Talk:MediaDefender/Archive 1

844:

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.

3594:. 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? -- 2819:

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)

858:. 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 1418:(eh????) comment that someone else has deleted. Swatjester, I don't think it's wise to delete 24.16.169.211's input, although maybe you know what the Knowledge (XXG) 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 24.16.169.211 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 938:...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. 369:

Better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/MediaDefender Miivi.com In February 2007, MediaDefender launched a video sharing site called Miivi.com in order to trap unsuspecting uploaders of copyrighted content. Such manipulation is evidence that wikipedia is easily used as a ] 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=76.113.26.119|2=19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)}}

2409:"In the e-mails, which covered a period from mid-December 2006 to Sept. 10, company executives discussed a planned Web site, dubbed WiiVii.com, 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." 1266:"In the e-mails, which covered a period from mid-December 2006 to Sept. 10, company executives discussed a planned Web site, dubbed WiiVii.com, 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" 1771:" 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 3544:

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.

823:- 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. 285:" 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site" you can demonstrate it. Subjects or dates is fine, I don't think pasting emails in here would be a good idea 31: 1461: 269:

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.

1775:, 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. 4385:

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 miivi.com is what MD wants, and one-sided against MiiVi.com 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.

3458:

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 Knowledge (XXG), we only put up our pseudo anonymous username and IP address as collateral against malicious allegations. I believe this

1616:

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

2182:, 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 2265:" 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. 2766:

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).

2831:

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 Knowledge (XXG) 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.

2607:"According to the e-mails, the company was also developing a fake file-sharing hub called MiiVii.com, 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." 1188:"According to the e-mails, the company was also developing a fake file-sharing hub called MiiVii.com, 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" 1159:"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" 1290:"According to the emails, MediaDefender put up that so-called "honeypot" website, www.MiiVii.com, 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" 1214:"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" 520:

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.

4199:(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) 3539:(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 3567:

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 Knowledge (XXG) "MediaDefender" article in an effort to coverup questionable, or at the

3543:

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

2765:

Given all the recent Digg, SlashDot and derivative online articles about MD, be careful what you say in job interviews. Specifically, I'm concerned about giving any information BEYOND what's already on the mediadefender.com website. I'm worried about someone interviewing for a position just for the

2564:

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

1832:

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

368:

Ben E: Can you please do what you can to eliminate this entry? Let me know if you have any success. R From: Dylan Douglas Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:20 PM To: Ben Ebert; Steve Lyons; Jay Mairs; Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera Cc: Ty Heath; Ben Grodsky; Ivan Kwok (gmail) Subject: RE: MiiVi got Dugg

4450:

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,

3631:

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

3423:

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

3345:

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

3040:

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.

2818:

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

2574:

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

1687:

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

1615:

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

1476:

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

1445:

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

662:

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

331:

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

4413:

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

4384:

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 MiiVi.com's nature, but also that there is no rock-hard evidence either in favour of, or against it.

2880:

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

1068:

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

1007:

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

843:

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

4217:

A user by the name of "fakefinder" had edited the wiki article to dispose of the Miivi.com 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.

3745:

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

2830:

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

2542:

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

2492:

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

2126:

I do not think the tag is required. The emails are not disputed. They really happened. Knowledge (XXG) 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

1794:

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

1732:

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

993:

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

970:

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 Knowledge (XXG) :-) 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

928:

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

780:

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

460:

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

3702:

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

3513:

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.

3481:

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

3028:

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

2619:

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

728:

isn't actually supported by any hard facts and just isn't the way some people are interpreting Mivvi.com. I'm not saying I've read the mails (I really don't want to end up in court) but I think if you stand back from the biased voices of the hard core p2p crowd and look at all the facts available

614:

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

280:

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

3457:

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

2007:

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.

268:

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

4241:

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

3069:

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

2419:

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

1805:

Right now the article says that "The emails link MediaDefender to projects that management previously denied involvement in, confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site,". This is pretty blatantly false - anybody who's been actually reading the mails would tell you that

341:

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

402:

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

1534:

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

3538:

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

2897:

Knowledge (XXG) is NOT fine with original research, and your site must be reliable. Knowledge (XXG) 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,

2365:

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

519:

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

3005:

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

2387:

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

997:

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

2380:

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

4506:

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

798:"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. 3393:

is too daft to realize it, the above is an argument to include the emails, which is relevant to the article. but i'll just spell it out, anyway, because idiots demand it. making it so the emails can't be cited by wikipedia but can be cited by arstechnia.com, wikipedia is engaging in an

1397:

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

1367:"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" 2396:"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." 1795:

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 Knowledge (XXG)

2377:, 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. 412:

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.

1683:. "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 3756:

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.

1833:

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.

1530:

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.

3632:

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.

3092:

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.

332:

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

4266:

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! =]

1519:

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.

1446:

subtle manipulations are inserted or Knowledge (XXG) 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. --

431:

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 Knowledge (XXG) community to look over this article for as long as it takes.

3716:

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"

739:

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

1240:"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" 218:

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

3208:

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

3239:

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

2213:. 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 1058:. 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? 917:

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?

2868:

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.

785:. 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" 971:

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.

3822:"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 Knowledge (XXG)" 3585:

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

4600:

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 :-)

3171:

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.

550:

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.

3138:

There's another line in the Miivi.com section that says "appearing to indicate that Miivi.com was created to catch potential copyright violators". The emails don't "confirm" or even "appear to indicate", they leave the issue wide open

2588:

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

2554:

In the e-mails, which covered a period from mid-December 2006 to Sept. 10, company executives discussed a planned Web site, dubbed WiiVii.com, that would pose as a pirate site that offered downloads of copyrighted movies and music

2441:

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 Knowledge

2493:

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

948:

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.

461:

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.

2803:

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.

862:

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.

2243:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) look bad. 2654:. 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. • 3568:

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.

2202:

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.

4353:"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" 3621:

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.

2840:

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

2026:

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

1343:"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" 2533:) 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 2258:

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

465:

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

3346:

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. --

2982:

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

4402:

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

2681:

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 Knowledge (XXG), has a good track record. --

826:

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

3462:

produce some hesitancy on the part of Knowledge (XXG) to be "first to publish", and conjunctively demand a higher standard of fact checking before classifying content as authoritative truth of an encyclopedic

704:

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". —

3126:

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.

3849:. 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. 1055:"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: --> 4436:

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...

2565:

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.

3247:

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,

1045:(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 2036:

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 ;)

2231:

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

2373:

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

751:"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. 2117:

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?

365:) 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: 3814:

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

601:

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.

2546:

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.

2207:

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

422:

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 Knowledge (XXG) article without too much trouble

2926:

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

987:"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." 577:

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.

2986:

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

309:

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

1506:

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?

3617:

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

724:

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

3606:

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.

4167:

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 "

3152:

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

2136:

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.

783:

If you're going to write that the emails confirm the speculation that MiiVi.com was indeed an anti-piracy honeypot site then you need the confirmation emails to actually exist

4529:

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? --

3470:

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".

4326:"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" 2771:

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.

2210:"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" 1132:"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" 682:

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 Knowledge (XXG).

1560:

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)

4340:"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" 3424:

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.

1316:"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" 4229:

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.

3322:

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. --

373:

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

2254:

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

879:

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 --

2186:

and apply dispute tags, rather than simply deleting the sourced content. (Note: This applies to ArsTechnica only; I have no experience with TorrentFreak.) --

2424:

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

1949:

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.

1468:

This article is subject to manipulation attempts by the described entity using multiple user names. Please be critical of edits and discussion page entries.

467: 2620:

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.

4369:

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

504:

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.

3405:. 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 4320: 3934:

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)

2085: 1785:

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...

1773:"no evidence can be found that MediaDefender is actually involved in prosecuting or gathering evidence against filesharers (as we reported earlier)" 1126: 981: 891: 192: 1763:

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

588:

This is not an article about California civil code, the sections which (inaccurately) paraphrase legal code are irrelevant to the subject matter.

306:

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.

4451:

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. --

3720:

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

2392:

backdoor software onto users computers without consent, which if true, would elevate MiiVi from `mere` honeypot to bastion of criminal activity.

4313:"The Associated Press and other media outlets suggest that the leak may confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy "honeypot" site" 2468:. TorrentFreak, while just a news blog, offers evidence of the potential of data collection and reporting to authorities by examining Miivi's 3707:

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.

