Talk:MediaDefender/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Emails link

What about adding the Unoffical Media Denfender-Defenders Links to the wiki

http://mediadefender-defenders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwr (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

NeverVeryVery manipulating the article

Can someone please ban "NeverVeryVery". I think he was hired by the Media defender to play down the credibility of the leaked emails. 128.227.194.155 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

I'm loathed to respond to this but I've found that when someone says something that just isn't true, unless you challenge it everyone else assumes it's true and you end up with something being stated as fact when there's no real evidence behind it. Do you base your claim that I'm downplaying the credibility of the emails on anything in particular or is this just something you've made up? I haven't said anything that implies the emails aren't real and for the record I think the leaked emails are 100% credible. They just don't happen to support the claim that Miivi was a honeypot. Also for the record I don't have any employees (or any employers for that matter!) so it's unlikely any are manipulating this article. Neververyvery 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LMAO. Someone's just changed the title of this peachy little section from "NeverVeryVery Employees manipulating the article" to "NeverVeryVery manipulating the article". I'm not manipulating anything in the article. I've not changed the article, nor will I change it. I'm just disputing the second half of this statement in the article "The emails link MediaDefender to projects that management previously denied involvement in, confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site" and pointing out the emails don't confirm mivi was a honeypot site and asking for someone to provide evidence that they do. Isn't that how Wikipedia works. You spot something that's wrong and ask for it to be changed or verified? There's ~700 MB of emails out there, surely if they "confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site" you can demonstrate it. Subjects or dates is fine, I don't think pasting emails in here would be a good idea Neververyvery 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That someone was me, and I changed the title because the word "employees" should not have been there, it was a typo.72.209.69.251 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

MediaDefender employees manipulating the article

Torrentfreak (see [1]) reports that MediaDefender employees were encouraged to manipulate the wikipedia article to remove information about the mivii incident. Here is a shortened excerpt from the leaked emails:

Ben E:

Can you please do what you can to eliminate this entry?   Let me know if you have any success.

R

From: Dylan Douglas
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:20 PM
To: Ben Ebert; Steve Lyons; Jay Mairs; Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera
Cc: Ty Heath; Ben Grodsky; Ivan Kwok (gmail)
Subject: RE: MiiVi got Dugg

Better yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender

 
Miivi.com

In February 2007, MediaDefender launched a video sharing site called Miivi.com in order to trap unsuspecting uploaders of copyrighted content.[5][6]

-----
Dylan Douglas
MediaDefender

Although the authenticity of the leaked mails could be challenged it seems somewhat unlikely after cursory review by different people. Thus the quoted parts should at least give enough cause to be vigilant about future edits of this page.

The manipulation attempt might also be noteworthy enough to drop it into the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.187.136 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the attempt should be added to the article and I don't see how the leaked emails could be challenged. Frankly there is just way too much information in them that checks out. I think there even needs to be a section just talking about the emails and giving some of the more important information found in them. Of coarse I also think that things like passwords in some of those emails will need to be censured. --Hadees 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that adding it now is original research. However, the mainstream media might well pick up on the story soon, if there's residual interest in corporate PR attacks on WP, after all the wikiscanner stories, so if/when they do, then this entry could well warrant a mention then. --82.45.163.18 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Be aware that later emails say they're going to wait for the attention to die down, claiming that they should then be able to change the Wikipedia article without too much trouble Neververyvery 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is now on my watchlist and I will go over this page almost daily. Corporate flunkies will be hard-pressed to insert their lies and half-truths. I advise all respectable members of the Wikipedia community to look over this article for as long as it takes. The great kawa 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have the article now on my watchlist, this seems to be a serious case, but nothing we couldn't handle :-) UserDoe 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email leak On September 14, 2007, thousands of the company's internal emails were stolen. The people who stole these emails are guilty of many state and federal crimes, including identity theft and invasion of privacy. Additionally, because these emails included confidential emails with government officials, the illegal actions may also constitute breaches of national and state security not involving copyright protection. People who continue to download and disseminate this information may be liable for additional crimes.

Looks like they are editting entry again. I wonder what security clearance this company has that they are storing "national and state security" emails on their non-clearance email server. I wonder if they have the Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Facilities_and_Handling to handle classified information that is required.

Clearly, this is an edit from MediaDefender. I am reverting. 207.237.255.150 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Accounts Used to Remove Contents

Starting a list of accounts that are removing contents from this Wiki Entry. If you believe your name is here in error, please comment to indicate why.

