MediaDefender got wtfpwn'd?

[Dragonjojo]

I was just reading about this and thought it was funny. I don't really know to much about it I'm sure others of you have read up on it and know more but here goes.

Apparently MediaDefender is a company that does anti-p2p work by tracking people that illegally download and other things. Well I guess someone compromised their email among other things and posted like all of their company emails which included tons of personal information including logins and passwords for them, financial information, names phone numbers addresses, and then followed up with an apparent recorded phone conversation of a phone call they made. Pretty funny story especially once it hit the internet and people started having a field say with their mySQL, FTP, Email and other info.

Links:
Article:
http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefende...leaked-070915/

Emails in html format:
http://jrwr.hopto.org/

A Wiki lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender

So what do you think?

[Ihmhi]

You failed to mention that they also did things like create fake torrents and put out corrupt files on P2P networks.

This really was a well organized operation - they had a lot of servers and a lot of bandwidth to manage their effort.

Someone is going to get fired for this, for sure.

INITIATE INEVITABLE COPYRIGHT DEBATE

Corporations have extended copyright laws twice. They are now 99 years instead of like 50 years or something per the Constituion.

Personally, in the age of the Internets, two things have to be done IMO:

1) Companies need to start pricing things more reasonably. $30 for a DVD and $20 for a CD seems like an awful lot when you can otherwise get them for free, albeit illegally, with little or no risk of getting caught.

2) Copyright law needs to be reviewed. Copyright claims are largely filed by huge corporations trying to protect their profits, not the individual artists. Copyrights ought to expire in 20 years, not 99. The public domain would benefit, and maybe it would end the slew of "30th anniversary rehash of the series you loved, and now we've fucked it up!" DVDs. Creativity is stifled when only one company holds the rights to an intellectual property - someone else might do a better job on a remake or derivative if they did not have to shell out a few million dollars for the copyright.

[Dragonjojo]

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

You failed to mention that they also did things like create fake torrents and put out corrupt files on P2P networks.

This really was a well organized operation - they had a lot of servers and a lot of bandwidth to manage their effort.

Someone is going to get fired for this, for sure.

Yeah good add. So far people have gone through alot of the emails and made notes of many things. I know some people are looking for legal grounds to possibly sue them (talk about a major backfire if that happens eh?). One person pointed out they were using AVG Free edition to scan their emails which is a no-no for a company or something?

Originally Posted by Ihmhi

...[Stuff he wrote about Copyright here]...

That's interesting I wasn't aware that copyright law has gone from 50 years to 99. I agree with alot of what you are saying there though.

[Ihmhi]

Not exactly 99, it all depends: see here.

[Innoc]

Personally I think that people that justify infringing on someone else's copyright because they think the law is unfair are going about it backwards. However, this is one of those polarizing issues. The people stealing are rarely going to see it as the copyright holder does. Also, if I own a copyright, why am I going to simply give away something I created just because others want me to do so? Particularly if it is something that makes money for me?

[C-Aim]

I don't find it funny at if your post accurately reflects what they were giving out (if they gave out employees' personal information that is fucked up). Its like a battle of bad guys and I don't know who to root for. On the one hand are people stealing anything they feel like because they don't agree with the pricing or because they just want everything for free (Do you mind if I come to your store or garage sale and take everything because I don't want to pay?) and on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose is to entrap people, which is illegal for the police to even do.

If the hackers didn't release the employee personal information then I say kudos to them for exposing the tactics of what I would consider an illegal company even though they themselves are breaking the law I guess, otherwise screw everybody involved

[Iggy]

Maybe I'm in the rare side of this arguement.... but I see no reason to pay for the same thing twice(leave the whole HL2 set out of this....)

I buy a cassette containing x specific songs. The cassette will, by it's nature, wear out. Is it wrong with copying the tape(through whatever means), to preserve the original? Of course not. This has been established by law. Same goes with records, and CDs. You may create archival copies for your own personal use.

Sharing these among people who have also paid for copies, should not be illegal(assuming the other person can PROVE they have a "hardcopy"...such as a record or original tape). This of course, requires people to be honest and trustworthy. So much for that idea.