3674: 3309:

to source statements (e.g. that Mivii was a MediaDefender run site, intent on attracting bittorrent users) directly from the leaked e-mails?

2789:. In a nutshell, it doesn't matter if you can look outside and see that the sky is blue; to state it on Knowledge (XXG), you need to cite a 4161:

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

3699:"On September 20, 2007, MediaDefender-Defenders released the source code of TrapperKeeper, MediaDefender's decoy systems on The Pirate Bay" 2539:

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".

1925: 1015: 536: 177: 158:

JRWR Here... Prolly Never, TiAMO was Hosting it at prq.se, anyone willing to host it i think i have a backup of it some where, email me at

150: 3886:

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

3260:

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. --

3305:, but also fact is, the entire informations is also contained and avaviable in the leaked e-mails. The big question is: would it violate 3006:

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

2453: 2127:

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.

1284: 810:

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

4602: 4452: 2425: 1992: 1956: 1706: 1542: 689: 483:

Agreed. Anyway it's not like they can mass-GTMO tens of thousands of citizens over disseminating information about a state's program to

387: 84: 342:

torrent site with torrents of copyrighted content? Cue the EULA which basically says "if you do something illegal we will report you".

321:

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?

257:

Can someone please ban "NeverVeryVery". I think he was hired by the Media defender to play down the credibility of the leaked emails.

2385: 2382: 2205:

What I am disputing is that the emails "confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site", because they just don't.

1878: 956: 622: 3826:

Also, he was told off for reverting more than 3 times and he stopped, nearly two days before the first semi protection was enabled.

4564:

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

2973:"(one e-mail suggests using the MiiVi client program to turn users' PCs into drones for MediaDefender's eMule spoofing activities)" 1043:"we didn't download the emails, someone else sent us the relevant extracts which we're reporting on them because we're journalists" 403:

information found in them. Of coarse I also think that things like passwords in some of those emails will need to be censured. --

281:

half of this statement in the article "The emails link MediaDefender to projects that management previously denied involvement in,

3443:'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 " 2738: 2609: 2161:

WSJ is fine, but I am not persuaded by Ars Technica - and TorrentFreak is ptently not reliable, and that's the major source here.

1182: 4586: 2518:, perhaps someone can suggest a more mutually agreeable phrase or term that desribes a computer resource in this type of setup ? 3496:

AP and WSJ are hardly 'amateur' in my opinion. And both have been used numerous times as sources for other wikipedia articles.

2814:

Never mind the policy, the emails don't even support the claim. EMAIL 1: "Gives you a sense" is not confirmation of something.

566: 4347: 3515: 3087: 2473: 1337: 3767: 1871:

A 14 GB database dump from MD made it to the public, named "Gnutella Tracking Database" . IT should make it to the article

1818:

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

4622: 1535:

certainly mis-use these social security numbers). Such identity theft would have nothing to do with this article though.

2633:

I've clearly stated multiple times what I'm disputing and why. Have a read of the whole discussion to get a full picture

2592:

article and other cited references as reliable sources as to "what the e-mails contain"? Please help clarify this for me.

1752: 2790: 3041:

But when people installed it, the software could also secretly track people's activity and report back to MediaDefender.

2979:

I don't think eMule spoofing is honeypotting (but I'm not an expert, as you can tell by my bastardization of the word).

3275:

Spot on. We use reliable sources; we are not allowed to weigh the merits of torrent lovers' hysteria about this, we

3772:"Semi-protection should not be used: * As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred" 2464:

seems to be a published international magazine with editorial oversight and expert writers so might be considered a

296:

That someone was me, and I changed the title because the word "employees" should not have been there, it was a typo.

4414:

not law forbids it. *looks around in the hope of seeing a wikipedian with some more knowlegde about internet-laws*

3020:

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

2720:

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

123: 38: 4559: 2353:

is a type of honeypot that may masquerade as an open relay in order to research the habits of spammers, just as a

856:

Raintaster, you've misinterpreted the two quotes you've given above because you've not read their context properly

781:

opinion X is right" That's obviously bad reasoning unless you can show that the 622MB actually support opinion X.

3678: 3664:

Which seems to be the source code of some of the applications used by MediaDefender to poison the p2p networks.

3528:"Although there still appears to be no hard evidence that entrapping pirates was the sole purpose of the project" 1649:. And actually genuinely important and verifiable stories get covered in mainstream media too. Now please cite 929:

and make some extra money (from legal user-created content). There was a mention somewhere of profiting from it.

729:

there are a few other possibilities for what Mivvi.com might be and those possibilities don't involve honeypots.

240:

can and should be invoked to ignore all types of rules, even the rule about not linking to copyright violations.

193:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070916-leaked-media-defender-e-mails-reveal-secret-government-project.html

4300:"containing information contradicting previous statements and details of strategies intended to deceive pirates" 4279:

Please refrain from removing information, such as links, from Knowledge (XXG) without discussing it. Thank you

2401:(a truncated version of this article will appear unless you access it through Google News or a WSJ subscription) 2056:

I am a native english speaker and I think the phrase is ambgiguous. THis whole fiasco is hilarious, by the way!

1767:

to proceed is to just write stuff that isn't really supported by the facts. For example, don't go writing that "

2670: 2655: 2432:

could benefit greatly from your obvious editorial talent and dedication to the quality of wikipedia articles.

2389: 1929: 1460: 540: 507: 146: 3108:

I don't see a need for full protection for the article. Do you consider one revert in the last 36 hours as an

2998:

implement an off the cuff idea to install a program because it would have been considered spyware and the app

1769:

MediaDefender's sole purpose is to trap people into uploading copyrighted material, and bust them for doing so

1679:

JzG, you wrongfully deleted my reply to your above comment. I'll state it again. The above criticism violates

1019: 173: 4606: 4471:

If you clicked the "Discuss" link on the merge template and ended up here, the discussion is actually on the

4456: 3928:

Added link to TorrentFreak in it's own section. Was challenged and removed as part of normal editorial review

3661: 3253: 3050: 2398: 2083: 1960: 1546: 1361: 693: 391: 88: 4558:

has called in a team of specialists to “assist in the exploration of strategic alternatives.” Ref. article:

3618: 3244:. There's also a question of reliability in terms of the websites that the documents might be appearing on. 2699:

ars generally get it right. In my opinion, if it's IT or tech stuff they're more reliable than most sources

2374: 1996: 1882: 1702: 960: 626: 447:

I have the article now on my watchlist, this seems to be a serious case, but nothing we couldn't handle :-)

3670: 2793:. That's why everyone is quoting the ArsTechnica and other articles, instead of the emails themselves. -- 1988: 1952: 1921: 1874: 1740: 1694: 1538: 1011: 952: 685: 618: 554: 532: 383: 165: 138: 111: 80: 799: 474: 258: 3818: 3708: 3310: 3128: 2927: 2870: 2832: 2805: 2776: 2341:"Bait" - A computer network resource masquerading as a service that will be actively sought out by users. 2009: 1786: 1733:

stumbled over that story just a few minutes ago. Any suggestion on how to proceed with this article now?

1689: 741: 513: 169: 142: 4508: 4415: 4404: 4243: 3796: 3758: 3746:

protected because of vandalism then the semi protection should be removed as there wasn't any vandalism

3728: 3406: 3160: 3094: 2590: 2411: 2057: 2038: 1940: 1909: 1893:

It's 12GB, although the point remains valid. It also can be found on at least one BitTorrent tracker. --

1447: 1432: 1260: 914: 752: 669: 346: 322: 297: 3225: 3188: 2956: 2914: 2857: 2152: 2100: 1971: 1810: 1477:

the recent slashdot attention), it would be better to ask some people to add it to their watchlists. --

414: 4582: 2603:

If the issue is striking PcWorld from the reliable sources list, perhaps DMW is a suitable reference ?

2018: 1621: 74:

The phone conversation should be linked as well. It's content is very much relevant to this article.

4232: 4196: 3795:

were sockpuppets of MD that made tons of edits with ill intent; I think that qualifies as vandalism.

3642: 3215: 3178: 2946: 2904: 2847: 2816:

The entire "smoking gun" or "proof" in this email is the word "haha". You do realize that, don't you?

