Talk:MediaDefender/Archive 1

message: The phone conversation should be linked as well.  It's content is very much relevant to this article.
http://pastebin.com/f5ae055cf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.200.190 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone call transcription 

message: Torrentfreak (see ) reports that MediaDefender employees were encouraged to manipulate the wikipedia article to remove information about the mivii incident. Here is a shortened excerpt from the leaked emails:
Ben E:
Can you please do what you can to eliminate this entry?   Let me know if you have any success.
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
Better yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender
 
Miivi.com
In February 2007, MediaDefender launched a video sharing site called Miivi.com in order to trap unsuspecting uploaders of copyrighted content.[5][6]
Such manipulation is evidence that wikipedia is easily used as a propaganda tool as has been repeatedly demonstrated on the Yahoo Answers! entry in wikipedia (see Yahoo Answers! history in which the atheist novangelis is given free reign to write out anything referring to himself and his friends).  {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=76.113.26.119|2=19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the attempt should be added to the article and I don't see how the leaked emails could be challenged.  Frankly there is just way too much information in them that checks out.  I think there even needs to be a section just talking about the emails and giving some of the more important information found in them.  Of coarse I also think that things like passwords in some of those emails will need to be censured.  --Hadees 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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. --82.45.163.18 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Be aware that later emails say they're going to wait for the attention to die down, claiming that they should then be able to change the Wikipedia article without too much trouble Neververyvery 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now on my watchlist and I will go over this page almost daily. Corporate flunkies will be hard-pressed to insert their lies and half-truths. I advise all respectable members of the Wikipedia community to look over this article for as long as it takes. The great kawa 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * I have the article now on my watchlist, this seems to be a serious case, but nothing we couldn't handle :-) UserDoe 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Anyway it's not like they can mass-GTMO tens of thousands of citizens over disseminating information about a state's program to combat child pornography.. --⁪frotht 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats great. We out here on the rest of the planet look forward to reading about the outcome of this, and also wish you would stop adding "legal warnings" into an encyclopedia article. Dxco 08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not an article about California civil code, the sections which (inaccurately) paraphrase legal code are irrelevant to the subject matter. sigterm 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saying that since the article was just semi-protected by an admin, I don't think we'll be seeing any vandalism from MD mentioning "legal issues" on the article for the next few days. Eugene2x 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Torrents with the internal emails are probably on dozens of different trackers by now. As someone told me "Nothing ever dies or disappears once its on the internet." You can try and delete the references to the emails here but there are a bunch of people that have access to them whether LegalProf thinks that they should or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.5.56 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, very true. Well, MediaDefender, have fun cleaning this mess up. Eugene2x-talk 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaDefender employees manipulating the article 

message: Starting a list of accounts that are removing contents from this Wiki Entry.  If you believe your name is here in error, please comment to indicate why.
User_talk:Peoplearestupid - Account currently banned.
User_talk:LegalProf - User also attempted to delete this section.
FYI...My actions have merely been to delete the links to the illegally obtain emails, which contain extensive private and confidential information about MediaDefender employees.  I have also provided information for people who may not be aware of the possible legal repercussions involved in disseminating these emails.  I do not intend to delete the discussion section as I believe that an accurate and valid discussion of the issues is a good thing.  So, I encourage everyone to continue the discussion with the link to these emails (as well as any personal information about the employees) left out. Legalprof 08:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats great. We out here on the rest of the planet look forward to reading about the outcome of this, and also wish you would stop adding "legal warnings" into an encyclopedia article. Dxco 08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not an article about California civil code, the sections which (inaccurately) paraphrase legal code are irrelevant to the subject matter. sigterm 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saying that since the article was just semi-protected by an admin, I don't think we'll be seeing any vandalism from MD mentioning "legal issues" on the article for the next few days. Eugene2x 19:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Torrents with the internal emails are probably on dozens of different trackers by now. As someone told me "Nothing ever dies or disappears once its on the internet." You can try and delete the references to the emails here but there are a bunch of people that have access to them whether LegalProf thinks that they should or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.5.56 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, very true. Well, MediaDefender, have fun cleaning this mess up. Eugene2x-talk 04:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Accounts Used to Remove Contents

message: This is entirely unprofessional, and while I believe a reference to the e-mails is more than warranted, such childish titles as this in  no way belong on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.208.90 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, that title is geared for sensationalism, not encyclopedias. A more proper title, if the purpose is to discuss the leak, it would simply be just that... Something like "Leaked MediaDefender e-mails". — Northgrove 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: True Face of Media Defender 

