Talk:MediaDefender/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Phone call transcription

The phone conversation should be linked as well. It's content is very much relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Emails link

What about adding the Unoffical Media Denfender-Defenders Links to the wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwr (talkcontribs) 12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This Site is down... Im curious is it coming back... and... Where can I find a copy of the emails? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:00, April 20, 2008
JRWR Here... Prolly Never, TiAMO was Hosting it at, anyone willing to host it i think i have a backup of it some where, email me at MD-D FTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:01, May 26, 2008
My concern with this link is that it might violate Wikipedia restriction on eternal links. Right now the emails are not present on the link so I didn't remove it. I've seen no indication that the creators of the emails have granted permission for them to be hosted on this web site, so they may be a Copyright Violation. Sites that violate the copyrights of others are among the Restrictions on linking. Dissolva 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Proof that WP:IAR can and should be invoked to ignore all types of rules, even the rule about not linking to copyright violations. Ken Arromdee 20:09, 19 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. 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 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 622 MB of emails out there, surely if they "confirm speculation that 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. 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin
The honeypot is clearly the case, there's an email( i don't have the specific subject line) in which miivi is directly referred to as a honeypot.
If the honeypot was "clearly the case", 100's of people would have produced the confirming email by now. I'm totally willing to admit you're right when you do find the subject though Neververyvery 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Never, can you please indicate the logic of an anti-piracy co having a site that is dedicated to piracy if the site isn't a honeypot? 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not, it'd just end up as an argument about whether or not Miivi was a honeypot or not, which is separate from whether the leaked emails confirm it is, or it isn't or it both is and isn't or it isn't is or isn't isn't!. If you're interested in an alternate theory, read the leaked emails or read the multiple sections on this page (way below) where I (and someone else) hint at and then literally spell out one possibility. If you want to chat about it, post some stuff on my talk page and we can talk about it there instead, where it won't disrupt this article Neververyvery 00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm... They get caught and claim it's some kind of "internal project". Now the e-mails prove that they knew it was externally accessible (they discussed the sign-ups) intentionally so (discussed how to better promote the site). The questions is: Why does a anti-piracy company knowingly run a torrent site with torrents of copyrighted content? Cue the EULA which basically says "if you do something illegal we will report you". QUACK! 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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.


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:

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

Such manipulation is evidence that wikipedia is easily used as a [[propaganda]] tool as has been repeatedly demonstrated on the Yahoo Answers! entry in wikipedia (see Yahoo Answers! history in which the atheist novangelis is given free reign to write out anything referring to himself and his friends).  {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=|2=19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)}} <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Dylan Douglas

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 (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. -- 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. 07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyway it's not like they can mass-GTMO tens of thousands of citizens over disseminating information about a state's program to combat child pornography.. --frotht 01:49, 19 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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (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)

To legalprof,

Information is information, is it not? If that information is in reference to MD, why should it be left out? Also why should it not be sourced to where it came from? If you have a problem with the torrents (which MD is attempting to jam as I speak. I know this because I am one of the victims of this act), why not link to the following site which MD has also apparently been targeted? 03:43, 22 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 (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 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 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 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 section, and allowed for changing the section title to something more specific (and accurate). -- 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. 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin
Actually, I believe it was 700mb, not 500. 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
My point is that the 622MB 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 622MB of email and I have opinion X, so therefore opinion X is right" That's obviously bad reasoning unless you can show that the 622MB actually support opinion X. If you're going to write that the emails confirm the speculation that 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. 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)
Um I don't think so.. the Ars Technica article definately seems to confirm that the quotes are directly related. Besides, they're far too similar in sentence structure to be from different contexts --frotht 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The ARS article says "The ultimate purpose of the MiiVi site, for instance, is still an enigma" That's because they've read the emails Neververyvery 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neververyvery works for MediaDefender -- 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 (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."


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 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 (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)

I'm pretty sure the press has the freedom to read whatever they want that's been publically leaked, and even to leak private emails themselves if they get ahold of them! (not by illegal means of course). Unless the practically-sovereign government entities way up like the department of defense lock it down under national security (in which case nobody even questions the lawfulness of it, it's just whatever you do don't read that) then it's fair play --frotht 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Below is a table summary of the articles and what they say with respect to "emails confirm mivii=honeypot"