2354: 2142: 2118: 1855: 1069:

it down under national security (in which case nobody even questions the lawfulness of it, it's just

766: 2650:

Why would Ars Technica not be a valid source? They are a major IT/technical news web site with over

2557:

but would actually track users who accessed it, then report their IP addresses back to MediaDefender

2079:

as disputed. As pointed out on this talk page, some of the statements might conflict with published

3704: 3487: 3395: 3371: 3351: 3324: 3265: 3257: 3241: 3117: 2484: 2244: 2108: 1405: 1153: 1029:

I don't think Ryan Paul actually says he's downloaded and read the emails. The phrasing he uses is

644: 602: 562: 434: 224: 134:

This Site is down... Im curious is it coming back... and... Where can I find a copy of the emails?

4280: 3641:

Agreed. The EULA clearly indicates its stance towards pro-actively seeking the copyright holders.

3086:

Well... maybe not evidence, but at least a strong indicator is the EULA analysis on this article:

3014: 2971:

Someone added this to the main article as example of an email that confirms miivi was a honeypot.

1846: 1744: 1734: 448: 4578: 4534: 4512: 4490: 4476: 4424: 4386: 4373: 4360: 4268: 4252: 4204: 4184: 4150: 3827: 3775: 3747: 3633: 3623: 3577: 3558: 3545: 3497: 3425: 3198:

Can you summarize the OTRS issues, so that the editors here can take them into consideration? --

3140: 3057: 3011: 2820: 2700: 2687: 2634: 2576: 2494: 2416: 2224: 2214: 1819: 1796: 1776: 1698: 1423: 1388: 1059: 999: 972: 939: 919: 899: 867: 845: 786: 730: 423: 333: 310: 286: 270: 47: 17: 3249: 2882: 2666: 2104: 1234: 3809:

I don't see where they made "tons" of edits with "ill intent" (why bother using charged words?)

2739:

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

2502: 2311: 865:

I've renamed the heading of this section as the heading it refers to in the article has changed

115: 4511:

20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) AARRRRGGGHH, something about not automatically logging in.... =(

4333: 4175: 2332: 2290: 1748: 1726: 1310: 380:

The manipulation attempt might also be noteworthy enough to drop it into the article itself.

363: 241: 3446: 3402: 2096: 4168: 3842:

According to the editor that semi protected it, the article is still semi protected because

2930:

can find a valid source for the honeypot characterization, they can start a new section. --

196: 3416: 3375: 3159:. that doesn't mean they're the word of god nor does it mean anyone is claiming them to be 2786: 1807: 1772: 1680: 1646: 1400: 817:

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

237: 4486: 4472: 4359:

3. Add (a bullet point list of) all the other juicy stuff that's been found in the emails

4222:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=MediaDefender&diff=142781181&oldid=142705189

3451: 3210: 3173: 3088:

http://torrentfreak.com/miivi-admit-they-will-report-pirates-to-proper-authorities-070918/

2941: 2899: 2842: 2362: 2137: 834: 706: 3420: 3379: 3306: 3302: 3109: 2465: 2240: 2232: 2183: 2092: 2080: 1638: 1634: 1589: 220: 211: 4623:

http://digg.com/tech_news/MediaDefender_Phone_Call_and_Gnutella_Tracking_Database_Leaked

4128:

Changed word 'convict' to 'entrap' - private companies don't convict people, courts do.)

3817:

what his intent was in this talk page and encouraged discussion. Note that according to

4438: 4309:

2. In the interests of a neutral point of view, add the oposing view to this statement

4306:

or at the very least expand upon what it actually means, cos it looks and sounds silly.

4224: 4134:

Removed directly quoted email and replaced it with the words "one of the leaked emails"

3862:

Added email quote of Randy Saaf saying "This is really fucked. Let’s pull miivi offline

3595: 3553:

I anticipate I'll be accused of trying to flood the discussion so I'll note that I was

3483: 3347: 3261: 1894: 814:

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

558: 521: 119: 2631:"The emails" ... "confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site" 2236: 2088: 1642: 1031:"We have been reviewing the data for days and will have multiple reports on the topic" 4530: 3946:

Added VIIDI.COM domain (which is the new miivi). Removed as part of editorial process

3287: 3281: 3199: 3071: 3053: 2931: 2794: 2683: 2420:

debate. Wikipedians had perhaps taken to defensive posturing in light of a series of

2187: 2179: 2169: 2163: 1661: 1655: 1604: 1598: 663:

act), why not link to the following site which MD has also apparently been targeted?

2516: 1939:

Well no point posting the link now, looks like the entire domain is corrupted/down.

1806:

they're full of people sarcastically making fun of bloggers for claiming this. Even

4610: 4555: 4551: 4538: 4515: 4493: 4479: 4460: 4441: 4427: 4418: 4407: 4389: 4376: 4363: 4283: 4271: 4255: 4246: 4235: 4207: 4187: 4178: 4153: 3830: 3799: 3778: 3761: 3750: 3731: 3727:

SENTENCES. OP is correct that very long sentences are poor grammar construction --

3711: 3693: 3690: 3682: 3645: 3636: 3626: 3598: 3580: 3561: 3548: 3520: 3500: 3491: 3474: 3471: 3428: 3409: 3355: 3330: 3313: 3292: 3269: 3229: 3202: 3192: 3163: 3143: 3131: 3120: 3097: 3074: 3060: 2967:"one e-mail suggests using the MiiVi client program to turn users' PCs into drones" 2960: 2934: 2918: 2885: 2873: 2861: 2835: 2823: 2808: 2797: 2779: 2703: 2690: 2675: 2660: 2637: 2614: 2611: 2596: 2593: 2579: 2530: 2522: 2519: 2497: 2487: 2477: 2446: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2247: 2217: 2190: 2174: 2156: 2131: 2121: 2111: 2060: 2041: 2031: 2021: 2012: 2000: 1974: 1964: 1943: 1933: 1912: 1897: 1886: 1858: 1849: 1837: 1822: 1813: 1799: 1789: 1779: 1756: 1710: 1666: 1624: 1609: 1570: 1550: 1524: 1513: 1510: 1500: 1481: 1450: 1435: 1426: 1408: 1391: 1079: 1062: 1023: 1002: 975: 964: 942: 933: 922: 902: 885: 876: 870: 848: 837: 802: 789: 769: 755: 744: 733: 709: 697: 672: 651: 630: 605: 592: 589: 581: 570: 544: 524: 493: 477: 451: 440: 426: 417: 407: 395: 349: 336: 325: 313: 300: 289: 273: 261: 244: 227: 199: 127: 92: 3116:

in the article, and no one has changed it while the discussion has been going on.

2940:

Please don't. Talk page discussion sections are generally not removed or deleted.

210:

My concern with this link is that it might violate Knowledge (XXG) restriction on

1431:

There was formerly an obnoxoxious comment directed at Neververyvery in this spot

1037:. One difference is the ability to plausibly deny that they downloaded anything. 4423:

Note to self: log in before adding a comment.... Above comment was added by me.

2421: 1834: 1478: 404: 159: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2368:

MediaDefenders web presence is predominantly comprised of anti-piracy honeypots

3517: 2445:

Possibly some further evidence for the "honeypot" argument though: Carr, Jim (

2128: 1565: 1074: 880: 488: 4573: 4572:

On 2008-03-12, Yahoo Finance report confirms the above, in a press release,

3440: 3436: 3390: 3378:, yet citing arstechnia.com, which, itself, cites emails, is ok, because of 2509: 2028: 1497: 1208: 578: 343: 103:

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

4195:

The reasoning behind the page still having semi protection is given on the

2288: 2273: 1085:

Below is a table summary of the articles and what they say with respect to

529:

California law is not the world. It doesn't apply to the whole internet.

4290:

Yea, don't go removing JRWR's site, it's a wealth of glorious information.

4251:

Note to self: login before you comment. The above comment was made by me.

3806:

You don't know that they were sockpuppets of MD, that's just your opinion.