message: This bit 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.
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 there are a few other possibilities for what Mivvi.com might be and those possibilities don't involve honeypots. Neververyvery 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). --76.182.228.111 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "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. 72.209.69.251 04:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I believe it was 700mb, not 500.  68.94.10.5 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  My point is that the 622MB don't fully support the view that Miivi was a honeypot. There's (what you call) entrapment and there's emails but there's no emails showing that Miivi was designed and built to be an entrapment site. You can't say "I have 622MB of email and I have opinion X, so therefore opinion X is right" That's obviously bad reasoning unless you can show that the 622MB actually support opinion X. If you're going to write that the emails confirm the speculation that MiiVi.com was indeed an anti-piracy honeypot site then you need the confirmation emails to actually exist. Why aren't there any internal emails at the time the site was discovered saying "Oh noes, they've discovered that Miivi was a honeypot". Why are there instead ones saying "Oh noes, they've discovered Miivi but they're wrong about what it is" Neververyvery 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "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.128.227.194.155 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I searched the emails for the word "entrapment", and very quickly found this excerpt when discussing the possible law infringments:
the best argument against miivi is one for invasion of privacy and trespass to chattels
Which I think pretty well proves that Miivi wasn't just an "internal video sharing site". 
EDIT:  Found conclusive evidence that Miivi is entrapment.  I present:
- On your end, the peer-to-peer crawler will be identifying files
matching the established search criteria from various hosts.  This data
will then be collected, filtered for New York resident ip addresses (to
the accuracy limits imposed by geo-query tech).  The data will then be
transferred to us where;
- On our end, a separate piece of software will use that data to
connect into the network and download the file from a host and store it
on our servers for evidence retention and further analysis.
It pretty much describes the whole operation.  They find the files from the companies they are "protecting", filter the IPs, and store them along with the files for "evidence retention".  Since when has a real internal video project ever needed to store evidence?
Raintaster 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone believes it was intended to be an internal video project - except that  they beta tested it internally and it is a video project so in one (very limited but factually correct) sense it definitely was an internal video project. That's surely just a cover they made up when it was found. Having a cover doesn't mean it was an entrapment site though, just that it's something they didn't want people to know about, in the same way that many companies don't want the public to know about commercial projects they're working on. I'll be honest though I haven't seen the two quotes you listed, so maybe I'm wrong. Are you sure the second one is specifically in the context of miivi, or is it possible it's in the context of another of their projects (an application users would download from Miivi and install on their PC's is not a peer to peer crawler)? Have you tried doing a search for the word mivvi in the header and body of the mails and just reading every one of them in chronological order, or checking out the miivi screen shots, or checking out any mails related to miivi and podcasting (why would a company want to build a honeypot that entraps people into downloading podcasts that are freely licensed and not pirated or illegal?), or mails comparing it to other commercial video/music sites? It might give you a wider picture of what their intent was when they designed and tested it. In any case, rumour has it (because, lets be clear here MediaDefender lawyers, I'm in no way implying that I've read your emails) that the mails say they'll have to declare miivi in their earnings once it starts making a profit (if it's a tool i.e. a honeypot site used to catch and prosecute people rather than a commercial site, why would it make a direct profit?) so the truth will out. Neververyvery 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Raintaster, you've misinterpreted the two quotes you've given above because you've not read their context properly. The first quote is not a quote from MediaDefender at all but is actually MediaDefender quoting someone else, a blogger. The context is MediaDefender mocking the blogger for saying what's in the quote because it's based on a rumour. The quote doesn't prove anything except that MediaDefender thought it was funny that a blogger wrote it, presumably because they know the rumour is not true (although to be honest I'm reading that into it). The second quote is just nothing to do with Miivi at all, read the articles on the phone call leak to see what project it was really referring to (you've just quoted, from an illegally obtained email that's part of an ongoing New York child porn investigation, an Attorney General saying that he doesn't want to entrap anyone. Was that wise?). That's what someone who read the emails told me anyway, as I definitely haven't read them. Have a reread of the context of what you've quoted with an open mind and you'll see what I mean. I've renamed the heading of this section as the heading it refers to in the article has changed Neververyvery 20:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um I don't think so.. the Ars Technica article definately seems to confirm that the quotes are directly related. Besides, they're far too similar in sentence structure to be from different contexts --⁪frotht 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The ARS article says "The ultimate purpose of the MiiVi site, for instance, is still an enigma" That's because they've read the emails Neververyvery 03:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about the MiiVi site. I've read some of the emails on various sites, and it seems to me that they were putting an awful lot of effort into making the site. Sure, I doubt they were doing it to encourage piracy, but I think they may have seen it as a way to jump on the YouTube bandwagon and make some extra money (from legal user-created content). There was a mention somewhere of profiting from it. EAi 13:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and also a direct comparison with existing competitor sites that stream video and already-in-the-wild pirated music to peoples screens via bittorrent. Who says it would even need to be legal content either? With the permission of the content publishers they're working with already it could just be pirated torrents that are already out there delivered to your screen for a cost that gets split between MediaDefender and the copyright holders. No cost of having to set up your own content and content distribution system. No huge bandwidth costs. Just take what's already there and put it on a users screen.Neververyvery 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Since there is proof (see above) that multiple employees of MediaDefender were working on manipulating this article and it seems they are using multiple user accounts, I think it is necessary to add this warning to the article page, since there are not enough editors here that can guarantee, that no subtle manipulations are inserted or Wikipedia policies or the law are exploited to suppress information on the mentioned issues. We need to be extra watchful of seemingly logical reasonings for changes to this page, that advise to delete or censor content. --84.178.123.32 10:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This warning is not needed. So far, the manipulation seems to be limited to adding a new section; if the manipulation got bad enough that a warning like that were needed, it would be best to request protection of the article. If the problem is not enough editors watching this article (unlikely, with the recent slashdot attention), it would be better to ask some people to add it to their watchlists. --cesarb 17:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning added to article 

