Hi ggchapell, We agree on your point. The company is being a bully. My issue is with the reception of the story. The larger picture is that frivolous takedown

Hi ggchapell, We agree on your point. The company is being a bully. My issue is with the reception of the story. The larger picture is that frivolous takedown notices are issued all the time, and will continue to be issued willfully by companies until there is disincentive to do so. Prof. Anderson's actions are commendable. I do not wish to detract from them. However, with the candor I hope a security researcher would appreciate, I point out that both parties probably expected this exchange would take place, and both parties understand Prof. Anderson's response is ineffective. (The Internet, however, may not.) Prof. Anderson has successfully stood up to this organization, but he has only maintained parity. This kind of incident will repeat as long as companies believe they can get something out of it. Someone else will cave or will plain not know any better. The companies' goal is, basically, harassment, and they will continue to do it regardless of anything that's happened so far. So I guess my point is that I would rather see people discussing how to remedy this old situation than remarking on the letter, which while entertaining and well-written, is actually the signifier of a losing battle. (unfortunately this is the last I can comment on this topic)