3662:

http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3812960/MediaDefender.Source.TrapperKeeper-MDD

2344:"Logging facilities" - a way to collect the data for research or analysis. 2330: 2309: 2223:

My reason for tagging is not that I think the emails are disputed, but as

896:"The ultimate purpose of the MiiVi site, for instance, is still an enigma" 664: 2745: 2570:

You point out there's loads of other incriminating stuff that the emails

2350: 2327:

Graphs and logs indicating peak user attempts with Geographic information

1809:

which is listed as a reference says that there is no evidence of this. --

1521: 930: 4527:

The Pirate Bay has decided to sue major movie companies and recordlabels

3743: 2881:

is the Associated Press? how many retractions do they issue per year? --

2358: 1588:

that someone has stolen info form this lot, but unless you can bring a

820:

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

4597: 4507:

warning-boxes. If you disagree with me, please discuss it here first.

3984:

Link to what the editor called illegally obtained e-mails was removed.

3279:

allowed to report how reliable independent authorities weight them..

640:

True, very true. Well, MediaDefender, have fun cleaning this mess up.

3904:

Corrected what site the emails were leaked to (TPB, not TorrentFreak)

3049:

You can read the full article for now with this link via Google News

1908:

Would it be legal to post a link to the leaked telephone transcript?

1492:

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

191:

comment I saw this article about this company today very interesting

106: 468:

Classified_information_in_the_United_States#Facilities_and_Handling

283:

confirm speculation that MiiVi.com was an anti-piracy honeypot site

4526: 4086:

Removed legal FUD (that the people who hacked the mail broke laws)

3660:

Hello, I think it should be noted that a new leak is available at

377:

give enough cause to be vigilant about future edits of this page.

3996:

Removed that viide.com redirects to wikipedia, because it doesn't

2725:

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

2319:

All clients receive weekly custom reports of redirection activity

3532:"From the emails we canNot be sure that it’s an entrapment site" 2512: 2480: 2469: 2449: 75: 2357:

may be running a seemingly exposed and vulnerable service in a

2338:

To define something as a honeypot , two elements are required.

2302:

live search requests from your targeted demographic and respond

1414:

I've changed the colour scheme in the table in response to the

1033:. There's a (slight) difference between saying that and saying 4174:

All hail Eris. All Hail Our Lord and King, Kthul^H^H^H^HJimbo

4056:

Quoted email that shows MD were trying to manipulate wikipedia

2454:

Stolen emails reveal anti-piracy company's 'honeypot' strategy

1454: 1147:"We did encounter, however, a few other things worthy of Note" 473:

Clearly, this is an edit from MediaDefender. I am reverting.

25: 4122:

Added "This article is subject to manipulation attempts " box

2665:

As this seems lost from the below debates, I cross-posted to

3439:

did in fact remove your post, I will not attempt to justify

3374:

fallacies. you can't cite the emails, because that violates

2474:

MiiVi Admit They Will Report Pirates to ‘Proper Authorities’

4596:

It is mentioned on the XBMC (XBox Media Centre) website at

4568:

MediaDefender's Parent Company Announces Management Changes

4567: 4554:

reports on 2008-02-26 that MediaDefender's parent company,

4372:

3rd, neververyvery has a point we should get more evidence

4014:

Changed "thousands" to "large" and "certainly" to "likely "

3482:

standard we shouldn't be referencing amateur commentary. --

3301:

Well, obviously it is far better (or rather policy) to use

1727:

http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefender-emails-leaked-070915/

1090: 2712:

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

2275:. The services the company offers at this time consist of 2087:

and as such might fail Wikipedias fundamental policies of

3874:

A link was added to the TPB torrent. It was removed later

3572:

RE MD's intent to modify Knowledge (XXG), have a look at

3002:

anyway. How does that prove that Miivi was a honeypot???

2370:

which form the core archetype to their service offerings.

2227:

points out, there are claims in the section that seem to

1416:"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength" 4092:

Changed wording of FUD from "are" to "may be of located"

2272:" to the distribution of several types of digital media. 4221: 4203:. It's under the "Protection of MediaDefender" heading 4200: 4144: 4138: 4132: 4126: 4120: 4114: 4108: 4102: 4096: 4090: 4084: 4078: 4072: 4066: 4060: 4054: 4048: 4042: 4036: 4030: 4024: 4018: 4012: 4006: 4000: 3994: 3988: 3982: 3980: 3974: 3968: 3962: 3956: 3950: 3944: 3938: 3932: 3926: 3920: 3914: 3908: 3902: 3896: 3890: 3884: 3878: 3872: 3866: 3860: 3854: 3847: 3815: 3784: 3614: 3611: 3573: 3554: 3466:

In general though, I will agree with your premise that

3386: 2651: 2443: 2428:

company page. Perhaps if you have some free time, this

1415: 195:

oh nevermind, looks like this story is already here =)

1854:

Good idea, future leaks would be well placed here too

1176:"Some of the e-mails reviewed by the Associated Press" 4485:

Fixed, it now links to the discussion that is on the

3774:

so I don't think inevitable vandalism is the reason.

3445:

by deleting this post, wikipedia completely abandons

3401:

by deleting this post, wikipedia completely abandons

2505:

has joined the ranks describing the MD project as a "

470:to handle classified information that is required. 4225:

http://www.mediadefender-defenders.com/msg03754.html

2733:

Looks like the domain transfer has screwed us over:

4213:

A MediaDefender worker attempting to edit the wiki?

1867:

The Gnutella database leak, third leak in a weekend

3536:"miivi=honeypot" and here's the email confirmation 4547:MediaDefender's Parent Company Facing Liquidation 4546: 4002:Clariication that vidde.com is not open to public 716:Leaked e-mails section contains unsupported facts 2511:. My attempt to define honeypot is based on the 2460:. calls Miivi a "so-called "honeypot" website". 1105:Article says that emails confirm miivi=honeypot? 358:MediaDefender employees manipulating the article 4560:MediaDefender Parent Company Facing Liquidation 1110:Article quotes email confirming miivi=honeypot? 3576:that I made 4 days ago on this very talk page 2575:mirror of the info that's actually out there. 1984:what does "tie up users computer mean" --: --> 516:- User also attempted to delete this section. 4171:", the most trouble comes from "valid" users. 3000:wouldn't have helped with creating a honeypot 2017:to tie up == keep occupied in this context -- 1584:wonderful file sharing people are absolutely 831:video project ever needed to store evidence? 8: 3514:How's that for a honeypot? Link to Article: 2323:Number of Attempted and redirected downloads 1509:It's definitely invasion of privacy though. 765:Actually, I believe it was 700mb, not 500. 4574:"ARTISTdirect Announces Management Changes" 3734:(edit: sorry, I meant sentences obviously) 2898:especially when they are not fact checked. 3898:Readded the link that didn't work any more 3667:I would add it but the page is locked :) 3370:wikipedia is becoming the poster child of 4293:Here's 3 easy ways to improve the article 3389:that goes on here at wikipedia. in case 1035:"we have downloaded and read the emails" 4615: 3723:OR split it up in two or three shorter 3534:. They don't have an article that says 3070:anything we base on that statement. -- 2757:I think this should be quite obvious... 2270:deploying technological countermeasures 1722:MediaDefender internal emails go public 1556:Can't access 4chan from campus but I'm 898:That's because they've read the emails 665:http://www.mediadefender-defenders.com/ 3738:Why is this page still semi protected? 3526:And in the very same article that say 2746:http://digg.com/users/AcePup/news/dugg 1331:"after we scanned through the e-mails" 253:NeverVeryVery manipulating the article 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4336:from the people that broke the story 3964:Added a better phrasing for viide.com 3530:. In their previous article they say 3216: 3179: 2994:So altogether we have a company that 2947: 2905: 2848: 2268:MediaDefender is in the business of " 2239:, hence the reason for tagging under 2143: 911:Neververyvery works for MediaDefender 500:Wiki Accounts Used to Remove Contents 7: 3922:Change word "reinforce" to "confirm" 3112:? The only dispute seems to be over 2966: 1918:Yes. Most certainly. Please do so. 1120:Article say they've read the emails? 4598:http://xbmc.org/news/article/31878/ 4183:Too obscure, I don't really get it 3916:Added link to Torrent Freak article 3385:what's lamer then that, though, is 4080:Moved text around, nothing changed 3588:very first post in Knowledge (XXG) 2543:needs to be preceded by "alleged". 1596:you are. Sorry, them's the rules. 107:http://mediadefender-defenders.com 24: 4467:Merging Randy Saaf into this page 4104:Removed the irrelevant legal info 4044:Removed link to mediadefender.com 3435:Discussion history confirms that 3220: 3183: 2951: 2909: 2852: 2775:Well that's all I found for now. 2147: 1039:"We have been reviewing the data" 615:thinks that they should or not. 370:----- Dylan Douglas MediaDefender 4050:Added torrent freak link back in 4032:Changed "consumers" to "pirates" 3303:reputable newsoutlets as sources 2384:, and pirating Grisoft products. 1985:very ambiguous. need s change 1904:Leaked Telephone Call Transcript 1637:unless there aren't any, we say 1459: 29: 3610:When I ignore any more remarks 2652:800+ links from Knowledge (XXG) 2405:The PcWorld article is similar: 1970:Try "Blackbriar" as a keyword. 1737:21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1087:"emails confirm mivii=honeypot" 1071:whatever you do don't read that 678:Re: True Face of Media Defender 641: 4390:15:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 4377:14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 4364:00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 4284:21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4272:19:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4256:08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4247:08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4236:02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4208:01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4188:01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC) 4179:21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 4154:20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3831:17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3800:14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3779:14:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3762:14:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3751:13:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3732:23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 3712:23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 3694:04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 3683:14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 3646:12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 3637:10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 3627:03:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 3599:09:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 3581:02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 3562:16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3549:15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3521:14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3501:09:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3492:05:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3475:18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3429:15:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3410:14:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3356:05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3331:19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3325: 3314:18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3293:17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3270:13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3230:04:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3203:03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3193:03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3164:03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3144:02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3132:01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3121:00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3098:02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 3075:04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3061:04:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 3015:03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2961:04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2935:03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2919:03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2886:03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2874:22:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2862:04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2836:04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2824:01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2809:01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2798:00:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2780:00:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2704:05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 2691:07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2676:06:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2661:23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2638:06:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2615:05:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2597:05:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2580:03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2523:04:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2498:03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2488:02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2437:23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2248:23:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2218:21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2191:23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2175:22:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2157:20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2132:20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2122:20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2112:19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2061:22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2042:02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2032:07:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 2022:10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2013:02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 2001:02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1965:22:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1944:18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1934:17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1913:22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1898:14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1887:01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1859:15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1850:00:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1838:00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1823:05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC) 1814:16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1800:04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1790:01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1780:22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1757:21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1711:05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1667:22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1641:. No reliable source = fails 1625:20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1610:20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1571:02:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1551:18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1525:13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1514:13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1501:17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1482:17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1451:10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 