Article Relevant quote Article says that emails confirm miivi=honeypot? Article quotes email confirming miivi=honeypot? Article quotes any emails? Article say they've read the emails?
ars technica "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" No No Yes Yes, "We did encounter, however, a few other things worthy of Note"
Associated Press "Some of the leaked e-mails appeared to bolster the idea that MediaDefender was secretly operating a Web site where computer users could upload videos and using it to track users who shared copyrighted files without permission, allegations that surfaced in recent months among techNology bloggers and the online file-sharing community" "appeared to" No Yes Yes, "Some of the e-mails reviewed by the Associated Press"
Digital Media Wire "According to the e-mails, the company was also developing a fake file-sharing hub called, which would have allowed downloads but reported users' IP addresses and activity back to the company; the correspondence also refers to a feature that could turn users' computers into zombie machines that seeded file-sharing networks with bogus files" "according to" No No No
Neoseeker "Reportedly, the theorized MiiVi site would attempt to take over computer systems, then zombify them, in order to enlist them into the fledgling IPP industry. Plans for the MiiVi site also included the logging of all IP addresses, in order that an absolute, certainest copyright-violation victory would be achieved by MediaDefender" "Reportedly" No No No "The e-mails indicate that the site was a ruse. The MiiVii software would allegedly track a user's activity without their kNowledge and report the information back to MediaDefender, according to the Journal, citing copies of the e-mails circulating on the Web" "indicate" No No No
PC World "In the e-mails, which covered a period from mid-December 2006 to Sept. 10, company executives discussed a planned Web site, dubbed, that would pose as a pirate site that offered downloads of copyrighted movies and music but would actually track users who accessed it, then report their IP addresses back to MediaDefender. At least one e-mail seemed to discuss software that, once downloaded to the PCs of WiiVii's visitors, would also transform the computers into bots capable of automatically seeding peer-to-peer networks with fake file" Yes No No Unclear
SC Magazine "According to the emails, MediaDefender put up that so-called "honeypot" website,, to permit people to upload and download copyrighted movies, television shows and music. When visitors installed software associated with the site, the software could also surreptitiously track their activity and report to MediaDefender" "According" No No No
Torrent Freak "From the emails we canNot be sure that it’s an entrapment site or that it is related to the MPAA (perhaps it’s a legit a P2P video client?), but it does look suspicious" No No Yes Yes, "after we scanned through the e-mails"
Torrent Freak "Although there still appears to be No hard evidence that entrapping pirates was the sole purpose of the project, the fact that MiiVi is presenting itself as the copyright equivalent of judge-and-jury does Not sit well" No No Yes Yes (in the previous article)
Wall Street Journal "Among the alleged revelations: the company was developing a Web site, MiiVii, that would allow people to upload and download copyrighted movies, TV shows and music. But when people installed it, the software could also secretly track peoples' activity and report back to MediaDefender" "alleged" No Yes No

Neververyvery 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased the statement to more accurately represent what is being reported in reliable sources. If there are any suggestions on the phrasing by any editors that can't edit the article, please add them here and hopefully some editor will incorporate them in a way that represents consensus. Dissolva 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the colour scheme in the table in response to the "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" (eh????) comment that someone else has deleted. Swatjester, I don't think it's wise to delete's input, although maybe you know what the Wikipedia rules are and you're following them, I don't know. People should be able to make their points. I don't think there's really anything anyone could say that would actually offend me, so I don't regard it as a personal attack, it's just "stuff that excited people on teh internets say". It would have been cool if had made their point in a way that I could actually understand though. In any case I've changed the colours because I assume that's what his point was and red-orange-green in the table was my bias Neververyvery 23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There was formerly an obnoxoxious comment directed at Neververyvery in this spot 23:58, 19 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. -- 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 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't access 4chan from campus but I'm sure there's some sort of mass identity theft campaign going on over there.. they'll do that to anyone for any good reason, and they (along with everyone else on the internet) hate MD --frotht 02:00, 19 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. -- 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 (talkcontribs) 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

MediaDefender internal emails go public (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 (talkcontribs) 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... 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 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. -- 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks it's relevant enough to be added at any point, the size of the original leaked mailbox file is 662 MB Neververyvery 05:02, 21 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" [1]. IT should make it to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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? 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

Yes. Most certainly. Please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well no point posting the link now, looks like the entire domain is corrupted/down. 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)ForgotMyLogin

Looks like the site is up again. I don't want to end up in guantanamo so I will just say the required google keywords, which are: MediaDefender pastebin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Try "Blackbriar" as a keyword. 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


what does "tie up users computer mean" --> very ambiguous. need s change —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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. 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
to tie up == keep occupied in this context -- 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)
As you might see from the IP i'm not an american, english isn't even my mother tongue, and yet i understood that phrase w/o problems. It helps if you actually read the context to dissolve ambiguities ;) -- 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I am a native english speaker and I think the phrase is ambgiguous. THis whole fiasco is hilarious, by the way! 22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


