Media Defender Parts With Company Founders

[GhostShip]

Great news folks, the former scourge of WinMX Randy Saaf and his side-kick Octavio Herrara have jumped the sinking ship and fled 

http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefender-founders-leave-sinking-ship-090326/

In mid 2005, MediaDefender founders Randy Saaf and Octavio Herrera were paid $43 million for their anti-piracy company when it was acquired by ARTISTdirect. This seemed to be a good deal, particularly since the big movie studios were paying millions for MediaDefender’s services - but that situation didn’t last.

In August 2007 disaster struck when a database of MediaDefender’s internal emails leaked to the public. Every juicy detail of their anti-piracy campaigns were out in the open, including the tools they used. The hacker said that he initially didn’t plan to make the info public, but when he found out what MediaDefender were up to he was determined to “destroy them” - and so he did.

This company used to be one we fought with daily in blocking their flooding attempts on the network, now there is only one company left still hitting those using host files to join the network, over time I expect those users will dwindle further and the network at last become flood free but for now lets celebrate the toppling of these anti-filesharing trash who used many dirty and illegal tricks, hope you rot in your own vomit guys 

[Forested665]

It's nice to see that studios are realizing money spent on anti-piracy cartels is money well wasted.

I have wondered at many points how the U.S. supreme court would veiw their actions if they were accused of prohibiting the publics constitutional rights.

The ones i have in mind would be:
Amendment one

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This would only apply to government funded groups if we could prove by damaging the network they were also affecting the chat system.

Amendment 4:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm well aware that this one has been brought up and caused the dismisal of many cases within the states jurisdiction but it was still worth mentioning for this reply.

Amendment 5:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This seems to be contradictory of many cases as the person who is using the machine to do the "crime" is rarely ever proven.

Amendment 6:
A source:http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
you are allowed to be confronted with the witness against you.
If someone hacks into your pc and sees an active transfer.
Could that person in a court room point the finger and say for sure that it was YOU who was doing it?

Amendment 14:
Article 1 gaurentees your protection by the government against infringements of the forementioned amendments. the terms of the constitution and any further ratified amendments.


So, theres my mind, hope you enjoy.

[GhostShip]

Most of the points you raise above would have nothing to do with MD's activities unfortunately, the law is spread into two types of law, the criminal law and the civil law, in most cases its the civil law that is being brought to bear and in such cases it is only necessary to prove with a preponderance of evidence that someone undertook the activity you claim, its not a criminal case where it is necessary to "prove beyond reasonable doubt", thus they need only accuse you  and can win a case on that alone if you don't contest the case, if you do they then have to prove further aspects of their case but not to any great degree as the onus is on you to show your not the guilty party, often something easier said than done when folks are able to "piggyback" on your router.

[Forested665]

if you don't contest the case, if you do they then have to prove further aspects of their case but not to any great degree as the onus is on you to show your not the guilty party

Guess they also threw innocent until proven guilty out the door as well.

[GhostShip]

In civil cases there is no "innocent" or "guilty" its either case proved or not, this is not criminal law and as I said the weight of evidence is a lot less to prove and often a decent legal team can make a poor case fly past the facts and win as the media companies have been doing for years with their multi million dollar law a year companies on tap to stamp on anyone who they fear will show them as the selfish monopolists they are.