message: Is it really identity theft if someone steals emails from a company?
:No, its email theft. Dxco 17:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't identity theft. It only is identify theft if someone takes the information from the emails and uses it to pretend to be someone else - thus causing the person in question some sort of loss. Of course its an invasion of privacy and many other things. EAi 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identity theft? 

message: I know all you copyright thieves wonderful file sharing people are absolutely delighted that someone has stolen info form this lot, but unless you can bring a reliable source we can't tell the world how awfully clever you are. Sorry, them's the rules. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to things that happen on the internet and are relatively geeky topics then "reliable sources" do not exist beyond the same sources online news services will use, the pirate bay page of the torrent in question for example. Due to the nature of the content it's questionable that there'll ever be any non-p2p hosted version of this phonecall. But you might wait for transcripts... but of course. Anyway, the torrentfreak article is not more or less unreliable than many other blog/forum/online-news-service posts used in many other WP articles relating to things that happen in and around online communities. So please don't be a troll just because you don't like what happend, since it did happen. --89.55.170.8 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't say WP:RS unless there aren't any, we say WP:RS.  No reliable source = fails WP:V, WP:ATT.  And actually genuinely important and verifiable stories get covered in mainstream media too.  Now please cite reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  JzG, you wrongfully deleted my reply to your above comment. I'll state it again. The above criticism violates WP:NPA. "Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Calling other editors thieves whose edits are motivated by a desire to show the world how awfully clever they are is just not appropriate for anyone, even an administrator such as yourself. If you think the sources aren't good, then that's fine, no need to be snarky. The wall street journal put out an article on it we can link as soon as the page is no longer protected. I think the WSJ is a pretty good source, don't you? -- Addison Strack  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addisonstrack (talk • contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead emails / phone calls 

message: http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefender-emails-leaked-070915/
(Read the whole story here)
It has been leaked, that MediaDefender's sole purpose is to trap people into uploading copyrighted material, and bust them for doing so.A huge bunch of internal e-mails have been leaked into the net, describing what the sole purpose of mediadefender really is.
I'm not into that stuff at all, but i stumbled over that story just a few minutes ago. Any suggestion on how to proceed with this article now? UserDoe 21:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want some suggestions have a look at the rest of the talk page and the article page to see what's been written so far. One way I recommend not to proceed is to just write stuff that isn't really supported by the facts. For example, don't go writing that "MediaDefender's sole purpose is to trap people into uploading copyrighted material, and bust them for doing so" as it's not really supported by the facts. It's pretty clear from the leaked phone call between MediaDefender and the New York Attorney General's office that MediaDefender is also involved in trying to prevent child porn (see main article for that new phone call leak and the Digg article comments for the transcript), so it can't be their "sole" purpose to trap people into uploading copyright material (I'm assuming that child porn isn't copyrighted). Also Torrent Freak (who broke the initial leaked email story) have pointed out that "no evidence can be found that MediaDefender is actually involved in prosecuting or gathering evidence against filesharers (as we reported earlier)", so it's also probably that MediaDefender aren't "busting" or helping to "bust" anyone. They are definitely being paid to disrupt downloads and gather intel on downloads though. If you want advice on "how to proceed" I'd recommend trying to find something reported as being in the emails that definitively says Miivi is a honeypot designed to attract and entrap p2p users (as this article claims), as I've yet to find it. Neververyvery 22:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaDefender internal emails go public 

message: Greetings all.  I haven't made any edits to the page yet, but I thought I'd toss out that the leaked emails and phone call appear to be part of the same story--different days, but the same "group" (MediaDefender-Defender) is claiming credit.  It is entirely possible that they will spin stuff out on a daily basis for a little while, or perhaps they are done, but I'm not sure we need a new heading for every leak.  The content looks fine, I'm just suggesting a unified heading for the leaks... if no one strongly objects or beats me to it, I'll make the change myself a bit later. Alaren 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Go ahead UserDoe 00:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Good idea, future leaks would be well placed here too Sevengoods 15:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Leaks, One Heading? 