I have DL'd songs off of the internet, but nothing that I don't have in another format. I would be able to walk into court with a handtruck and a shitload of boxes to defend my position. I would probably be found innocent.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Iggy

I have DL'd songs off of the internet, but nothing that I don't have in another format. I would be able to walk into court with a handtruck and a shitload of boxes to defend my position. I would probably be found innocent.

I think you're probably right. However, that's where you get into a determination on the letter of the law vs the spirit and that, ultimately, requires a judge...and the expense of defending yourself which is not always reimbursed.

[Mooga]

Personally I'm a die-hard supporter of Unhappy Birthday. I think instead of 99 years, make it 999999999999999999999999999 years. Also, DVDs should cost 70 bucks, CDs 50 bucks. And all "digital music" should be illegal.

[uBeR]

Yeah, I hate paying money for things too. Stealing is a bad thing though.

I hope my infinite wisdom has helped you.

[YomMamasHouse]

I am appalled to think that companies want to be able to sell things and make money, and not only that, be protected from stealing and pirates. How selfish of them.



I hope the people who are sympathetic to pirates and P2P people contract some sort of terminal cancer.

[uBeR]

P2P in it of itself is not a bad thing; it's the exploitation of it to steal a company's product that's the bad thing.

[YomMamasHouse]

true, i hope the exploiters contract something then.

[Ihmhi]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

I am appalled to think that companies want to be able to sell things and make money, and not only that, be protected from stealing and pirates. How selfish of them.

Well, aside from largely screwing artists out of royalties (the big labels don't get big by being generous), they have lobbied legislation to extend copyrights beyond what is in the constitution (50 years I believe) to as much as 120 years, all to further line the corporate coffers.

Copyright length needs to go down, not up, and "Happy Birthday" is the perfect example of this.

Thankfully we are living in the generation of copyleft and creative commons, so hopefully the corps will one day go bankrupt. Although I do not entirely agree with the methodology, the record companies, movie companies, etc. have been pricing things way too high, and the bootleggin' is set to kick their profits in the ass. They asked for it as soon as they released that first $22 CD.

[uBeR]

How is Happy Birthday a perfect example? Just because it's a famous song it shouldn't be able to be copyrighted? Please.

[Ihmhi]

You ought to read Mooga's link.

The melody for Happy Birthday was first penned by two sisters from Kentucky, Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill. The song was called Good Morning to All, but bore the recognizable melody. The tune was first published in 1893 in the book Song Stories for the Kindergarten. The melody has since passed into the public domain, and is safe to hum in public without permission.


While it is not entirely clear who first wrote down the words for Happy Birthday, it showed up in a few places before Jessica Hill (another Hill sister) was able to demonstrate undeniable similarities between Good

Morning to All and Happy Birthday and to secure the copyright to the song.


Working with the Clayton F. Summy Publishing Company, Jessica Hill published and copyrighted Happy Birthday in 1935. While the copyright should have expired in 1991, copyright has been extended repeatedly over the last quarter of the twentieth century and the copyright for Happy Birthday is now not due to expire until at least 2030.


The Clayton F. Summy Company is no longer independent, but, through a chain of purchases, the copyright for Happy Birthday To You lies securely in the hands of the Time Warner company. Happy Birthday's copyright is licensed and enforced by ASCAP, and the simple little ditty brings in more than USD $2 million in annual royalties.

[uBeR]

I already know the story behind Happy Birthday. What is your point? Famous songs shouldn't be able to be copyrighted?

[Mooga]

Originally Posted by uBeR

I already know the story behind Happy Birthday. What is your point? Famous songs shouldn't be able to be copyrighted?

Famous has NOTHING to do with it.
It's TIME.
A song that first originated over 100 years ago should belong to the public domain! By keeping copyrights on songs (and other medias) for an over-extended period of time HURTS creativity. The fact that you can get sued for posting a video of your friends singing you happy birthday on youtube is INSANITY.

Public domain also makes thinks more available to the public. All original TV shows and movies should pass into public domain to let people be able to view them. Making this content DOES NOT hurt the companies. But by letting them keep rights to content forEVER simply makes them an unjust money machine.

[Ihmhi]

Mooga said it more eloquently than I ever could. You completely missed the point on this one, uBeR.

[Jackal]

I don't suppose any of you have considered that prices remain high today as a direct result of piracy?