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 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)
The subject matter under discussion will likely have a major impact on the lives of several people, as such I'm in complete agreement that anything that cannot be factually proven to a reasonable standard does not belong on the primary article page. Both credibility and careers are at stake, so accuracy is of the utmost importance. My research on this topic indicates that describing MiiVi as a "anti-piracy honeypot site" may not be inaccurate, and is certainly the most plausible explanation offered for the site so far. I'll try to approach this in a logical and detailed fashion, so please forgive my long-windedness. In the event that MediaDefenders primary web presence vanishes during the fallout from this story, I have included visual mirrors of citations from the companies web servers.
  • MediaDefender is in the business of "deploying technological countermeasures" to the distribution of several types of digital media.[5]. The services the company offers at this time consist of Anti-Piracy defined as "Decoying and Spoofing" and "a Leak Alert service"[6][7], complemented by Peer-to-Peer Marketing defined as "capture(ing) live search requests from your targeted demographic and respond(ing) with your clients’ files"[8][9] and Reporting defined as "All clients receive weekly custom reports of redirection activity" with "Number of Attempted and redirected downloads" including "Graphs and logs indicating peak user attempts with Geographic information"[10][11]
To define something as a honeypot , two elements are required.
  • "Bait" - A computer network resource masquerading as a service that will be actively sought out by users.
  • "Logging facilities" - a way to collect the data for research or analysis.
A mailtrap is a type of honeypot that may masquerade as an open relay in order to research the habits of spammers, just as a hackertrap may be running a seemingly exposed and vulnerable service in a sandbox or virtual machine for use in security research. Honeypots are not defined by how the aggregated information is then used, or who receives copies of the data. It seems to me there is very little speculation involved in the contention that MediaDefender was running a honeypot. One can in good faith assert that MediaDefenders web presence is predominantly comprised of anti-piracy honeypots which form the core archetype to their service offerings.
Making a statement to the effect of: "Ford is in the business of automobiles, but saying that they use company car factories to produce cars is irresponsible speculation" would be an obvious form of intellectual dishonesty, as would insistence that "1 + 1 does not equal 2" without offering proof to the contrary or a plausible alternative. At this juncture I have to believe the burden of proof may lie with MediaDefender to demonstrate what they were doing with MiiVi was not, in fact, business as usual.
The semantic debate on whether or not MiiVi meets the definition of a honeypot service may be the least of MediaDefenders worries. Unverified e-mail excerpts posted around the internet are alleging that MediaDefender was also defrauding clients with fabricated information and test results [12], and pirating Grisoft products.[13] But until these allegations are confirmed by a reliable source, they don't belong in the main article. The Wall Street Journal and PcWorld, however, seem comfortable enough with the authenticity of this story to pass along even more dire allegations, of MiiVi being actively used to install Trojan backdoor software onto users computers without consent, which if true, would elevate MiiVi from `mere` honeypot to bastion of criminal activity.
"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." [14](a truncated version of this article will appear unless you access it through Google News or a WSJ subscription)
The PcWorld article is similar:
"In the e-mails, which covered a period from mid-December 2006 to Sept. 10, company executives discussed a planned Web site, dubbed, that would pose as a pirate site that offered downloads of copyrighted movies and music but would actually track users who accessed it, then report their IP addresses back to MediaDefender. At least one e-mail seemed to discuss software that, once downloaded to the PCs of WiiVii's visitors, would also transform the computers into bots capable of automatically seeding peer-to-peer networks with fake files."[15]
I have to commend Neververyvery for his tenacious fact checking on this article, it will result in a much more thoroughly researched and accurate article on the MediaDefender company. Let me also apologize for the users who responded to your input with foul language and derision, which is not a wikipedia sanctioned method for debate. Wikipedians had perhaps taken to defensive posturing in light of a series of red herring edits to the content of the article. Please feel free to continue apply your valuable insight and attention to detail to more wikipedia articles than just the MediaDefender company page. Perhaps if you have some free time, this article could benefit greatly from your obvious editorial talent and dedication to the quality of wikipedia articles. Sigterm 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
My first thought when reading the discussion is that it may depend on how you define "honeypot". I'd point out that the term was added by an anonymous editor, with no source, no edit summary and no other contributions to Wikipedia.[16] Possibly some further evidence for the "honeypot" argument though: Carr, Jim (September 18 2007). "Stolen emails reveal anti-piracy company's 'honeypot' strategy". SC Magazine US. calls Miivi a "so-called "honeypot" website". SC Magazine seems to be a published international magazine with editorial oversight and expert writers so might be considered a WP:RS. TorrentFreak, while just a news blog, offers evidence of the potential of data collection and reporting to authorities by examining Miivi's EULA: "MiiVi Admit They Will Report Pirates to ‘Proper Authorities’". September 18 2007. TorrentFreak. Dissolva 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a discussion about what a honeypot is is a good idea on this particular page. It would be better in the article's own home. I also think taking the discussion down that route would be a bit of a cop out. The broad claim on the internet is that miivi was set up to get people to upload and download copyrighted material so that media defender and the MIAA could identify them and prosecute (or do something) to them. That's what this article is claiming and that's what (surprisingly) is not confirmed by the emails Neververyvery 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Neoseeker has joined the ranks describing the MD project as a "honey-pot" [17] . My attempt to define honeypot is based on the SANS "FAQ : What is a Honeypot?"[18] , perhaps someone can suggest a more mutually agreeable phrase or term that desribes a computer resource in this type of setup ? Sigterm 04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigterm, the "this site" (Astroturfing) comment is a bit low. If you want to accuse me of something, say it in black and white. That way I don't have to go read a big long ass article to work out what you mean. It was funny though, so I didn't take offence
As for the rest.
  • If your research into miivi confirms that it's a honeypot, then change the article to say "my research into miivi confirms it's a honeypot".
  • The WSJ don't say the emails confirm the honeypot theory. They say "among the alleged revelations". That's because (I'm guessing) they've either read the emails and aren't sure they actually confirm it, or they've not read the emails and know that repeating stuff that "people on teh internets" say needs to be preceded by "alleged".
  • The PC World article takes 3 emails that confirm 3 separate truths and put them together into a fabricated "email discussion" that doesn't actually occur in the emails that were released.