User_talk:Peoplearestupid - Account currently banned.

User_talk:LegalProf - User also attempted to delete this section.

FYI...My actions have merely been to delete the links to the illegally obtain emails, which contain extensive private and confidential information about MediaDefender employees. I have also provided information for people who may not be aware of the possible legal repercussions involved in disseminating these emails. I do not intend to delete the discussion section as I believe that an accurate and valid discussion of the issues is a good thing. So, I encourage everyone to continue the discussion with the link to these emails (as well as any personal information about the employees) left out. Legalprof 08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

California law is not the world. It doesn't apply to the whole internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.116.174 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

True. California law does not necessarily apply to the whole world. However, MediaDefender is a California corporation and the MediaDefender employees are California citizens. As a result, California has jurisdiction over these acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legalprof (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats great. We out here on the rest of the planet look forward to reading about the outcome of this, and also wish you would stop adding "legal warnings" into an encyclopedia article. Dxco 08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about California civil code, the sections which (inaccurately) paraphrase legal code are irrelevant to the subject matter. sigterm 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just saying that since the article was just semi-protected by an admin, I don't think we'll be seeing any vandalism from MD mentioning "legal issues" on the article for the next few days. Eugene2x 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Torrents with the internal emails are probably on dozens of different trackers by now. As someone told me "Nothing ever dies or disappears once its on the internet." You can try and delete the references to the emails here but there are a bunch of people that have access to them whether LegalProf thinks that they should or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.5.56 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

True, very true. Well, MediaDefender, have fun cleaning this mess up. Eugene2x-^talk 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: True Face of Media Defender

This is entirely unprofessional, and while I believe a reference to the e-mails is more than warranted, such childish titles as this in no way belong on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.208.90 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that title is geared for sensationalism, not encyclopedias. A more proper title, if the purpose is to discuss the leak, it would simply be just that... Something like "Leaked MediaDefender e-mails". — Northgrove 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaked e-mails section contains unsupported facts

This bit

On September 14, 2007, thousands of internal emails were leaked from the company, ... , while others confirm the speculation that MiiVi.com was indeed an anti-piracy honeypot site.

isn't actually supported by any hard facts and just isn't the way some people are interpreting Mivvi.com. I'm not saying I've read the mails (I really don't want to end up in court) but I think if you stand back from the biased voices of the hard core p2p crowd and look at all the facts available there are a few other possibilities for what Mivvi.com might be and those possibilities don't involve honeypots. Neververyvery 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to cleanup a little...if I left that line in, you should clarify it. :) I did remove the initial line about entrapment, as that is implicit in the Miivi.com section, and allowed for changing the section title to something more specific (and accurate). --76.182.228.111 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"this isn't actually supported by any hard facts" Are you serious? How is 500mb of emails not hard facts? Also, the entrapment is mentioned (implied) in those emails so it included in this entry. 72.209.69.251 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

Actually, I believe it was 700mb, not 500. 68.94.10.5 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the ~700MB don't fully support the view that Miivi was a honeypot. There's (what you call) entrapment and there's emails but there's no emails showing that Miivi was designed and built to be an entrapment site. You can't say "I have 700MB of email and I have opinion X, so therefore opinion X is right" That's obviously bad reasoning unless you can show that the 700MB actually support opinion X. If you're going to write that the emails confirm the speculation that MiiVi.com was indeed an anti-piracy honeypot site then you need the confirmation emails to actually exist. Why aren't there any internal emails at the time the site was discovered saying "Oh noes, they've discovered that Miivi was a honeypot". Why are there instead ones saying "Oh noes, they've discovered Miivi but they're wrong about what it is" Neververyvery 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"My point is that the ~700MB don't fully support the view that Miivi was a honeypot" Well you are completely wrong here. The 700mb do fully support that Miivi was a honeypot. And this is not a view, this is obviously a hard fact. Now stop complaining and start looking for another job.128.227.194.155 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

Okay, I searched the emails for the word "entrapment", and very quickly found this excerpt when discussing the possible law infringments:

the best argument against miivi is one for invasion of privacy and trespass to chattels

Which I think pretty well proves that Miivi wasn't just an "internal video sharing site".

