to dig up an old post of mine that needed reposting...

Msg: 35175 of 43019 7/9/2007 4:27:06 AM Recs: 32 Sentiment: Not Disclosed
By: Boyle M. Owl Send PM Profile Ignore Add To Favorites
Legal Crows Come Home To Roost. Media Defender Says "We Didn't Mean It"

Media Defender backtracks on 'entrapment site'

It was all a terrible mistake

By Nick Farrell: Monday 09 July 2007, 07:14

THE MOVIE industry's private dick division has denied that it set up a P2P site designed to catch people pirating.

Media Defender admitted that it set up a site, called MiiVi, which looked exactly like a P2P site but claimed it was never meant to go live and was not designed to entrap pirates.

According to Ars Technica, Media Defender claimed the story has been blown far out of proportion and was started by sites like The Pirate Bay and TorrentFreak. MediaDefender's Randy Saaf told Ars Technica the story was "completely made up".

Well, not completely made up. He said Media Defender was working on an internal project that involved video and didn't realise that people would be trying to go to it and being a security company it didn't password-protect the site.

Saaf said that it was not an entrapment site, and Media Defender was not working with the MPAA on it. He claimed that the MPAA didn't even know about it.

However Ars asked theme why MediaDefender immediately removed all contact information from the whois registry for the domain if the site was so innocent. Saaf said that it was afraid of a hacker attack or people sending it spam.

It is not clear what Saaf was planning to do with all the details of would-be P2P users who might have logged into the site while it was accidently online or if anything was collected.

-------

Not an entrapment site? Walks like a duck...

Yeah, uh, Media Defender (nee Sentry) is in a heap of trouble because it gives the MPAA two things:

An unclean left hand and an unclean right hand. Media Defender's software installed a secret scanner that uploaded data on any "copyrighted files" to MPAA goons that may have resided on the computers of the dupes who went there.

You can't be breaking into people's computers and violating things like RIGL 11-52-3 by installing nefarious software. Many states have similar laws, and some states have laws specifically against spyware. "Evidence" gathered with unclean hands (this is an actual legal term and concept) angers judges to no end. Any "evidence" by the MPAA shown to be gathered by Media Defender now is under a very dark cloud.

That's why Media Defender is in deep shit. They committed felonies _and_ screwed their client. Thus all the "we didn't know people would actually _go_ to our honeypot"

Whoops.

--
BMO

-------

Fast forward to today...

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3806944/MediaDefender.Mail.200612.200709-MDD/ [thepiratebay.org]

And now it's proven that they really _did_ set it up as a honeypot. This weekend has turned out pretty good so far.

Hats off to the leaker. Now the _feds_ might have something to go after MediaDefender and the MPAA with. Oh, what delicious irony, with cream and sugar.

--
BMO

Welcome (1)

junglee_iitk (651040) | about 7 years ago | (#20618763)

to the real world.

pawned by piracy, or should I call, theft of emails?

Torrent Comments (3, Informative)

Dubpal (860472) | about 7 years ago | (#20618775)

Comments from the torrent for the leaked emails make for an interesting read also:

MediaDefender-Defenders proudly presents 9 months worth of internal MediaDefender emails

By releasing these emails we hope to secure the privacy and personal integrity of all peer-to-peer users. The emails contains information about the various tactics and technical solutions for tracking p2p users, and disrupt p2p services.

A special thanks to Jay Maris, for circumventing there entire email-security by forwarding all your emails to your gmail account, and using the really highly secure password: blahbob

So here it is, we hope this is enough to create a viable defense to the tactics used by these companies, also there should be enough fuel to keep the p2p bloggers busy for quite some time.

Re:Torrent Comments (0, Offtopic)

Kelz (611260) | about 7 years ago | (#20618815)

... did they seriously use the wrong "their"?

Man, you'd think the OCD would kick in eventually with these hacker blokes.

not an internal leak! (3, Informative)

the Plums in us (1040258) | about 7 years ago | (#20619339)

A lot of comments here seem to be talking about what might happen to whatever MediaDefender employee leaked the email and soforth. This info suggests that it's not actually a renegade employee at all, just a stupid one who's gmail account got cracked.

So, uh... (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | about 7 years ago | (#20618789)

does this mean I can keep the files I downloaded?