In the e-mails, which covered a period from mid-December 2006 to Sept. 10, company executives discussed a planned Web site, dubbed, that would pose as a pirate site that offered downloads of copyrighted movies and music but would actually track users who accessed it, then report their IP addresses back to MediaDefender

Yes, there are email(s) about tracking users and reporting their IP addresses back to MediaDefender. Yes, there are emails about Wiivii (sic). Yes there are also emails about offering downloads of copyrighted movies on Wiivii (sic). No, there aren't any emails (or email discussions) discussing a site called wiivii (sic) that offers downloads of copyrighted movies but actually tracks users who accessed it (unless you define 6000+ emails as one discussion). It's a neat trick that I've not noticed before.
  • You point out there's loads of other incriminating stuff that the emails do confirm. I agree. Don't sit there arguing with me about one claim that the emails don't confirm, go put the claims that the emails do confirm in the article. There are loads that are being reported (with supporting quotes) all over the internet but none of them are in the article. It's a really poor mirror of the info that's actually out there. Neververyvery 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure at this point what you are disputing. Your earlier post seems to take offense at characterization of MiiVi as a "confirmed honeypot site". Is your current bone of contention with the credibility of the PcWorld [19] article and other cited references as reliable sources as to "what the e-mails contain"? Please help clarify this for me. Sigterm 05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
If the issue is striking PcWorld from the reliable sources list, perhaps DMW is a suitable reference ?
"According to the e-mails, the company was also developing a fake file-sharing hub called, which would have allowed downloads but reported users' IP addresses and activity back to the company; the correspondence also refers to a feature that could turn users' computers into zombie machines that seeded file-sharing networks with bogus files."[20] Sigterm 05:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I haven't taken offense at anything (I can't find the earlier post of mine you're referring to as you didn't reference it, so I'm not sure what you mean), I don't regard PCWorld as not credible, and I haven't raised an issue of striking them from some reliable sources list. If you really don't understand what I've already said about the one statement in the PCWorld article let me know and I'll happily find another way to express it.
I'm disputing this statement "The emails" ... "confirm speculation that was an anti-piracy honeypot site" I've clearly stated multiple times what I'm disputing and why. Have a read of the whole discussion to get a full picture Neververyvery 06:13, 19 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)
ars generally get it right. In my opinion, if it's IT or tech stuff they're more reliable than most sources Neververyvery 05:02, 21 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:


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 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. 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. 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. 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)
O rly? So I guess everyone just copies from other sources and calls it an encyclopedia, huh? Total bullshit. You see Encyclopaedia Britannica? They do their own "original research". I know Jimbo is a nice man, but this is outrageous and stupid. 22:28, 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 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 622MB 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 [21]. -- 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)

Well... maybe not evidence, but at least a strong indicator is the EULA analysis on this article:
They don't outright admit that they plan anything, but they reserve the right to pretty much exactly what people suspect them to do and what you wouldn't find in a normal client application of your average p2p company (such as joost). Anyway, read the article for yourself. -- 02:04, 19 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. 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There's another line in the section that says "appearing to indicate that 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 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)