EDIT: Found conclusive evidence that Miivi is entrapment. I present:

- On your end, the peer-to-peer crawler will be identifying files
matching the established search criteria from various hosts.  This data
will then be collected, filtered for New York resident ip addresses (to
the accuracy limits imposed by geo-query tech).  The data will then be
transferred to us where;
- On our end, a separate piece of software will use that data to
connect into the network and download the file from a host and store it
on our servers for evidence retention and further analysis.

It pretty much describes the whole operation. They find the files from the companies they are "protecting", filter the IPs, and store them along with the files for "evidence retention". Since when has a real internal video project ever needed to store evidence?

Raintaster 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes it was intended to be an internal video project - except that they beta tested it internally and it is a video project so in one (very limited but factually correct) sense it definitely was an internal video project. That's surely just a cover they made up when it was found. Having a cover doesn't mean it was an entrapment site though, just that it's something they didn't want people to know about, in the same way that many companies don't want the public to know about commercial projects they're working on. I'll be honest though I haven't seen the two quotes you listed, so maybe I'm wrong. Are you sure the second one is specifically in the context of miivi, or is it possible it's in the context of another of their projects (an application users would download from Miivi and install on their PC's is not a peer to peer crawler)? Have you tried doing a search for the word mivvi in the header and body of the mails and just reading every one of them in chronological order, or checking out the miivi screen shots, or checking out any mails related to miivi and podcasting (why would a company want to build a honeypot that entraps people into downloading podcasts that are freely licensed and not pirated or illegal?), or mails comparing it to other commercial video/music sites? It might give you a wider picture of what their intent was when they designed and tested it. In any case, rumour has it (because, lets be clear here MediaDefender lawyers, I'm in no way implying that I've read your emails) that the mails say they'll have to declare miivi in their earnings once it starts making a profit (if it's a tool i.e. a honeypot site used to catch and prosecute people rather than a commercial site, why would it make a direct profit?) so the truth will out. Neververyvery 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Raintaster, you've misinterpreted the two quotes you've given above because you've not read their context properly. The first quote is not a quote from MediaDefender at all but is actually MediaDefender quoting someone else, a blogger. The context is MediaDefender mocking the blogger for saying what's in the quote because it's based on a rumour. The quote doesn't prove anything except that MediaDefender thought it was funny that a blogger wrote it, presumably because they know the rumour is not true (although to be honest I'm reading that into it). The second quote is just nothing to do with Miivi at all, read the articles on the phone call leak to see what project it was really referring to (you've just quoted, from an illegally obtained email that's part of an ongoing New York child porn investigation, an Attorney General saying that he doesn't want to entrap anyone. Was that wise?). That's what someone who read the emails told me anyway, as I definitely haven't read them. Have a reread of the context of what you've quoted with an open mind and you'll see what I mean. I've renamed the heading of this section as the heading it refers to in the article has changed Neververyvery 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Neververyvery works for MediaDefender --84.178.127.42 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Why? Because I have my own analytical skills and can form an opinion that differs from every rabid pro p2p fanatic out there? Is your claim that I work for MediaDefender confirmed by the emails as well, by any chance? Neververyvery 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the MiiVi site. I've read some of the emails on various sites, and it seems to me that they were putting an awful lot of effort into making the site. Sure, I doubt they were doing it to encourage piracy, but I think they may have seen it as a way to jump on the YouTube bandwagon and make some extra money (from legal user-created content). There was a mention somewhere of profiting from it. EAi 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

...and also a direct comparison with existing competitor sites that stream video and already-in-the-wild pirated music to peoples screens via bittorrent. Who says it would even need to be legal content either? With the permission of the content publishers they're working with already it could just be pirated torrents that are already out there delivered to your screen for a cost that gets split between MediaDefender and the copyright holders. No cost of having to set up your own content and content distribution system. No huge bandwidth costs. Just take what's already there and put it on a users screen.Neververyvery 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously shut the fuck up Neververyvery, you point out you haven't even read the emails so what basis do you even have to comment? None. You sound like an MD employee. If it looks like shit and smells like shit, it usually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.89.25 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The sweet, sweet rant of someone that's run out of rational argument, or more likely can't find the facts to support an unsupported claim on Wikipedia :-) If you'd like me to shut up just find something that (objectively) proves miivi was a honeypot and I will. As for not having read the emails, only an idiot would say that they've downloaded and read emails that are obviously illegal to download and read, especially on a site that is one of the most popular sites on the internet and doesn't let you delete what you've said. Neververyvery 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a useful source. A new ARS Technica article claims that

"The MediaDefender e-mails leaked this weekend confirm beyond doubt
that the company intentionally attempted to draw traffic to MiiVi
while obscuring its own affiliation with the site."

and

Although many of MediaDefender's innermost secrets have been laid bare
by this leak, there are many aspects of the company that remain
shrouded in mystery. The ultimate purpose of the MiiVi site, for instance,
is still an enigma. In some ways, the information in these e-mails
raises more questions about MiiVi than it answers.