- RG>

*Wanted* "Noise" Spoofing Files (3, Funny)

none295 (521820) | about 7 years ago | (#20618801)

Hello, my name is %20 and I collect interdicting spoofing noise files created by entities like Overpeer and MediaDefender. They are important 'art' objects which are in dire need of preservation. I had thought the methods and products died out when Overpeer went kaputz, but there are several e-mails in this collection which revive my search and preservation of these outstanding works of questionable merit. So if you happen to get a files from these folks which seems a little off, read this blog: http://noneinc.com/RIAAEM/RIAABlog.html [noneinc.com] and we'll host them for everyone to enjoy.

TIA!
%20

Re:*Wanted* "Noise" Spoofing Files (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619327)

Your page gives me "Augenkrebs"! Get a web designer!

"Freedom" fighters. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618811)

"Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business.""

I'm certain Slashdot is going to have a field day with this, and I'm not a big fan of the approach the RIAA/MPAA are using. However with that being said. The fact that someone leaked all the above simply shows why you should be careful with trusting the present generation. I'll save you from a trip down memory lane as far as slashdot attitudes towards their fellow men are concerned. But I said it once and I'll say it again. I'll NEVER hire someone from this forum. Today it's this company. Tomorrow it could be somone else with a "bee up it's bonnet" employee, and there will be only the "court of slashopinion" to judge the case.

You are taking it the wrong way (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20618869)

If your company does not do evil, you dont have nothing to fear from anyone from slashdot crowd.

whomever leaked those emails was probably someone with a clean conscience. if you do not want to hire people with clean conscience and does whatever is right, i wonder what kind of work your company is doing.

Re:You are taking it the wrong way (1)

perkr (626584) | about 7 years ago | (#20618943)

And of course you, in your divine wisdom, can always decide exactly the company procedures and business practices that are considered "evil" right? You are never wrong and always right of course. Why have any arguments or attempting to change an organization from within, when you can just screw them over and leak all their internal documents as a torrent. Really classy. Though in this case it appears some random employee forwarded all emails to their gmail account and used a weak password.

The worlds smallest violin plays (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619231)

Yeah and media defender is a paragon of virtue.

Re:You are taking it the wrong way (1)

AHumbleOpinion (546848) | about 7 years ago | (#20618953)

If your company does not do evil, you dont have nothing to fear from anyone from slashdot crowd.

That is laughable given what many in the slashdot crowd consider evil. Developing closed source software for example.

Re:You are taking it the wrong way (4, Interesting)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | about 7 years ago | (#20619161)

That is laughable given what many in the slashdot crowd consider evil. Developing closed source software for example.

"Evil" is an exaggeration. This dislike of closed-source comes from the fact that many here instinctively realize that information, such as computer programs, some forms of art, thoughts in people heads, large integer numbers etc, do not fall under the simplistic, inane attempts to mis-apply an economic model of a "market" to things which do not have the required attributes to become "private property" and thus are not subject to "trade".

This does not mean that we believe that artists and software developers have to go hungry, but it does mean that the method by which various misguided businessmen (usually the middle-men peddling the art/science and not creating it themselves) expect to make their living is fatally flawed (primarilly because it was constructed by businessmen for businessmen, with no regards to anything else) and, in order to be "successful", demands positively immoral and dangerous to society activities, such as attempts at truly totalitarian measures in efforts to control the flow of information in society.

As more and more people realize this, it is my hope that some time in the future this idiotic "copyright" regime will be replaced with something that actually reflects the nature of the information and the needs of the society.

My personal favourite for art, for example, is a modernized "patronage" system, with direct transfer of donations by patrons of art to artists themselves. Sicence is, as it should, funded by academia and as soon as the for-profit scientific journals are dispised of (efforts in this direction are under way) it will be free from this nonsense. Performance arts have no problem whatsoever since the performers are expecting payment for their labour at the gate. Etc and so on.

It is quite possible however that a better model exists. If so I am sure someone will come up with it. Whatever it is, the notions of "copyrights" and "patents" as they stand are ... well ... patent absurdities! And what we see is simple human reaction to that undeniable fact, particularly among the younger generation whose indoctrination in these mattters is not yet effective.

