MediaDefender barked up the wrong tree

Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:51 pm

MediaDefender has always been a source of much amusement, but their latest attack on Revision3 just highlights the issue so well. They claim to defend the rights of copyright holders, but just who are they defending when they attack Revision3, a great publisher for online video who chose to use BitTorrent to save bandwidth cost in distributing their HD videos? Whether a mistake or not, what MediaDefender does is spam, and spamming should be illegal.

Read Revision3's detailed (and humorous) account of their attack here: http://revision3.com/blog/2008/05/29/inside-the-attack-that-crippled-revision3

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 12:00 am

"a room full of hyperactive toddlers" - lovin' it. Razz

That's cheered me up no end - let's hope the lawyers can do some barking back !

"Media Defender practices risky business, and needs to overhaul how it operates. Because in this country, as far as I know, we’re still innocent until proven guilty – not drawn, quartered and executed simply because someone thinks you’re an outlaw."

- Jim Louderback
CEO - Revision3

Wise words worth remembering IMHO Laughing

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:05 am

Woa. MediaDefender just coms out as REALLY stupid in this chain of events.
For a legal company, they sure do make alot of legal mistakes.
Ahaha, priceless. :') It reads as a good detective story. Let's just hope that the FBI tackles MediaDefener in the near future and kindly tell 'm that they should just Shut the H*ll Up. Smile

Yea, what would happen if their servers decided that the hospitals servers busied illegal activities?? :/ Man, automated sever attacks. Creepy.

About the article on Arstechnica: I thought the words 'dearest little asstunnels' were just very inventive. Razz

(just defending the small accusation towards Europeans that we wouldn't know the word 'assholes'. It's just over-used IMO. xD)

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:53 am

Media Defender are cyber-terrorists, how the hell they are allowed to function/ exist still is beyond me. It seems to highlight some of the hypocritical double standards in the USA legal system.

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:30 pm

I am left with a bemused smile on my face each time mediadefender gets air time on the internet. IMHO Mediadefender should be filed under "Clowns", in wikipedia. I mean wtf are these guys trying to prove, how really, really, incompetent one company can act?

Well done mediadefender, you managed in one year to drive your (ArtistDirect) companies stocks from $2.48 to $0.35 in one year. Is this a lesson in how to lose a company? Or another script for a disaster movie?

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:12 pm

"Leaked e-mails

...

The e-mails also revealed direction by MediaDefender founder Randy Saaf to have developer Ben Ebert attempt to eliminate the information about MiiVi from MediaDefender's Wikipedia entry.[16] Ebert responds in an email on the same day saying, "I will attempt to get all referenes [sic] to miivi removed from wiki. I should easily be able to get It contested. We'll see if I can get rid of it."[18]|"

lmao!!! Talk about digging yourself a hole even deeper!