Note the depth of the article. They've done a pretty detailed (and accurate, in my opinion) analysis of the mails and deliberately steer clear of saying that miivi was a honeypot site or used for entrapment. In fact, they specifically say that the site's purpose is unclear. Humble pie much 216.80.89.25? Neververyvery 05:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By your rationale "only an idiot would say that they've downloaded and read emails that are obviously illegal to download and read, especially on a site that is one of the most popular sites on the internet and doesn't let you delete what you've said." - Ars technica have just admitted breaking the law and are idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.206.214 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Ryan Paul actually says he's downloaded and read the emails. The phrasing he uses is "We have been reviewing the data for days and will have multiple reports on the topic". There's a (slight) difference between saying that and saying "we have downloaded and read the emails". One difference is the ability to plausibly deny that they downloaded anything. "We have been reviewing the data" could mean "we didn't download the emails, someone else sent us the relevant extracts which we're reporting on them because we're journalists" (bit of a stretch, I know). There's also a difference between saying you've downloaded something illegal and admitting you've broken the law. I guess I phrased it badly though. Perhaps I should have said "I'm not stupid enough to" instead of "only an idiot would", or "only an idiot would say that they've downloaded and read emails that are obviously illegal (except the following types of people and organizations <insert list of exceptions I thought of at the time>)". It would have been a bit tedious to read though. In any case I think the rationale was sound, just the expression of it was (necessarily) bad. What's all this got to do with the claim that mivvi was a honeypot not being supported by the emails though? Neververyvery 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning added to article

Since there is proof (see above) that multiple employees of MediaDefender were working on manipulating this article and it seems they are using multiple user accounts, I think it is necessary to add this warning to the article page, since there are not enough editors here that can guarantee, that no subtle manipulations are inserted or Wikipedia policies or the law are exploited to suppress information on the mentioned issues. We need to be extra watchful of seemingly logical reasonings for changes to this page, that advise to delete or censor content. --84.178.123.32 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This warning is not needed. So far, the manipulation seems to be limited to adding a new section; if the manipulation got bad enough that a warning like that were needed, it would be best to request protection of the article. If the problem is not enough editors watching this article (unlikely, with the recent slashdot attention), it would be better to ask some people to add it to their watchlists. --cesarb 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Identity theft?

Is it really identity theft if someone steals emails from a company?

No, its email theft. Dxco 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so well versed in law, but as far as I can see, I don't see it as identity theft. Maybe someone who is better versed in law can check this out for the sake of the article?

It's definitely invasion of privacy though. Phuzion 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it isn't identity theft. It only is identify theft if someone takes the information from the emails and uses it to pretend to be someone else - thus causing the person in question some sort of loss. Of course its an invasion of privacy and many other things. EAi 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the question of which/what exact crime(s) the theft of the emails constitutes has anything to do with this article. Sure, the emails were probably obtained illegally, but the fact is that the horse has gotten of the barn and he sure as hell ain't going back in.

My understanding is that social security numbers were present in the email batch. So the misappropriation of the emails may not have constituted identity theft, but it may have facilitated such identity theft. (note to MD: you may want to buy your employers ID theft protection, as ppl will certainly mis-use these social security numbers). Such identity theft would have nothing to do with this article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.228.72 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead emails / phone calls

I know all you copyright thieves wonderful file sharing people are absolutely delighted that someone has stolen info form this lot, but unless you can bring a reliable source we can't tell the world how awfully clever you are. Sorry, them's the rules. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to things that happen on the internet and are relatively geeky topics then "reliable sources" do not exist beyond the same sources online news services will use, the pirate bay page of the torrent in question for example. Due to the nature of the content it's questionable that there'll ever be any non-p2p hosted version of this phonecall. But you might wait for transcripts... but of course. Anyway, the torrentfreak article is not more or less unreliable than many other blog/forum/online-news-service posts used in many other WP articles relating to things that happen in and around online communities. So please don't be a troll just because you don't like what happend, since it did happen. --89.55.170.8 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't say WP:RS unless there aren't any, we say WP:RS. No reliable source = fails WP:V, WP:ATT. And actually genuinely important and verifiable stories get covered in mainstream media too. Now please cite reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