1436:23:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1427:23:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1409:19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1392:16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1080:01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 1063:16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1024:13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 1003:05:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 980:Here's a useful source. A new 976:04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 965:01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 943:15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 934:13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 923:15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 903:03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 886:01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 871:20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 849:17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 838:16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 803:19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 790:15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 770:05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 756:04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 745:02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 734:02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 710:22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 698:15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 673:03:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC) 652:04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 631:03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 606:19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 593:09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 582:08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 571:08:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 545:08:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 525:08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 494:01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 478:07:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 452:21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 441:03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 427:01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC) 418:11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 408:06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 396:05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC) 350:00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC) 337:00:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) 326:17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 314:02:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC) 301:22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 290:22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 274:20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 262:19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) 245:20:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 228:19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 200:04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 128:12:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 4539:04:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC) 4461:01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 3454:of it's own, would you agree? 3217: 3180: 2948: 2906: 2849: 2629:I'm disputing this statement 2144: 2107:amongst your fellow editors. 1356:Yes (in the previous article) 76:http://pastebin.com/f5ae055cf 4516:20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 4494:18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 4480:16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC) 4442:00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 4428:17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4419:17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC) 4408:13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 3976:Better phrasing of viide.com 1975:16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC) 1729:(Read the whole story here) 1592:we can't tell the world how 1381: 1378: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1360: 1355: 1352: 1349: 1346: 1341: 1336: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1319: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1293: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1269: 1264: 1259: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1243: 1238: 1233: 1228: 1225: 1222: 1217: 1212: 1207: 1202: 1199: 1196: 1191: 1186: 1181: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1144: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1130: 1125: 1118: 1113: 1108: 1103: 1098: 1093: 994:about MiiVi than it answers. 510:- Account currently banned. 93:02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 4026:Put torrent freak link back 3557:to comment on this article 3211: 3174: 2942: 2900: 2843: 2515:"FAQ : What is a Honeypot?" 2138: 214:. Right now the emails are 4641: 4611:18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 4587:11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 4062:More info about the emails 2529:Sigterm, the "this site" ( 2075:I have tagged the section 1115:Article quotes any emails? 1047:"I'm not stupid enough to" 875:Um I don't think so.. the 4525:Because of this scandal, 3819:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism 2990:program = honeypot either 2262:anti-piracy honeypot site 1576:Lead emails / phone calls 508:User_talk:Peoplearestupid 3910:Corrected capitalization 2646:Ars Technica as a source 2306:with your clients’ files 1441:Warning added to article 1073:) then it's fair play -- 70:Phone call transcription 3856:Added criticism section 3742:I've left two messages 2375:intellectual dishonesty 1828:Two Leaks, One Heading? 221:Restrictions on linking 153:) 03:00, April 20, 2008 4319:The oposing views are 4262:Wiki = Needs clean up! 4098:Added the word "boobs" 3880:Punctuation correction 3844:"IP's are pushing POV" 2561: 2294:Peer-to-Peer Marketing 1688:source, don't you? -- 726: 487:child pornography.. -- 463: 4502:Manipulation warning. 3970:Added "current" label 3689:It has been added. -- 2551: 2281:Decoying and Spoofing 2097:Neutral Point of View 1496:No, its email theft. 1051:"only an idiot would" 1008:law and are idiots. 722: 458: 180:) 12:01, May 26, 2008 42:of past discussions. 4038:Removed IP addresses 3656:Leak of source code. 2285:a Leak Alert service 2093:No Original Research 984:article claims that 4487:Randy Saaf Talkpage 4296:1. Remove this bit 3868:Spelling correction 3396:appeal to authority 3372:appeal to authority 3254:Wall Street Journal 3235:Emails and sourcing 2716:Well, here goes... 1362:Wall Street Journal 514:User_talk:LegalProf 4074:Link to the emails 4008:Cleaned up article 3326:Sir Crazyswordsman 3157:appear to indicate 2415:I have to commend 2292:, complemented by 2077:Leaked Information 1183:Digital Media Wire 362:Torrentfreak (see 18:Talk:MediaDefender 3958:But it was undone 3952:Added Viidi again 3783:But it has. Look 3768:Protection policy 3685: 3673:comment added by 3291: 3227: 3190: 2958: 2916: 2859: 2536:As for the rest. 2402: 2173: 2154: 2105:Assume good faith 2003: 1991:comment added by 1967: 1955:comment added by 1936: 1924:comment added by 1889: 1877:comment added by 1759: 1743:comment added by 1713: 1697:comment added by 1665: 1608: 1582:copyright thieves 1553: 1541:comment added by 1473: 1472: 1386: 1385: 1026: 1014:comment added by 967: 955:comment added by 700: 688:comment added by 633: 621:comment added by 573: 557:comment added by 547: 535:comment added by 398: 386:comment added by 182: 168:comment added by 155: 141:comment added by 130: 114:comment added by 95: 83:comment added by 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4632: 4625: 4620: 4169:Creation science 4146:Added phone leak 4095:121.209.240.114 4089:203.212.155.157 4083:203.212.155.157 4005:76.182.228.111 3901:212.149.236.169 3846:(point of view) 3668: 3327: 3285: 3256:, and of course 3226: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3213: 3189: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3176: 2957: 2954: 2953: 2950: 2944: 2915: 2912: 2911: 2908: 2902: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2845: 2785:Please refer to 2767: 2761:- - - - - - - - 2753: 2748: 2741: 2734: 2729:- - - - - - - - 2721: 2673: 2658: 2608: 2483:. TorrentFreak. 2410: 2400: 2397: 2256:factually proven 2167: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2140: 2081:reliable sources 1986: 1950: 1919: 1872: 1738: 1692: 1659: 1602: 1536: 1463: 1455: 1154:Associated Press 1091: 1009: 950: 683: 650: 616: 552: 530: 381: 181: 162: 154: 135: 109: 78: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4640: 4639: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4621: 4617: 4594: 4570: 4549: 4523: 4504: 4473:Talk:Randy_Saaf 4469: 4400: 4264: 4215: 4137:208.127.155.20 4131:208.127.155.20 4119:84.178.123.32 4113:76.173.116.174 4107:76.173.116.174 4101:69.106.202.127 4071:71.242.227.188 4065:70.241.186.246 4059:70.241.186.246 4017:76.182.228.111 4011:76.182.228.111 3999:208.127.155.20 3967:84.145.201.229 3961:84.145.201.229 3955:84.145.201.229 3913:124.190.213.76 3907:87.194.172.160 3789:Peoplearestupid 3740: 3703:decoy systems" 3675:138.253.184.200 3658: 3511: 3452:logical fallacy 3450:" is perhaps a 3368: 3237: 3106: 3104:Full Protection 2969: 2895:Absolutely not. 2791:Reliable Source 2764: 2751: 2744: 2737: 2732: 2719: 2714: 2671: 2656: 2648: 2606: 2408: 2395: 2363:virtual machine 2073: 1982: 1906: 1869: 1830: 1724: 1590:reliable source 1580:I know all you 1578: 1490: 1488:Identity theft? 