Re:You are taking it the wrong way (1)

Desert Raven (52125) | about 7 years ago | (#20619145)

I don't think it's really a slashdot thing, it's a computer geek thing.

Sysadmins and programmers work in a world where there is no ambiguity or dishonesty. If my code is written well, it will do exactly what it was designed to do, every time. It will not lie to me, it will not decide to do something else. Many geeks themselves are like this, part of the reason why the upper office folks dislike us is because we have a tendency to say exactly what we mean, and to tell them how things are, not how they would like them to be. Conversely, we dislike them because they tend to wrap every statement in meaningless drivel, never committing, and never saying exactly what they mean.

If your company is doing dishonest things, legal or not, and you have geeks working for you, you are at risk.

Re:You are taking it the wrong way (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | about 7 years ago | (#20619315)

If my code is written well, it will do exactly what it was designed to do, every time. It will not lie to me, it will not decide to do something else.

What kind of a computer do you work on?

You are trusting the wrong way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619343)

"If your company is doing dishonest things, legal or not, and you have geeks working for you, you are at risk."

No. I'm at risk from a group who's historic flexibility in ethics and unlimited capacity for self-rationalization grows with each new generation. We have courts instead of vigilante justice for a reason. Maybe instead of just me, it should be said that society is also at risk.

You are taking it to the wrong court. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619167)

"If your company does not do evil, you don't have nothing to fear from anyone from slashdot crowd. "

Why does this sound suspiciously like the "If you're not doing anything wrong. Then you have nothing to hide", in reference to slashdotters giving up their privacy to the government? If I'm guilty of something? Then I'd like a court of law to determine that. Mr "clean conscience" is not a court of law. He can be a whistle blower to a court of law. But he/she shouldn't be judge/jury/executioner. What I want to hire is people I can TRUST!! I can't trust the present generation for reasons like I said I wasn't going to go into (but is obvious to the observant). You all may not give a damn what your actions do to your reputation, now and in the future. But you should if you ever want an important job instead of "would you like fries with that?" (but can we trust her/him with the till?)

Re:"Freedom" fighters. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20618921)

That's OK, we don't want to join your janitorial company.

Oh, forgot you were nothing?

nice (2, Insightful)

wwmedia (950346) | about 7 years ago | (#20618819)

its a very nice business model they have, one arm of the company spreads/facilitates illegal downloads the other arm collects protection money from media companies

them media companies are the bigger fools for doing business with this crowd, mediadefender's whole business model depend on piracy always being there

Student lawsuits... (5, Funny)

BlueParrot (965239) | about 7 years ago | (#20618941)

From: Randy Saaf
        Sent: Wed 11-Apr-07 21:24
        To: Jay Mairs; Ben Grodsky; Ty Heath; Ivan Kwok; Ben Ebert
        Subject: Fw: .edu filtering

        Team

        Universal is curiouse if we have any historical data over the last 3 months that show whether .edu IP addresses on p2p have gone down.

        They want to see if their lawsuits are getting students to stop using p2p (take a moment to laugh to yourself).

        Let me know if anyone has any ideas.

        R

        --- Original Message ---
        From: Benjamin, David
        To: Randy Saaf
        Sent: Wed Apr 11 18:11:50 2007
        Subject: .edu filtering

        How are you doing with this?
        Thanks
        db

Sloppy security... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619033)

Aside from the brilliant move of forwarding everything to your gmail account, they were aware of a leak since 08/06/07. http://drknife.com/blog/index.php?itemid=82 [drknife.com] The leak has actually been AROUND since late June, if not earlier. Yet they still did nothing to secure so much sensitive info. Fools

selling their sole for $$ (1)

Stu101 (1031686) | about 7 years ago | (#20619085)

Its a pity we can't see what these paracites earn. I bet they earn more than us sysadmins :( Why hide what this scum thinks its worth.