JzG, you wrongfully deleted my reply to your above comment. I'll state it again. The above criticism violates WP:NPA. "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Calling other editors thieves whose edits are motivated by a desire to show the world how awfully clever they are is just not appropriate for anyone, even an administrator such as yourself. If you think the sources aren't good, then that's fine, no need to be snarky. The wall street journal put out an article on it we can link as soon as the page is no longer protected. I think the WSJ is a pretty good source, don't you? -- Addison Strack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addisonstrack (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaDefender internal emails go public

http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefender-emails-leaked-070915/ (Read the whole story here)

It has been leaked, that MediaDefender's sole purpose is to trap people into uploading copyrighted material, and bust them for doing so.A huge bunch of internal e-mails have been leaked into the net, describing what the sole purpose of mediadefender really is. I'm not into that stuff at all, but i stumbled over that story just a few minutes ago. Any suggestion on how to proceed with this article now? UserDoe 21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UserDoe (talk • contribs) 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want some suggestions have a look at the rest of the talk page and the article page to see what's been written so far. One way I recommend not to proceed is to just write stuff that isn't really supported by the facts. For example, don't go writing that "MediaDefender's sole purpose is to trap people into uploading copyrighted material, and bust them for doing so" as it's not really supported by the facts. It's pretty clear from the leaked phone call between MediaDefender and the New York Attorney General's office that MediaDefender is also involved in trying to prevent child porn (see main article for that new phone call leak and the Digg article comments for the transcript), so it can't be their "sole" purpose to trap people into uploading copyright material (I'm assuming that child porn isn't copyrighted). Also Torrent Freak (who broke the initial leaked email story) have pointed out that "no evidence can be found that MediaDefender is actually involved in prosecuting or gathering evidence against filesharers (as we reported earlier)", so it's also probably that MediaDefender aren't "busting" or helping to "bust" anyone. They are definitely being paid to disrupt downloads and gather intel on downloads though. If you want advice on "how to proceed" I'd recommend trying to find something reported as being in the emails that definitively says Miivi is a honeypot designed to attract and entrap p2p users (as this article claims), as I've yet to find it. Neververyvery 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I eventually did find an email obviously hinting that Miivi was a simple trap site. However I can't seem to find it again, but I'll keep looking... 208.127.155.20 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find it, I'd love to see it. I honestly mean that, I would love to be wrong about this. The more I dig into it the more it seems to me that the original article about miivi being a honeypot was wrong (just about the honeypot aspect, not the rest) and everyone just unquestioningly agreed with it. Even worse, when the emails were leaked, emails that actually support another conclusion were used to support the honeypot theory. That's pretty worrying given that these unsupported "facts" are being reported by hundreds of sources on the internet, including Wikipedia Neververyvery 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now the article says that "The emails link MediaDefender to projects that management previously denied involvement in, confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site,". This is pretty blatantly false - anybody who's been actually reading the mails would tell you that they're full of people sarcastically making fun of bloggers for claiming this. Even [2] which is listed as a reference says that there is no evidence of this. --88.195.54.90 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Leaks, One Heading?

Greetings all. I haven't made any edits to the page yet, but I thought I'd toss out that the leaked emails and phone call appear to be part of the same story--different days, but the same "group" (MediaDefender-Defender) is claiming credit. It is entirely possible that they will spin stuff out on a daily basis for a little while, or perhaps they are done, but I'm not sure we need a new heading for every leak. The content looks fine, I'm just suggesting a unified heading for the leaks... if no one strongly objects or beats me to it, I'll make the change myself a bit later. Alaren 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Go ahead UserDoe 00:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Good idea, future leaks would be well placed here too Sevengoods 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Gnutella database leak, third leak in a weekend

A 14 GB database dump from MD made it to the public, named "Gnutella Tracking Database" . IT should make it to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.52.200 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's 12GB, although the point remains valid. It also can be found on at least one BitTorrent tracker. --CCFreak2K 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Leaked Telephone Call Transcript

Would it be legal to post a link to the leaked telephone transcript? 72.209.69.251 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

Yes. Most certainly. Please do so.

