Skip to main content

View Diary: US DOJ Website Down; Whitehouse.gov under DDOS attack? --Anonymous claims responsibility (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's more from the indictment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shuksan Tahoma, erush1345, BachFan
    12. The Mega Conspiracy closely monitors the traffic from linking sites to the MegaSites and services. The Conspiracy is aware that linking sites generate a very high percentage of the millions of visits to its websites and services each week and provide the Conspiracy direct financial benefits through advertising revenue and opportunities for new premium subscriptions.

    13. Members of the Mega Conspiracy have knowingly interacted with users of linking sites and visited the sites (and associated online forums) themselves. Specifically, someof the defendants have instructed individual users how to locate links to infringing content on the Mega Sites (including recommending specific linking websites). Several of the defendants have also shared with each other comments from Mega Site users demonstrating that they have used or are attempting to use the Mega Sites to get infringing copies of copyrighted content.

    21. Members of the Mega Conspiracy negotiated the use of an “Abuse Tool” withsome major U.S. copyright holders to purportedly remove copyright-infringing material from Mega Conspiracy-controlled servers. The Abuse Tool allowed copyright holders to enterspecific URL links to copyright infringing content of which they were aware, and they weretold by the Conspiracy that the Mega Conspiracy’s systems would then remove, or disable access to, the material from computer servers the Conspiracy controls. The Mega Conspiracy’s Abuse Tool did not actually function as a DMCA compliance tool as the copyright owners wereled to believe.

    22. When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automated system calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using a mathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that the uploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.com does not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a newand unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on theserver. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder toterminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will failbecause the additional access links will continue to be available.

    23. The infringing copy of the copyrighted work, therefore, remains on the Conspiracy’s systems (and accessible to at least one member of the public) as long as a single link remains unknown to the copyright holder. The Conspiracy’s internal reference database tracks the links that have been generated by the system, but duplicative links to infringing materials are neither disclosed to copyright holders, nor are they automatically deleted when a copyright holder either uses the Abuse Tool or makes a standard DMCA copyright infringement takedown request. During the course of the Conspiracy, the Mega Conspiracy has received many millions of requests (through the Abuse Tool and otherwise) to remove infringing copies of copyrighted works and yet the Conspiracy has, at best, only deleted the particular URL of which the copyright holder complained, and purposefully left the actual infringing copy of the copyrighted work on the Mega Conspiracy-controlled server and any other access links completely intact.

    •  Point 22: as cryptic (no pun intended) as it is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tikkun, lgmcp, BachFan

      Seems central to the indictment.

      As noted in Point 23:

      23. ...duplicative links to infringing materials are neither disclosed to copyright holders, nor are they automatically deleted when a copyright holder either uses the Abuse Tool or makes a standard DMCA copyright infringement takedown request.
    •  coder malpractice. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, ukit, tikkun, Cassandra Waites

      Clearly the DCMA abuse tool was buggy as hell: it didn't work the way it was supposed to.

      So either one of two things:

      Whoever designed & programmed it was grossly negligent, or they were knowingly culpable.  

      "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:56:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site