  • Spot on. We use reliable sources; we are not allowed to weigh the merits of torrent lovers' hysteria about this, we are allowed to report how reliable independent authorities weight them.. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, obviously it is far better (or rather policy) to use reputable newsoutlets as sources, but also fact is, the entire informations is also contained and avaviable in the leaked e-mails. The big question is: would it violate WP:OR to source statements (e.g. that Mivii was a MediaDefender run site, intent on attracting bittorrent users) directly from the leaked e-mails? 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I could argue that the Wall Street Journal lost all its reputability once Murdoch brought it out. I would sooner trust these blogs than the corporate media anyday. --Sir Crazyswordsman 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, the main concern here is that there is all this collateral private information in the documents too; the fact that using only reputable sources that have reported on the documents also addresses the reliability concerns is really a bonus, I think. If you're worried about completeness, I'm sure it won't suffer as a result of relying on secondary reporting in this instance. The documents discussing the purpose of Miivi, which is the example you give, have already been covered in the secondary reporting. --bainer (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


wikipedia is becoming the poster child of appeal to authority fallacies. you can't cite the emails, because that violates WP:NOR, yet citing, 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, 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 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)
Discussion history confirms that User:Dxco did in fact remove your post, I will not attempt to justify User:Dxco's edit, which you have every right to question. But to hold up the edit made by one user to support a blanket statement such as "by deleting this post, wikipedia completely abandons WP:NPOV" is perhaps a logical fallacy of it's own, would you agree?
Try to place this event in a larger picture. Allegations such as the ones directed a MediaDefender this week have a high potential of wrecking the lively hood of the company and all its employees if they are proven to be genuine. Journalistic integrity requires one to step cautiously into waters where your accusations have the possibly of exacting real world consequences for other human beings. When a professional journalist publishes allegations, they are leveraging their own name and professional career against the possibility that the allegation is baseless. On Wikipedia, we only put up our pseudo anonymous username and IP address as collateral against malicious allegations. I believe this should produce some hesitancy on the part of Wikipedia to be "first to publish", and conjunctively demand a higher standard of fact checking before classifying content as authoritative truth of an encyclopedic nature.
In general though, I will agree with your premise that too much reliance on commercial media presents pitfalls of its own, and that deleting another users entry on a wikipedia talk page without producing good cause is, in fact, "lame". Sigterm 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Anon, the concern about reliability is that there are many blogs and forums commenting on these documents, some going as far to offer legal commentary on the documents, which really makes them quite dangerous to be using as sources. Really if we're going to be writing about this to a professional standard we shouldn't be referencing amateur commentary. --bainer (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
AP and WSJ are hardly 'amateur' in my opinion. And both have been used numerous times as sources for other wikipedia articles. Fransw 09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I find it interesting to note this article on torretfreak (take it as you will as a valid news site regarding this issue), but they claim that the MiiVi EULA (as noted in the leaked emails) says that MiiVi will report users of its program who pirate copyrighted material to the proper authorities. How's that for a honeypot? Link to Article: [22] Noah 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And in the very same article that say "Although there still appears to be no hard evidence that entrapping pirates was the sole purpose of the project". In their previous article they say "From the emails we canNot be sure that it’s an entrapment site". They don't have an article that says "miivi=honeypot" and here's the email confirmation even though they do have lots of other claims that they backed up with emails . Given that it's obvious they've read the emails I think that's because they can't find an email that confirms miivi=honeypot. Why? Because a) the emails are unclear and b) some emails suggest other possibilities (commercial money making video site - see the reasons why way up above). I like their articles. They make their claims and quote the emails for you to make your own mind up, which is a lot better than making claims without quoting the evidence or making claims off what other sites claim without quoting their evidence. I don't agree with part of their interpretation of the EULA (not that it's relevant to "emails confirm miivi=honeypot". I don't think the EULA means "you agree that we will contact the authorities and hand over your info if we believe you are engaged in pirating" I think it means "you agree that we can be required by the authorities to hand over your info" which is just what the law says (I think). i.e. they're not saying they will pro-actively go and find authorities to report you to for pirating, just that if they're required to hand over your info by an authority, they'll see if they believe you have been pirating and then they'll hand over the info if they think you have. It's definitely ambiguous though, which is why I think it's good that they quote the evidence and let everyone draw their own conclusions. Neververyvery 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I anticipate I'll be accused of trying to flood the discussion so I'll note that I was asked to comment on this article Neververyvery 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Neververyvery, you anticipated correctly. Guilt will have that effect on one. Now why don't you just post with your MediaDefender company name and cut to the chase. The emails clearly state an intent to modify the Wikipedia "MediaDefender" article in an effort to coverup questionable, or at the very least unpopular, business practices. Your present spam is a testament to that intent and you've obviously determined that the damage was too great to allow a lull of a couple of weeks, as was alluded to in the emails.