??

what does "tie up users computer mean" --> very ambiguous. need s change —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.195.121 (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you're still learning English, right? Well let me clear that up for you. It means to, hmm... how should I put it? It means that it messes up or confuses the computer or software, causing it to stop for a moment and try to figure out the problem and solve it. It's kind of like stalling. 208.127.155.20 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

to tie up == keep occupied in this context --89.55.170.8 10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, youre unaware that the minority of english speakers reside in the United States. This reader's comment is a good indication that we should choose a better phrase to communicate the information that we intend here.Dxco 07:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed

I have tagged the section Leaked Information as disputed. As pointed out on this talk page, some of the statements might conflict with published reliable sources[3][4] and as such might fail Wikipedias fundamental policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View. Also please Be Civil and Assume good faith amongst your fellow editors. Dissolva 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Can you be a bit more specific on what is being disputed? Is the legitimacy of the emails under question, the manner in which they were obtained, or the credibility of the reference sources? Sevengoods 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the tag is required. The emails are not disputed. They really happened. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collection of factual information (hence the NPOV). The fact of the matter is that the emails point to some very shady inner-workings of the company, and that fact needs to be displayed. There is no dispute, there is no bias. I am removing the tag, but please feel free to reply/discuss my decision here. Cheers. Noah 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ars Technica has been used as a reliable source before, as is Wall Street Journal. Saying that they are not reliable sources as to the emails is, frankly, ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WSJ is fine, but I am not persuaded by Ars Technica - and TorrentFreak is ptently not reliable, and that's the major source here. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, do you have a basis for disputing Ars Technica as a reliable source? While they are not the WSJ, they have a fairly solid reputation on technical matters. Additionally, given that they back their statements with literal quotes from the (now publicly available) emails, I see no reason to disqualify them in the absence of contradictory sources. In any case, please follow WP:AD and apply dispute tags, rather than simply deleting the sourced content. (Note: This applies to ArsTechnica only; I have no experience with TorrentFreak.) --Sacolcor 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the emails exist or happened, or are credible or are factual. I'm not disputing that the emails point to shady inner-workings of the company. I'm not disputing that Ars Technica is a reliable source. What I am disputing is that the emails "confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site", because they just don't. It's just that one little "fact" in the article that's not supported by the evidence. I'm assuming Ars Technica also don't believe the emails confirm the speculation, because they wrote "The ultimate purpose of the MiiVi site, for instance, is still an enigma. In some ways, the information in these e-mails raises more questions about MiiVi than it answers". I've put stuff in bold because I'm starting to think people in this discussion don't actually understand exactly what's being disputed. Have a read of the rest of the discussion above, under the "Leaked e-mails section contains unsupported facts" section Neververyvery 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My reason for tagging is not that I think the emails are disputed, but as Neververyvery points out, there are claims in the section that seem to not be supported by sources. I think the section should be edited so that every statement is attributed to sources with inline citations and anything that is unverified should be deleted. Anything else is WP:OR and fails WP:V, hence the reason for tagging under WP:AD. Perhaps just that line should be tagged? I have no interest one way or the other of the politics involved, only that the article is factually accurate, because any unverified statements only makes Wikipedia look bad. Dissolva 23:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ars Technica as a source

Why would Ars Technica not be a valid source? They are a major IT/technical news web site with over 800+ links from Wikipedia. I see that they use a blog-style layout for their news structure, but many news services, if not the vast majority that cover IT/technology, do so these days. I am curious as I see this site all over the place as an RS. • Lawrence Cohen 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As this seems lost from the below debates, I cross-posted to ask here. • Lawrence Cohen 06:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree Ars Technica should be considered in the panoply of generally reliable sources. It's good enough to be included in Google News, has many references in Wikipedia, has a good track record. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good hints in the emails that MiiVi was a trap site

Well, here goes...

Quote from slashdot on us: "This is the worst kind of entrapment. The kind WITHOUT Katherine Zetta Jones." Haha.

Gives you a sense of them saying "too bad, you got trapped", huh?

- - - - - - - -

Looks like the domain transfer has screwed us over:

http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-gang-launches-their-own-video-download-site-to-trap-people/

http://digg.com/users/AcePup/news/dugg

-Ben

I think this should be quite obvious...

- - - - - - - -

Given all the recent Digg, SlashDot and derivative online articles about MD, be careful what you say in job interviews. Specifically, I'm concerned about giving any information BEYOND what's already on the mediadefender.com website. I'm worried about someone interviewing for a position just for the purpose of getting more info to post online. For example, if anyone asks anything about MiiVi, just reiterate what Randy has said online (it was an internal video project that we probably should have password protected; we were in no way directed to, or working with, the MPAA on that project; NO part of the project was a honeypot designed to trap downloaders).