message: A 14 GB database dump from MD made it to the public, named "Gnutella Tracking Database" http://digg.com/tech_news/MediaDefender_Phone_Call_and_Gnutella_Tracking_Database_Leaked. IT should make it to the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.52.200 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's 12GB, although the point remains valid. It also can be found on at least one BitTorrent tracker. --CCFreak2K 14:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gnutella database leak, third leak in a weekend 

message: Would it be legal to post a link to the leaked telephone transcript?
72.209.69.251 22:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaked Telephone Call Transcript 

message: what does "tie up users computer mean" --> very ambiguous.  need s change  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.195.121 (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 208.127.155.20 02:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: to tie up == keep occupied in this context --89.55.170.8 10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, youre unaware that the minority of english speakers reside in the United States. This reader's comment is a good indication that we should choose a better phrase to communicate the information that we intend here.Dxco 07:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 ;) --89.55.178.156 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a native english speaker and I think the phrase is ambgiguous. THis whole fiasco is hilarious, by the way! 82.17.254.109 22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: Why would Ars Technica not be a valid source? They are a major IT/technical news web site with over 800+ links from Wikipedia. I see that they use a blog-style layout for their news structure, but many news services, if not the vast majority that cover IT/technology, do so these days. I am curious as I see this site all over the place as an RS. • Lawrence Cohen 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree Ars Technica should be considered in the panoply of generally reliable sources. It's good enough to be included in Google News, has many references in Wikipedia, has a good track record. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ars generally get it right. In my opinion, if it's IT or tech stuff they're more reliable than most sources Neververyvery 05:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ars Technica as a source

message: I don't see a need for full protection for the article. Do you consider one revert in the last 36 hours as an edit war? The only dispute seems to be over one line in the article, and no one has changed it while the discussion has been going on. Dissolva 00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. 208.127.155.20 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Neververyvery 02:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the police arrest people because they appear to be breaking the law. that doesn't mean they actually are. that question is left to the courts to decide. similarly, the emails do appear to indicate. that doesn't mean they're the word of god nor does it mean anyone is claiming them to be 209.209.214.5 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you summarize the OTRS issues, so that the editors here can take them into consideration?  --Sacolcor 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Protection

message: If I can offer my thoughts: there's some concern that the documents purporting to be leaked emails may contain some private data, things like people's email addresses obviously but also various passwords and information about MediaDefender's clients, as AP is reporting. There's also a question of reliability in terms of the websites that the documents might be appearing on.
I think it would be preferable on both fronts to utilise existing reporting on the documents rather than trying to link directly to any such documents; the story is already being carried by, for example, CNET, the Wall Street Journal, and of course AP as I mentioned earlier. Google News is already turning up plenty of results for me, so there should easily be enough material to go on. --bainer (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, obviously it is far better (or rather policy) to use reputable newsoutlets as sources, but also fact is, the entire informations is also contained and avaviable in the leaked e-mails. The big question is: would it violate WP:OR to source statements (e.g. that Mivii was a MediaDefender run site, intent on attracting bittorrent users) directly from the leaked e-mails? 84.145.228.254 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I could argue that the Wall Street Journal lost all its reputability once Murdoch brought it out.  I would sooner trust these blogs than the corporate media anyday. --Sir Crazyswordsman 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, the main concern here is that there is all this collateral private information in the documents too; the fact that using only reputable sources that have reported on the documents also addresses the reliability concerns is really a bonus, I think. If you're worried about completeness, I'm sure it won't suffer as a result of relying on secondary reporting in this instance. The documents discussing the purpose of Miivi, which is the example you give, have already been covered in the secondary reporting. --bainer (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emails and sourcing 