1469: 1464: 1443: 995: 988: 824: 815: 800:128.227.194.155 718: 680: 502: 475:207.237.255.150 371: 360: 259:128.227.194.155 255: 163: 136: 101: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4638: 4636: 4627: 4626: 4614: 4593: 4590: 4569: 4566: 4548: 4545: 4543: 4522: 4519: 4503: 4500: 4497: 4496: 4468: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4431: 4430: 4421: 4399: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4367: 4366: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4307: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4294: 4291: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4263: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4249: 4214: 4211: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4172: 4165: 4148: 4147: 4141: 4135: 4129: 4125:216.59.228.72 4123: 4117: 4111: 4105: 4099: 4093: 4087: 4081: 4075: 4069: 4063: 4057: 4053:87.194.86.201 4051: 4047:59.167.103.35 4045: 4041:99.246.48.241 4039: 4035:99.246.48.241 4033: 4029:99.246.48.241 4027: 4023:59.167.103.35 4021: 4015: 4009: 4003: 3997: 3991: 3987:83.179.127.90 3985: 3977: 3971: 3965: 3959: 3953: 3947: 3941: 3935: 3929: 3925:201.1.112.135 3923: 3917: 3911: 3905: 3899: 3893: 3887: 3883:82.19.190.194 3881: 3877:82.19.190.194 3875: 3871:69.105.44.137 3869: 3863: 3859:69.159.46.125 3857: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3824: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3807: 3739: 3736: 3709:208.127.155.20 3697: 3696: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3565: 3564: 3551: 3510: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3478: 3477: 3464: 3455: 3432: 3431: 3367: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3317: 3316: 3311:84.145.228.254 3296: 3295: 3236: 3233: 3206: 3205: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3147: 3146: 3135: 3134: 3129:208.127.155.20 3105: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3090: 3082: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3064: 3063: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3022: 3021: 2992: 2991: 2984: 2980: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2928:208.127.155.20 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2889: 2888: 2877: 2876: 2871:208.127.155.20 2866: 2865: 2864: 2833:208.127.155.20 2827: 2826: 2806:208.127.155.20 2801: 2800: 2777:208.127.155.20 2773: 2772: 2759: 2758: 2727: 2726: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2694: 2693: 2672:Lawrence Cohen 2657:Lawrence Cohen 2647: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2567: 2566: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2540: 2534: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2500: 2490: 2458:SC Magazine US 2413: 2406: 2403: 2393: 2378: 2371: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2342: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2251: 2250: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2124: 2099:. Also please 2072: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2015: 2010:208.127.155.20 1981: 1978: 1946:ForgotMyLogin 1926:84.250.223.204 1915:ForgotMyLogin 1905: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1868: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1852: 1829: 1826: 1804: 1787:208.127.155.20 1783: 1782: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1690:Addison Strack 1685:awfully clever 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1628: 1627: 1594:awfully clever 1577: 1574: 1528: 1527: 1504: 1503: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1465: 1458: 1442: 1439: 1412: 1411: 1384: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1369: 1364: 1358: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1340: 1334: 1333: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1313: 1307: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1292: 1287: 1281: 1280: 1277: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1263: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1242: 1237: 1231: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1216: 1211: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1193:"according to" 1190: 1185: 1179: 1178: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1161: 1156: 1150: 1149: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1129: 1123: 1122: 1117: 1112: 1107: 1102: 1100:Relevant quote 1097: 1083: 1082: 1016:88.105.206.214 998:216.80.89.25? 992: 986: 946: 945: 936: 908: 907: 906: 905: 888: 852: 851: 822: 813: 812: 811: 807: 806: 795: 794: 793: 792: 775: 774: 773: 772: 760: 759: 748: 747: 742:76.182.228.111 717: 714: 713: 712: 679: 676: 659:To legalprof, 657: 656: 655: 654: 635: 634: 611: 610: 609: 608: 596: 595: 585: 584: 537:76.173.116.174 501: 498: 497: 496: 457: 456: 455: 454: 444: 443: 436:The great kawa 420: 410: 367: 359: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 319: 318: 317: 316: 304: 293: 292: 277: 276: 264:ForgotMyLogin 254: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 231: 230: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 184: 183: 170:24.240.187.170 156: 143:74.221.110.161 100: 97: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4637: 4624: 4619: 4616: 4613: 4612: 4608: 4604: 4603:87.194.44.145 4599: 4591: 4589: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4575: 4565: 4562: 4561: 4557: 4553: 4544: 4541: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4520: 4518: 4517: 4514: 4510: 4509:82.75.211.250 4501: 4499: 4495: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4478: 4477:Neververyvery 4474: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4453:70.131.63.198 4449: 4448: 4443: 4440: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4429: 4426: 4422: 4420: 4417: 4416:82.75.211.250 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4406: 4405:85.197.231.26 4397: 4391: 4388: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4375: 4374:VandalRemover 4370: 4365: 4362: 4361:Neververyvery 4358: 4354: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4311: 4310: 4308: 4305: 4301: 4298: 4297: 4295: 4292: 4289: 4285: 4282: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4270: 4269:VandalRemover 4261: 4257: 4254: 4250: 4248: 4245: 4244:130.89.22.200 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4234: 4230: 4227: 4226: 4223: 4219: 4212: 4210: 4209: 4206: 4205:Neververyvery 4202: 4198: 4189: 4186: 4185:Neververyvery 4182: 4181: 4180: 4177: 4173: 4170: 4166: 4163: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4152: 4151:Neververyvery 4145: 4143:68.36.190.76 4142: 4139: 4136: 4133: 4130: 4127: 4124: 4121: 4118: 4115: 4112: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4097: 4094: 4091: 4088: 4085: 4082: 4079: 4077:121.44.40.22 4076: 4073: 4070: 4067: 4064: 4061: 4058: 4055: 4052: 4049: 4046: 4043: 4040: 4037: 4034: 4031: 4028: 4025: 4022: 4019: 4016: 4013: 4010: 4007: 4004: 4001: 3998: 3995: 3993:24.23.250.94 3992: 3989: 3986: 3983: 3981: 3979:66.123.95.26 3978: 3975: 3973:24.23.250.94 3972: 3969: 3966: 3963: 3960: 3957: 3954: 3951: 3949:75.62.237.18 3948: 3945: 3943:75.62.237.18 3942: 3939: 3937:66.71.75.149 3936: 3933: 3931:71.48.150.28 3930: 3927: 3924: 3921: 3919:24.206.248.5 3918: 3915: 3912: 3909: 3906: 3903: 3900: 3897: 3895:82.35.113.18 3894: 3891: 3889:82.71.32.175 3888: 3885: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3865:71.172.46.35 3864: 3861: 3858: 3855: 3853:76.64.196.50 3852: 3851: 3850: 3848: 3845: 3832: 3829: 3828:Neververyvery 3825: 3823: 3820: 3816: 3813: 3808: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3798: 3797:69.177.231.31 3794: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3777: 3776:Neververyvery 3773: 3769: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3760: 3759:69.177.231.31 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3748:Neververyvery 3744: 3737: 3735: 3733: 3730: 3729:80.200.81.151 3726: 3721: 3718: 3714: 3713: 3710: 3706: 3700: 3695: 3692: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3684: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3665: 3663: 3655: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3635: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3625: 3624:Neververyvery 3620: 3616: 3613: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3600: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3579: 3578:Neververyvery 3575: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3563: 3560: 3559:Neververyvery 3556: 3552: 3550: 3547: 3546:Neververyvery 3542: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3508: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3480: 3479: 3476: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3430: 3427: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3407:209.209.214.5 3404: 3399: 3397: 3392: 3388: 3383: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3365: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3332: 3329: 3328: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3315: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3294: 3289: 3284: 3283: 3278: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3245: 3243: 3234: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3214: 3204: 3201: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3191: 3187: 3177: 3165: 3162: 3161:209.209.214.5 3158: 3155: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3145: 3142: 3141:Neververyvery 3137: 3136: 3133: 3130: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3103: 3099: 3096: 3095:89.55.178.156 3091: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3076: 3073: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3012:Neververyvery 3009: 3003: 3001: 2997: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2974: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2945: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2933: 2929: 2920: 2917: 2913: 2903: 2896: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2887: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2867: 2863: 2860: 2856: 2846: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2834: 2829: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2821:Neververyvery 2817: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2807: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2762: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2749: 2747: 2742: 2740: 2735: 2730: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2717: 2711: 2705: 2702: 2701:Neververyvery 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2674: 2668: 2663: 2662: 2659: 2653: 2645: 2639: 2636: 2635:Neververyvery 2632: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586: 2581: 2578: 2577:Neververyvery 2573: 2569: 2568: 2563: 2562: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2550: 2545: 2541: 2538: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2499: 2496: 2495:Neververyvery 2491: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426:MediaDefender 2423: 2418: 2417:Neververyvery 2414: 2412: 2407: 2404: 2399: 2394: 2391: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2337: 2333: 2331: 2328: 2325:" including " 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2264: 2263: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225:Neververyvery 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2216: 2215:Neververyvery 2212: 2211: 2206: 2192: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2171: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2155: 2151: 2141: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2130: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089:Verifiability 2086: 2084: 2082: 2078: 2070: 2062: 2059: 2058:82.17.254.109 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2043: 2040: 2039:89.55.178.156 2035: 2034: 2033: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2014: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993:67.49.195.121 1990: 1979: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1968: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1957:72.209.69.251 1954: 1947: 1945: 1942: 1941:72.209.69.251 1937: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1916: 1914: 1911: 1910:72.209.69.251 