RE MD's intent to modify Wikipedia, have a look at this edit that I made 4 days ago on this very talk page Neververyvery 02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The quote you were referencing was before this broke; it is natural to assume that MediaDefender would be interested in doing some short-term damage control now that things are spinning out of hand. But more importantly... That was your very first post in Wikipedia. EVER. It isn't really a good idea to direct people to it... don't you think it's going to come off a little, well, odd that your very first post was on a discussion page, focused on such an obscure point? I do want to assume good faith here... but you have not made a single edit to any articles unrelated to this subject. Not one. And your user page is, honestly, flatly bizarre ("broader epistemological interest in how groups of people use evidence to form theories?") So I'll give you some real, serious advice: Why not apply that broader interest to some other articles as well, and involve yourself in other discussions? You don't even have to stop editing this one; people would not be nearly so suspicious of you if you had, say, ten or eleven edits related to other subjects, for every individual one you have on this. Otherwise... what on earth is it about this topic that attracts your attention exclusively? --Aquillion 09:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes; your post was a fine bit of misdirection and subterfuge. A brazen contrivence intended to deceive the uninitiated. Right out of the old Bolshevik bag of tricks, tovarisch.

When I ignore any more remarks you make about me on this page please don't take it personally. If you want to have a discussion, argument, shouting match or just hurl insults at me you're welcome to come and do it on my talk page (or we can do it on your IP's talk page or whatever comms channel you prefer). I'd rather not do it on this talk page though as it's not going to help improve the article and it would probably be a bit disruptive. Neververyvery 03:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with personal attacks on a person just because you think he/she is connected to a company that is involved in this issue. Nevertheless, the MiiVi EULA (as quoted by torrentfreak) takes a much more pro-active stance on reporting user's data (how the heck will they get a user's private data in the first place?) to proper authorities. I agree it isn't rock-hard proof, but it is certainly dubious at the very least. So dubious that many people will easily draw the conclusion that MiiVi was indeed a site designed to track down pirate downloaders with empty promises. Fransw 10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The EULA clearly indicates its stance towards pro-actively seeking the copyright holders. Sevengoods 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Leak of source code.

Hello, I think it should be noted that a new leak is available at Which seems to be the source code of some of the applications used by MediaDefender to poison the p2p networks.

I would add it but the page is locked :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been added. --Credema 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"On September 20, 2007, MediaDefender-Defenders released the source code of TrapperKeeper, MediaDefender's decoy systems on The Pirate Bay"

Can someone fix the grammar on that entry? Was the source code released on The Pirate Bay or was the decoy system only used on The Pirate Bay? I think it should read "On September 20, 2007, MediaDefender-Defenders released, on the Pirate Bay, the source code of TrapperKeeper, MediaDefender's P2P decoy systems" Tazzy531 13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC) ...Which, by the way, has even worse grammar. And the sentence is pretty clear and has correct grammar to me. 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What about adding another comma after decoy systems then to clarify it was released on TPB and not their TPB decoy system? "On September 20, 2007, MediaDefender-Defenders released the source code of TrapperKeeper, MediaDefender's decoy systems, on The Pirate Bay"

OR "On September 20, 2007, MediaDefender-Defenders released the source code of TrapperKeeper (MediaDefender's decoy systems) on The Pirate Bay"

OR split it up in two or three shorter languages SENTENCES. OP is correct that very long sentences are poor grammar construction -- 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (edit: sorry, I meant sentences obviously)

Why is this page still semi protected?

I've left two messages [23] on the talk page of the person that protected (for an edit war that wasn't occurring), protected (for an OTRS issue) and then semi protected (for vandalism that wasn't occurring) the article. If it's semi protected for a genuine reason, that real reason should be stated. If it's really being semi protected because of vandalism then the semi protection should be removed as there wasn't any vandalism Neververyvery 13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's for the inevitable vandalism that would occur until the story blows over. MediaDefender said they would do what they can do remove relevant data from the page; I think that's good enough reason to protect it until there's an official response from the company about all this. 14:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Protection policy says "Semi-protection should not be used: [...] * As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred" so I don't think inevitable vandalism is the reason. Neververyvery 14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
But it has. Look here. Peoplearestupid and Legalprof were sockpuppets of MD that made tons of edits with ill intent; I think that qualifies as vandalism. 14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't know that they were sockpuppets of MD, that's just your opinion.
  • I don't see where they made "tons" of edits with "ill intent" (why bother using charged words?)
legalprofs non trivial edits to the article were removing the email links and putting back the irrelevant (although possibly correct) legal info that peoplearestupid had added. He explained [24] what his intent was in this talk page and encouraged discussion. Note that according to Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia"
Also, he was told off for reverting more than 3 times and he stopped, nearly two days before the first semi protection was enabled. Neververyvery 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the editor that semi protected it, the article is still semi protected because "IP's are pushing POV" (point of view) [25]. That's not true though, in my opinion. I don't want to just say "that's not true" without justifying why it's not true so here's a list of the IP's that have edited since the leak. Make your own mind up.