message: I find it interesting to note this article on torretfreak (take it as you will as a valid news site regarding this issue), but they claim that the MiiVi EULA (as noted in the leaked emails) says that MiiVi will report users of its program who pirate copyrighted material to the proper authorities. How's that for a honeypot? Link to Article:  Noah 14:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in the very same article that say "Although there still appears to be no hard evidence that entrapping pirates was the sole purpose of the project". In their previous article they say "From the emails we canNot be sure that it’s an entrapment site". They don't have an article that says "miivi=honeypot" and here's the email confirmation even though they do have lots of other claims that they backed up with emails . Given that it's obvious they've read the emails I think that's because they can't find an email that confirms miivi=honeypot. Why? Because a) the emails are unclear and b) some emails suggest other possibilities (commercial money making video site - see the reasons why way up above). I like their articles. They make their claims and quote the emails for you to make your own mind up, which is a lot better than making claims without quoting the evidence or making claims off what other sites claim without quoting their evidence. I don't agree with part of their interpretation of the EULA (not that it's relevant to "emails confirm miivi=honeypot". I don't think the EULA means "you agree that we will contact the authorities and hand over your info if we believe you are engaged in pirating" I think it means "you agree that we can be required by the authorities to hand over your info" which is just what the law says (I think). i.e. they're not saying they will pro-actively go and find authorities to report you to for pirating, just that if they're required to hand over your info by an authority, they'll see if they believe you have been pirating and then they'll hand over the info if they think you have. It's definitely ambiguous though, which is why I think it's good that they quote the evidence and let everyone draw their own conclusions. Neververyvery 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I anticipate I'll be accused of trying to flood the discussion so I'll note that I was asked to comment on this article Neververyvery 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Hello, I think it should be noted that a new leak is available at http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3812960/MediaDefender.Source.TrapperKeeper-MDD
Which seems to be the source code of some of the applications used by MediaDefender to poison the p2p networks. 
I would add it but the page is locked :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.184.200 (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been added. --Credema 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leak of source code. 

message: 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaDefender&diff=142781181&oldid=142705189
http://www.mediadefender-defenders.com/msg03754.html 
Hope to hear what you lot think of this. Maybe my paranoia is more than just paranoia, or maybe I am just nuts. But I thought that I might bring it up just to be safe. 
TankHunter 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That edit was made the 5th of July, so over 2 months earlier. At this moment, this page is watched too much by wiki moderators and normal wikipedians with an interest in it (including me) that I doubt they'll be able to pull off a second attempt like this. Even if they do, it'll be noticed very quickly. 130.89.22.200 08:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note to self: login before you comment. The above comment was made by me. Fransw 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A MediaDefender worker attempting to edit the wiki? 

message: It would be nice to know if what MediaDefender is doing is legal, and to what point. It only seems to mention what MediaDefender does in order to prevent piracy, but not whether what they are doing is legal or not.--85.197.231.26 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to many torrent-orientated sites, MD's IP adresses have been involved in DoS-attacks. I am no law expert, but I believe that is illegal. Beyond that, they seem to be spamming torrent-networks with fake files. Obviously, the admins of those networks forbid it, but I have no idea whether or not law forbids it. *looks around in the hope of seeing a wikipedian with some more knowlegde about internet-laws* 82.75.211.250 17:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Note to self: log in before adding a comment.... Above comment was added by me. Fransw 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, DDOS is illegal. It remains to be seen whether the US law enforcement agencies give a shit about enforcing their own laws when it conflicts with the political standpoint of their government, though... --Milk-maid 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The leaked emails contain clear evidence of conspiracy to commit computer fraud, for example plans to use their miivi software to setup p2p spoofing botnets on client computers, without their knowledge or consent. Of course, this leaked information was, itself, gained through the same type of fraud, so it's not directly admissible as evidence. It can only be used to prompt an investigation and provide direction to one on an informal level. --70.131.63.198 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it legal? 

message: If you clicked the "Discuss" link on the merge template and ended up here, the discussion is actually on the Talk:Randy_Saaf page Neververyvery 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, it now links to the discussion that is on the Randy Saaf Talkpage. Fransw 18:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging Randy Saaf into this page 

message: I don't think a manipulation warning box is needed on this page. It's been very quiet the past few weeks, and I doubt MD will ever be able to put up a manipulation again. Okay, maybe for a short period, but this page is still under pretty close watch. Because of that, I have deleted both warning-boxes. If you disagree with me, please discuss it here first. 82.75.211.250 20:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulation warning. 

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

message: On 2008-03-12, Yahoo Finance report confirms the above, in a press release, "ARTISTdirect Announces Management Changes"
S13dg3 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaDefender's Parent Company Announces Management Changes 

message: It is mentioned on the XBMC (XBox Media Centre) website at http://xbmc.org/news/article/31878/ 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 :-) 87.194.44.145 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  XBMC.COM