After the part where it says "reiterate what Randy has said online", it's obvious that those phrases were the complete opposite or just a lie about what they've been doing.

Well that's all I found for now. 208.127.155.20 00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOR. In a nutshell, it doesn't matter if you can look outside and see that the sky is blue; to state it on Wikipedia, you need to cite a Reliable Source. That's why everyone is quoting the ArsTechnica and other articles, instead of the emails themselves. --Sacolcor 00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Which is one of the policies of WP I definitely hate. The local newspapers and cited "reliable sources" do their original research, why can't users? Sometimes I wonder if this policy was made to completely annoy people. 208.127.155.20 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the policy, the emails don't even support the claim. EMAIL 1: "Gives you a sense" is not confirmation of something. The entire "smoking gun" or "proof" in this email is the word "haha". You do realize that, don't you? EMAIL 2: Saying someone screwed you over implies (or can imply) that you feel you were treated badly or unjustly because you were accused of doing something you weren't doing (along with lots of other things you were doing). It doesn't imply you were guilty of whatever it is you're accused of. EMAIL 3. I've already covered this (see way up above). Plus your reasoning is that if a company has a cover story for some bad publicity, the real truth behind the thing that caused the bad publicity must be the exact opposite of whatever the cover story is. Do you really believe that? Your other bit of reasoning is that if a company lies about other things or are liars or "very bad people" in general, they must run a honeypot site! I'll simplify this (and make it harder at the same time, sorry) otherwise we'll be here for years arguing about ambiguous emails. Show me (I don't mean literally, pasting mails here is a bad idea) the CONFIRMATION mail that says "miivi is a honeypot/entrapment site" or any variation on that and I'll accept that the emails confirm the claim. Otherwise accept that the emails don't actually confirm what the site was, like ARS has (or appears to have, I don't want to put words in their mouths) Neververyvery 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah well what the hell. I don't give a crap about this, I'm done with WP, completely fed up with it. Neververyvery, if you ran a site like Miivi, would YOU just blatantly announce "Hey Miivi's a honeypot site that we can use to trap P2P users!"? No. It's called the company discussing it offline and then we have to look for clues that lead us to it. It's not as simple as announcing "Oh hey, look they clearly said in the email it was a trap." If Wikipedia and its Wikipedians continue to act like this, with this idiotic policy of "no original research" yet sources can do their own original research, it'll be a pile of trash in no time. I hope so. 208.127.155.20 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. It's our policies like "No original research" that have kept wikipedia from turning into a pile of trash full of conspiracy theories and blog posts. Please take some time to learn what an encyclopedia is all about.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is fine with original research as long as you write it on your website and link to it. just like you can link to any original research on any news site. now what you should be arguing is the definition of 'reliable', if i'm right 70% of the time, doesnt that make me reliable? how reliable is the Associated Press? how many retractions do they issue per year? --Compn 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is NOT fine with original research, and your site must be reliable. Wikipedia is not based on truth, it is based on verifiability. The associated press is clearly a reliable source: nearly every newspaper in the world runs their stories. Self published sources are not, especially when they are not fact checked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In any event, we can't base any article text on the emails directly. Given that, does anyone mind if I delete this discussion subsection? This discussion page is getting long, and if 208.127.155.20 can find a valid source for the honeypot characterization, they can start a new section. --Sacolcor 03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Talk page discussion sections are generally not removed or deleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"one e-mail suggests using the MiiVi client program to turn users' PCs into drones"

Someone added this to the main article as example of an email that confirms miivi was a honeypot. "(one e-mail suggests using the MiiVi client program to turn users' PCs into drones for MediaDefender's eMule spoofing activities)". Well,

• I don't think eMule spoofing is honeypotting (but I'm not an expert, as you can tell by my bastardization of the word).
• I hear it was suggested by one employee (that had created the program for another project) and the suggestion was rejected an hour later because they didn't want to be accused of installing spyware. It wasn't ever implemented.
• Apparently there was an alternative suggested but again not implemented. The alternative was to pay people to run the emule spoofing program. I don't think paying people to run a p2p interference program = honeypot either

So altogether we have a company that didn't implement an off the cuff idea to install a program because it would have been considered spyware and the app wouldn't have helped with creating a honeypot anyway. How does that prove that Miivi was a honeypot???