  • [26] Added criticism section
  • [27] Added email quote of Randy Saaf saying "This is really fucked. Let’s pull miivi offline
  • [28] Spelling correction
  • [29] A link was added to the TPB torrent. It was removed later
  • [30] Punctuation correction
  • [31] Removal of a link (to a valid article) that doesn't work any more. The link was readded later when someone found an alternate working link
  • [32] Spelling
  • [33] Readded the link that didn't work any more
  • [34] Corrected what site the emails were leaked to (TPB, not TorrentFreak)
  • [35] Corrected capitalization
  • [36] Added link to Torrent Freak article
  • [37] Change word "reinforce" to "confirm"
  • [38] Added link to TorrentFreak in it's own section. Was challenged and removed as part of normal editorial review
  • [39] Added that the leak had passwords that could allow people to download mp3's from their (or their clients) sites (the POV is anti MD though, not pro)
  • [40] Grammar
  • [41] Added VIIDI.COM domain (which is the new miivi). Removed as part of editorial process
  • [42] Added Viidi again
  • [43] But it was undone
  • [44] Added a better phrasing for
  • [45] Added "current" label
  • [46] Better phrasing of
  • [47] [48] Link to what the editor called illegally obtained e-mails was removed.
  • [49] Spelling
  • [50] Removed that redirects to wikipedia, because it doesn't
  • [51] Clariication that is not open to public
  • [52] Cleaned up article
  • [53] Changed "thousands" to "large" and "certainly" to "likely "
  • [54] Cleanup
  • [55] Put torrent freak link back
  • [56] Changed "consumers" to "pirates"
  • [57] Removed IP addresses
  • [58] Removed link to
  • [59] Added torrent freak link back in
  • [60] Quoted email that shows MD were trying to manipulate wikipedia
  • [61] More info about the emails
  • [62] Spelling
  • [63] Link to the emails
  • [64] Moved text around, nothing changed
  • [65] Removed legal FUD (that the people who hacked the mail broke laws)
  • [66] Changed wording of FUD from "are" to "may be of located"
  • [67] Added the word "boobs"
  • [68] Removed the irrelevant legal info
  • [69] And again
  • [70] And again
  • [71] Added "This article is subject to manipulation attempts " box
  • [72] Changed word 'convict' to 'entrap' - private companies don't convict people, courts do.)
  • [73] Removed directly quoted email and replaced it with the words "one of the leaked emails"
  • [74] Spelling
  • [75] Added phone leak

Neververyvery 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to just say "that's not true" without justifying why it's not true so here's a list of the IP's that have edited since the leak}
you sure trying hard, man... If MD was to engage in proper damage control on wikipedia, I wouldn't be worried about IPs, though. As it has been demostrated in articles about "Creation science", the most trouble comes from "valid" users.
All hail Eris. All Hail Our Lord and King, Kthul^H^H^H^HJimbo Project2501a 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Too obscure, I don't really get it Neververyvery 01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the page still having semi protection is given on the talk page (or the talk page archive) of the editor that protected it. I have no way of knowing if he'll find my comments inappropriate and he deletes talk page comments he finds inappropriate so I've included a link to the current version of his talk page with the thread of the discussion (and hence the reasoning) here. It's under the "Protection of MediaDefender" heading Neververyvery 01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A MediaDefender worker attempting to edit the wiki?

A user by the name of "fakefinder" had edited the wiki article to dispose of the info after a Mr Ben Ebert had emailed a Mr. Randy Saaf that Mr. Ebert will attempt to dispose of the information on the wiki entry on MediaDefender. The following are links that may or may not prove my case.

Hope to hear what you lot think of this. Maybe my paranoia is more than just paranoia, or maybe I am just nuts. But I thought that I might bring it up just to be safe.

TankHunter 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That edit was made the 5th of July, so over 2 months earlier. At this moment, this page is watched too much by wiki moderators and normal wikipedians with an interest in it (including me) that I doubt they'll be able to pull off a second attempt like this. Even if they do, it'll be noticed very quickly. 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Note to self: login before you comment. The above comment was made by me. Fransw 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki = Needs clean up!