1903: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1866: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1827: 1825: 1824: 1821: 1820:Neververyvery 1816: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1802: 1801: 1798: 1797:Neververyvery 1792: 1791: 1788: 1781: 1778: 1777:Neververyvery 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1736: 1730: 1728: 1721: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699:Addisonstrack 1696: 1691: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1668: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1633:We don't say 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1606: 1601: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1575: 1573: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1563: 1559: 1554: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1543:216.59.228.72 1540: 1532: 1526: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1507: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1487: 1483: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1466: 1462: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1449: 1448:84.178.123.32 1440: 1438: 1437: 1434: 1433:24.16.169.211 1429: 1428: 1425: 1424:Neververyvery 1421: 1417: 1410: 1407: 1403: 1402: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1389:Neververyvery 1373: 1368: 1363: 1359: 1344: 1339: 1338:Torrent Freak 1335: 1332: 1317: 1312: 1311:Torrent Freak 1308: 1296: 1291: 1286: 1282: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1246: 1241: 1236: 1232: 1220: 1215: 1210: 1206: 1194: 1189: 1184: 1180: 1177: 1165: 1164:"appeared to" 1160: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1116: 1111: 1106: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1088: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1060:Neververyvery 1057: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1005: 1004: 1001: 1000:Neververyvery 991: 985: 983: 978: 977: 974: 973:Neververyvery 968: 966: 962: 958: 954: 944: 941: 940:Neververyvery 937: 935: 932: 927: 926: 925: 924: 921: 920:Neververyvery 916: 915:84.178.127.42 912: 904: 901: 900:Neververyvery 897: 893: 889: 887: 884: 883: 878: 874: 873: 872: 869: 868:Neververyvery 866: 861: 857: 854: 853: 850: 847: 846:Neververyvery 842: 841: 840: 839: 836: 832: 830: 821: 818: 809: 808: 805:ForgotMyLogin 804: 801: 797: 796: 791: 788: 787:Neververyvery 784: 779: 778: 777: 776: 771: 768: 764: 763: 762: 761: 758:ForgotMyLogin 757: 754: 753:72.209.69.251 750: 749: 746: 743: 738: 737: 736: 735: 732: 731:Neververyvery 725: 721: 715: 711: 708: 703: 702: 701: 699: 695: 691: 690:12.227.208.90 687: 677: 675: 674: 671: 670:24.168.64.206 667: 666: 660: 653: 648: 647: 646: 639: 638: 637: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 613: 612: 607: 604: 600: 599: 598: 597: 594: 591: 587: 586: 583: 580: 576: 575: 574: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 548: 546: 542: 538: 534: 527: 526: 523: 517: 515: 511: 509: 505: 499: 495: 492: 491: 486: 482: 481: 480: 479: 476: 471: 469: 462: 453: 450: 446: 445: 442: 439: 438: 437: 430: 429: 428: 425: 424:Neververyvery 421: 419: 416: 411: 409: 406: 401: 400: 399: 397: 393: 389: 388:89.55.187.136 385: 378: 376: 366: 364: 357: 351: 348: 347:84.145.242.28 345: 340: 339: 338: 335: 334:Neververyvery 330: 329: 328: 327: 324: 323:24.168.64.206 315: 312: 311:Neververyvery 308: 307: 305: 303:ForgotMyLogin 302: 299: 298:72.209.69.251 295: 294: 291: 288: 287:Neververyvery 284: 279: 278: 275: 272: 271:Neververyvery 267: 266: 265: 263: 260: 252: 246: 243: 239: 235: 234: 233: 232: 229: 226: 222: 217: 213: 212:eternal links 209: 208: 201: 198: 194: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 179: 175: 171: 167: 160: 157: 152: 148: 144: 140: 133: 132: 131: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 108: 104: 98: 96: 94: 90: 86: 85:24.17.200.190 82: 77: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4618: 4595: 4577: 4571: 4563: 4556:ARTISTdirect 4552:TorrentFreak 4550: 4542: 4524: 4505: 4498: 4470: 4401: 4398:Is it legal? 4371: 4368: 4352: 4339: 4325: 4312: 4299: 4265: 4231: 4228: 4220: 4216: 4194: 4176:Project2501a 4160: 4159: 4149: 3843: 3841: 3821: 3792: 3788: 3771: 3741: 3724: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3701: 3698: 3666: 3659: 3605: 3591: 3587: 3566: 3540: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3512: 3467: 3459: 3444: 3400: 3384: 3369: 3323: 3280: 3276: 3246: 3242:is reporting 3238: 3207: 3170: 3156: 3153: 3113: 3107: 3081: 3039: 3027: 3007: 3004: 2999: 2995: 2993: 2988:interference 2987: 2983:implemented. 2972: 2970: 2925: 2894: 2815: 2802: 2774: 2763: 2760: 2750: 2743: 2736: 2731: 2728: 2718: 2715: 2664: 2649: 2630: 2571: 2558: 2553: 2552: 2531:Astroturfing 2506: 2478:September 18 2461: 2457: 2447:September 18 2367: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317:defined as " 2314: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2296:defined as " 2293: 2284: 2280: 2279:defined as " 2276: 2269: 2261: 2260: 2255: 2228: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2201: 2162: 2076: 2074: 1983: 1972:201.29.223.5 1969: 1948: 1938: 1917: 1907: 1879:83.38.52.200 1870: 1831: 1817: 1811:88.195.54.90 1803: 1793: 1784: 1768: 1764: 1731: 1725: 1684: 1654: 1650: 1617: 1597: 1593: 1585: 1581: 1579: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1555: 1533: 1529: 1508: 1505: 1491: 1444: 1430: 1419: 1413: 1399: 1387: 1371: 1366: 1342: 1330: 1315: 1294: 1289: 1265: 1244: 1239: 1219:"Reportedly" 1218: 1213: 1192: 1187: 1175: 1163: 1158: 1146: 1131: 1127:ars technica 1119: 1114: 1109: 1104: 1099: 1094: 1086: 1084: 1075: 1070: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1028: 1006: 996: 989: 982:ARS Technica 979: 969: 957:216.80.89.25 947: 910: 909: 895: 881: 877:Ars Technica 864: 859: 855: 833: 828: 825: 819: 816: 782: 727: 723: 719: 681: 668: 661: 658: 643: 642: 623:208.127.5.56 549: 528: 518: 512: 506: 503: 489: 484: 472: 464: 459: 435: 433: 415:82.45.163.18 379: 374: 372: 361: 320: 282: 256: 242:Ken Arromdee 215: 105: 102: 73: 60: 43: 37: 3669:—Preceding 2462:SC Magazine 2422:red herring 2277:Anti-Piracy 2019:89.55.170.8 1987:—Preceding 1951:—Preceding 1920:—Preceding 1873:—Preceding 1739:—Preceding 1693:—Preceding 1622:89.55.170.8 1537:—Preceding 1295:"According" 1285:SC Magazine 1049:instead of 1041:could mean 1010:—Preceding 951:—Preceding 892:ARS article 684:—Preceding 617:—Preceding 553:—Preceding 531:—Preceding 382:—Preceding 236:Proof that 197:Alanscott81 164:—Preceding 137:—Preceding 110:—Preceding 99:Emails link 79:—Preceding 36:This is an 4233:TankHunter 3643:Sevengoods 3509:MiiVi EULA 3387:censorship 2507:honey-pot" 2355:hackertrap 2235:and fails 2119:Sevengoods 1856:Sevengoods 1620:happen. -- 1245:"indicate" 835:Raintaster 767:68.94.10.5 707:Northgrove 4521:Lawsuits? 4439:Milk-maid 4242:quickly. 4197:talk page 4116:And again 4110:And again 3793:Legalprof 3725:languages 3596:Aquillion 3574:this edit 3441:User:Dxco 3437:User:Dxco 3398:fallacy. 3391:User:Dxco 2975:. Well, 2503:Neoseeker 2315:Reporting 1895:CCFreak2K 1845:Go ahead 1653:sources. 1586:delighted 1401:consensus 1372:"alleged" 1209:Neoseeker 720:This bit 559:Legalprof 522:Legalprof 161:MD-D FTW 61:Archive 1 4592:XBMC.COM 4531:Kirjapan 4140:Spelling 4068:Spelling 3990:Spelling 3892:Spelling 3705:Tazzy531 3671:unsigned 3468:too much 3419:and the 3382:. lame. 3200:Sacolcor 3118:Dissolva 3114:one line 3110:edit war 3072:Sacolcor 3054:Fuzheado 3029:pirates. 2932:Sacolcor 2795:Sacolcor 2684:Fuzheado 2667:ask here 2485:Dissolva 2351:mailtrap 2321:" with " 2245:Dissolva 2188:Sacolcor 2109:Dissolva 2101:Be Civil 2071:Disputed 1989:unsigned 1953:unsigned 1922:unsigned 1875:unsigned 1753:contribs 1741:unsigned 1707:contribs 1695:unsigned 1651:reliable 1539:unsigned 1422:my bias 1406:Dissolva 1261:PC World 1235:News.com 1012:unsigned 953:unsigned 829:internal 686:unsigned 645:Eugene2x 619:unsigned 603:Eugene2x 567:contribs 555:unsigned 533:unsigned 384:unsigned 375:at least 225:Dissolva 178:contribs 166:unsigned 151:contribs 139:unsigned 124:contribs 112:unsigned 81:unsigned 4281:UserDoe 4020:Cleanup 3940:Grammar 3691:Credema 3472:Sigterm 3463:nature. 3447:WP:NPOV 3403:WP:NPOV 3366:amusing 2612:Sigterm 2594:Sigterm 2520:Sigterm 2434:Sigterm 2430:article 2359:sandbox 2298:capture 2283:" and " 1847:UserDoe 1745:UserDoe 1735:UserDoe 1511:Phuzion 1279:Unclear 1095:Article 860:doesn't 590:sigterm 449:UserDoe 39:archive 4579:S13dg3 4513:Fransw 4491:Fransw 4425:Fransw 4403:not.-- 4387:Fransw 4253:Fransw 3634:Fransw 3498:Fransw 3484:bainer 3460:should 3426:Fransw 3417:WP:NOR 3376:WP:NOR 3348:bainer 3262:bainer 3252:, the 3221:Jester 3184:Jester 3008:duuunn 2996:didn't 2952:Jester 2910:Jester 2853:Jester 2841:about. 2787:WP:NOR 2442:(XXG). 2390:Trojan 2148:Jester 2095:, and 1835:Alaren 1681:WP:NPA 1647:WP:ATT 1567:⁪froth 1479:cesarb 1076:⁪froth 882:⁪froth 490:⁪froth 485:combat 405:Hadees 344:QUACK! 238:WP:IAR 4475:page 4348:again 3770:says 3555:asked 3541:their 3421:WP:RS 3380:WP:RS 3307:WP:OR 3288:Help! 3052:. -- 2883:Compn 2466:WP:RS 2304:(ing) 2300:(ing) 2241:WP:AD 2233:WP:OR 2184:WP:AD 2170:Help! 2027:here. 1662:Help! 1639:WP:RS 1635:WP:RS 1605:Help! 1564:MD -- 1329:Yes, 1174:Yes, 1145:Yes, 1053:, or 894:says 16:< 4607:talk 4583:talk 4535:talk 4457:talk 4346:and 4334:here 4332:and 4321:here 4201:here 3791:and 3785:here 3766:The 3679:talk 3619:talk 3615:make 3592:EVER 3518:Noah 3488:talk 3415:The 3352:talk 3266:talk 3250:CNET 3218:SWAT 3209:out. 3181:SWAT 3058:Talk 2949:SWAT 2907:SWAT 2850:SWAT 2752:-Ben 2688:Talk 2669:. • 2513:SANS 2481:2007 2470:EULA 2452:). " 2450:2007 2313:and 2237:WP:V 2145:SWAT 2129:Noah 2103:and 2029:Dxco 1997:talk 1961:talk 1930:talk 1883:talk 1749:talk 1703:talk 1643:WP:V 1562:hate 1558:sure 1547:talk 1498:Dxco 1020:talk 990:and 961:talk 890:The 694:talk 627:talk 579:Dxco 563:talk 541:talk 392:talk 174:talk 147:talk 120:talk 116:Jrwr 89:talk 3612:you 3590:. 3282:Guy 3277:are 2476:". 2472:: " 2456:". 2361:or 2229:not 2180:Guy 2164:Guy 1765:not 1656:Guy 1618:did 1599:Guy 1522:EAi 1420:was 1404:. 1379:Yes 1353:Yes 1326:Yes 1270:Yes 1171:Yes 1142:Yes 931:EAi 216:not 4609:) 4585:) 4537:) 4489:. 4459:) 4437:-- 3787:. 3681:) 3490:) 3354:) 3268:) 3258:AP 3154:do 3093:-- 3056:| 3010:! 2686:| 2572:do 2349:A 2091:, 2037:-- 1999:) 1980:?? 1963:) 1932:) 1885:) 1755:) 1751:• 1709:) 1705:• 1645:, 1549:) 1382:No 1376:No 1350:No 1347:No 1323:No 1320:No 1305:No 1302:No 1299:No 1276:No 1273:No 1255:No 1252:No 1249:No 1229:No 1226:No 1223:No 1203:No 1200:No 1197:No 1168:No 1139:No 1136:No 1056:)" 1022:) 963:) 913:-- 740:-- 696:) 629:) 569:) 565:• 543:) 413:-- 394:) 223:. 176:• 149:• 126:) 122:• 91:) 4605:( 4581:( 4533:( 4455:( 4164:} 3677:( 3486:( 3350:( 3290:) 3286:( 3264:( 3212:⇒ 3175:⇒ 2943:⇒ 2901:⇒ 2844:⇒ 2329:" 2308:" 2287:" 2259:" 2172:) 2168:( 2139:⇒ 1995:( 1959:( 1928:( 1881:( 1747:( 1701:( 1664:) 1660:( 1607:) 1603:( 1545:( 1018:( 959:( 692:( 649:- 625:( 561:( 539:( 390:( 172:( 145:( 118:( 87:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index