OH RLY? (5, Interesting)

BlueParrot (965239) | about 7 years ago | (#20619121)

Its a pity we can't see what these paracites earn. I bet they earn more than us sysadmins :( Why hide what this scum thinks its worth.


dev-salaries-18june2007.xls

Sergio A. Alvarez 2,916.67 $70,000.00
Linus Aranha 2,708.33 $65,000.00
Dylan C Douglas 2,916.67 $70,000.00
Benjamin Ebert 3,541.67 $85,000.00
Norman T Heath 4,791.67 $115,000.08
Sujay S. Jaju 2,708.33 $65,000.00
Andrew H. Kim 2,291.67 $55,000.00
Ivan Y Kwok 4,166.67 $100,000.00
Jed Z. Levin 2,291.67 $55,000.00
Gerald E. Rode 2,291.67 $55,000.00
Sheetalkumar Shah 2,708.33 $65,000.00
Nainesh N. Solanki 2,708.33 $65,000.00
Daeyoung Song 2,375.00 $57,000.00
Jeffrey W. Wang 2,375.00 $57,000.00

You were saying? :p

Re:OH RLY? (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | about 7 years ago | (#20619241)

I think he was looking for the execs' pay. The devs are likely at the bottom of the scale, like everywhere else in corporate world, perheaps except the secretaries and general office help (but even that is frequently not the case these days).

Re:OH RLY? (1)

Victor Antolini (725710) | about 7 years ago | (#20619271)

That's monthly? If so, I hate my third world country :(

Re:OH RLY? (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | about 7 years ago | (#20619351)

LOL.

No, the dollar figures are yearly. I assume the first number is the monthly pay after tax deductions etc.

Intentional? (1, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#20619141)

Perhaps this was actually intentional, and the are using this team as a sacrificial lamb, so to speak.

If you read thru the emails and get a idea of the potential scale of the operation, it might scare you away from p2p if you dont have any balls.. Perhaps thats the idea, to weed out the 'little people'?

Re:Intentional? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20619363)

Unlikely, as the information they've allowed to leak is not only pretty sensitive (ftp account credentials, employee contact information, countless other stuff), but in doing so they've violated their contract with UMG; unless the contract draft attached was just an elaborate fabrication. "5. Confidentiality. Each of MediaDefender and Customer agree to keep confidential any information concerning the other party's business affairs, customers, vendors, finances, properties, methods of operation, computer programs, and documentation, and other such information, whether written, oral, or otherwise related to Customer or MediaDefender. It is further agreed that all the facts of entry into this Agreement and the rendering of Services to Customer are in themselves confidential and cannot be disclosed to any person or entity without express written consent of the non-disclosing party. All such information concerning MediaDefender and Customer is hereinafter collectively referred to as "Confidential Information." Notwithstanding the foregoing, each party may disclose Confidential Information on a "need-to-know" basis under an obligation of confidentiality to its legal counsel, accountants, banks and other financing sources and their advisors, so long as such entities have executed a written confidentiality agreement to protect the confidential nature of the Confidential Information that is no less restrictive than this Section. MediaDefender acknowledges and agrees that it will not discuss the Confidential Information with any of Customer's employees or representatives other than those designated by Customer on Exhibit D attached hereto which Customer may modify in writing from time to time. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the receiving party from disclosing Confidential Information to the extent the receiving party is legally compelled to do so by any court of competent jurisdiction, or governmental or judicial agency pursuant to proceedings over which such agency has jurisdiction, or otherwise as my be required by law; provided, however, that prior to any such disclosure, the receiving party shall (a) assert the confidential nature of the Confidential Information to the agency; (b) immediately notify the disclosing party in writing of the agency's order or request to disclose; and (c) cooperate fully with the disclosing party, at the disclosing party's expense, in protecting against any such disclosure and/or obtaining a protective order narrowing the scope of the compelled disclosure and protecting its confidentiality. 6. Non-Disclosure. Each of MediaDefender and Customer agree that, except as expressly directed or authorized in writing by the other party, it will not at any time during or after the Term of this Agreement disclose any Confidential Information to any person whatsoever and that upon the termination of this Agreement it will turn over to Customer or MediaDefender (where applicable) all documents, papers, and other matter in its possession or control that relate to the other party. MediaDefender and Customer further agree to bind its employees and subcontractors to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. MediaDefender and Customer acknowledge and agree that neither party will disclose any Confidential Information to the press or issue any press statement whatsoever concerning or related to this Agreement.'" UMG: Well, what do you have to say for yourselves? MediaDefender: lol Whoops?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>