Yup, It's time to clean this wiki up & get more information, first of all it's way to many links & the one about "MPAA Caught uploading fake torrents" is useless, this is about MD & not about MPAA, that's just one thing so we need to clean this wiki up! =] VandalRemover 19:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please refrain from removing information, such as links, from Wikipedia without discussing it. Thank you UserDoe 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea, don't go removing JRWR's site, it's a wealth of glorious information.
Here's 3 easy ways to improve the article
1. Remove this bit
"containing information contradicting previous statements and details of strategies intended to deceive pirates"
or at the very least expand upon what it actually means, cos it looks and sounds silly.
2. In the interests of a neutral point of view, add the oposing view to this statement
"The Associated Press and other media outlets suggest that the leak may confirm speculation that was an anti-piracy "honeypot" site"
The oposing views are here
"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"
and here from the people that broke the story
"From the emails we canNot be sure that it’s an entrapment site or that it is related to the MPAA (perhaps it’s a legit a P2P video client?), but it does look suspicious"
and again
"Although there still appears to be No hard evidence that entrapping pirates was the sole purpose of the project, the fact that MiiVi is presenting itself as the copyright equivalent of judge-and-jury does Not sit well"
3. Add (a bullet point list of) all the other juicy stuff that's been found in the emails Neververyvery 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

JRWR's site? Second of all, that I removed the link[s] has nothing to do with the clean up so doe, read up next time instead of acting like a professional.

3rd, neververyvery has a point we should get more evidence VandalRemover 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The article may need a rewrite yes, but I don't think we should edit out any side of the story. The perfect article on this (in my opinion) would clearly show that there are serious suspicions about's nature, but also that there is no rock-hard evidence either in favour of, or against it. Beyond that, it would have to leave judgment to the reader. Also, all serious sources should be included. Editing out any of this, or showing a one-sided story, is just what certain groups want. (one-sided in favour of is what MD wants, and one-sided against is what a lot of torrent-admins want). Conclusion: rewrite, ok, but we have to be very careful to give a balanced and neutral story on it. Fransw 15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it legal?

It would be nice to know if what MediaDefender is doing is legal, and to what point. It only seems to mention what MediaDefender does in order to prevent piracy, but not whether what they are doing is legal or not.-- 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

According to many torrent-orientated sites, MD's IP adresses have been involved in DoS-attacks. I am no law expert, but I believe that is illegal. Beyond that, they seem to be spamming torrent-networks with fake files. Obviously, the admins of those networks forbid it, but I have no idea whether or not law forbids it. *looks around in the hope of seeing a wikipedian with some more knowlegde about internet-laws* 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Note to self: log in before adding a comment.... Above comment was added by me. Fransw 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, DDOS is illegal. It remains to be seen whether the US law enforcement agencies give a shit about enforcing their own laws when it conflicts with the political standpoint of their government, though... --Milk-maid 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The leaked emails contain clear evidence of conspiracy to commit computer fraud, for example plans to use their miivi software to setup p2p spoofing botnets on client computers, without their knowledge or consent. Of course, this leaked information was, itself, gained through the same type of fraud, so it's not directly admissible as evidence. It can only be used to prompt an investigation and provide direction to one on an informal level. -- (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging Randy Saaf into this page

If you clicked the "Discuss" link on the merge template and ended up here, the discussion is actually on the Talk:Randy_Saaf page Neververyvery 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, it now links to the discussion that is on the Randy Saaf Talkpage. Fransw 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Superscript text

Manipulation warning.

I don't think a manipulation warning box is needed on this page. It's been very quiet the past few weeks, and I doubt MD will ever be able to put up a manipulation again. Okay, maybe for a short period, but this page is still under pretty close watch. Because of that, I have deleted both warning-boxes. If you disagree with me, please discuss it here first. 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) AARRRRGGGHH, something about not automatically logging in.... =( Fransw 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Because of this scandal, The Pirate Bay has decided to sue major movie companies and recordlabels for paying Media Defender to destroy their trackers. Eventhough the companies has no knowledge of these activities, it would be worth to mention. What do you think guys? -- Kirjapan (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaDefender's Parent Company Facing Liquidation

TorrentFreak reports on 2008-02-26 that MediaDefender's parent company, ARTISTdirect has called in a team of specialists to “assist in the exploration of strategic alternatives.” Ref. article: MediaDefender Parent Company Facing Liquidation

Share price soared to $3.00 per share from beginnings of $0.01, and had plummeted since the much publicised email leak to $0.51

MediaDefender's Parent Company Announces Management Changes

On 2008-03-12, Yahoo Finance report confirms the above, in a press release, "ARTISTdirect Announces Management Changes"

S13dg3 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


It is mentioned on the XBMC (XBox Media Centre) website at that Randy Saaf is the owner of XBMC.COM domain and it is obviously a facade site pretending to be the "real" originator of the open-source software. If it's worthy of mention here, feel free to do so, I just thought I'd add it here :-) (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^