People, I give up. You're either foolish, irrational or just not prepared to even consider any alternative to a theory that a couple of bloggers came up with months ago (when they didn't have ~700MB worth of emails to base a theory on) that the rest of the internet just blindly repeated. Do MediaDefender suck? Yep. Was miivi a honeypot? Beats me, but those emails sure don't confirm it was. As the great Malley would say, I am duuunn! Neververyvery 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if it helps here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal article that seems to strengthen the honeypot theory:

Among the services it offers are "decoying" and "spoofing" -- flooding the Internet with fake files that mimic real content to make it difficult for pirates to find the real thing. It also offers "leak alerts" that tell the studios and labels which of their products are circulating among Internet pirates.

But over the weekend, information about MediaDefender's efforts was splashed across the Internet via a leak of purported employee emails. Among the alleged revelations: the company was developing a Web site, MiiVii, that would allow people to upload and download copyright movies, TV shows and music. But when people installed it, the software could also secretly track people's activity and report back to MediaDefender.

You can read the full article for now with this link via Google News [5]. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's helpful, but I note the article's use of "alleged". This isn't the WSJ saying something, but rather the WSJ citing what some other unnamed Internet sources are saying. I don't think that automatically disqualifies it, but we have to be careful not to accidentally drop that "alleged" on anything we base on that statement. --Sacolcor 04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Full Protection

I don't see a need for full protection for the article. Do you consider one revert in the last 36 hours as an edit war? The only dispute seems to be over one line in the article, and no one has changed it while the discussion has been going on. Dissolva 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What edit war? All I see is that JzG made a few reverts because he says to cite a "reliable source". What is this protection nonsense about on WP nowadays? All I see are admins abusing the function. 208.127.155.20 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There's another line in the Miivi.com section that says "appearing to indicate that Miivi.com was created to catch potential copyright violators". The emails don't "confirm" or even "appear to indicate", they leave the issue wide open Neververyvery 02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the police arrest people because they appear to be breaking the law. that doesn't mean they actually are. that question is left to the courts to decide. similarly, the emails do appear to indicate. that doesn't mean they're the word of god nor does it mean anyone is claiming them to be 209.209.214.5 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. There is a heated amount of debate on this topic, both here and through emails to the Wikimedia Foundation support desk (for reference, OTRS Ticket#2007091710004481). Until this is resolved, I will not be lifting the full protection. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you summarize the OTRS issues, so that the editors here can take them into consideration? --Sacolcor 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, due to confidentiality reasons. However, I do realize I forgot to put the proper expiration date on the protection. The protection expires 03:58, 19 September 2007 UTC, which is 24 hours from now. Consider it a "pause period" to work the sourcing issues out.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Emails and sourcing

If I can offer my thoughts: there's some concern that the documents purporting to be leaked emails may contain some private data, things like people's email addresses obviously but also various passwords and information about MediaDefender's clients, as AP is reporting. There's also a question of reliability in terms of the websites that the documents might be appearing on.

I think it would be preferable on both fronts to utilise existing reporting on the documents rather than trying to link directly to any such documents; the story is already being carried by, for example, CNET, the Wall Street Journal, and of course AP as I mentioned earlier. Google News is already turning up plenty of results for me, so there should easily be enough material to go on. --bainer (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

amusing

wikipedia is becoming the poster child of appeal to authority fallacies. you can't cite the emails, because that violates WP:NOR, yet citing arstechnia.com, which, itself, cites emails, is ok, because of WP:RS. lame.

what's lamer then that, though, is censorship that goes on here at wikipedia. in case User:Dxco is too daft to realize it, the above is an argument to include the emails, which is relevant to the article. but i'll just spell it out, anyway, because idiots demand it. making it so the emails can't be cited by wikipedia but can be cited by arstechnia.com, wikipedia is engaging in an appeal to authority fallacy.

by deleting this post, wikipedia completely abandons WP:NPOV. we'll counter the easy arguments, but the tough arguments - the arguments for which we have no response - we'll just delete? bravo, wikipedia, bravo 209.209.214.5 14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP:NOR and the WP:RS policies is exactly what have kept wikipedia running and usually reliable. If you put original research in an article, it's difficult to point out the exact author when it turns out to be false. If a company/newspaper has done the research, it's easy to do so because the whole company is responsible for it (not only the author itself, but his/her supervisors too) That way secondairy sources are easier to verify as reliable than original research done by wikipedians. Fransw 15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)