5 ms·

Is there a chance that someone take them to the court for this false claim?

by NmAmDa 5y ago

Mindwipe 5y ago
No, you have to demonstrate that it is actually in bad faith rather than just a cock up, and that's not going to happen (especially given it very likely is just a cock up).
- finalis 5y ago
  https://www.opsecsecurity.com/opsec-online/antipiracy-digital-media https://www.opsecsecurity.com/opsec-online/antipiracy-digita... From their own website: "Accurate Multi-Level Verification Use swift and accurate multi-level cyber verification techniques to confirm copyright infringement" It sure doesn't sound to me like a company that would like it on record that they aren't as good as they think they are. Have them publicly admit the cock up.
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    And yet....they arent even in DMARC reject mode.. https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dmarc%3aopsecsecurity.com&run=toolpage https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dmarc%3aopsecsec... But they are getting their own forensics feeds. This seems to me that they are willifully staying in p=none so they can try and have plausible deniability should these things get public.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  They have to state under penalty of perjury that they're authorized to act on behalf of the owner of some relevant right. While that might not necessarily involve the right to the Ubuntu ISO itself (e.g. they might have pattern-matched something else that they're acting on behalf of) they do need some good cover story to avoid perjuring themselves.
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    In the 23 years DMCA has been active, not one single party has been hit with perjury for a false/"unauthorized" DMCA claim. Not one.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> (especially given it very likely is just a cock up "Here's the hash of the file you're infringing." I mean, where did they get that from? It's a rather specific thing for a very specific file from a very specific source. How can that possibly be a mistake? At best it's a result of some automation that indiscriminately makes these claims, which doesn't fall under "cock up" in my book.
  - rolph 5y ago
    i vaguely remember a project that was developing a file from hash application, the idea was to use an provided hash, and an arbitrary file to accompany a generated padding file that would be packed in so the whole torrent matched the hash. at about the same time there was a practice of a running padfile, that you would ammend every time you retorrented so that the hash would change and make it hard to kludge out the distribution network by tracking known hashes. in summary it think it is very possible to "forge" hash numbers and impersonate or obfusicate the content hash collision is rare, intentional hash mimicry maybe is not so rare.
- xtat 5y ago
  As I understand it bad faith is one of their core values.

Is there a chance that someone take them to the court for this false claim?

by NmAmDa 5y ago

Is there a chance that someone take them to the court for this false claim?

No, you have to demonstrate that it is actually in bad faith rather than just a cock up, and that's not going to happen (especially given it very likely is just a cock up).

finalis 5y ago
https://www.opsecsecurity.com/opsec-online/antipiracy-digital-media https://www.opsecsecurity.com/opsec-online/antipiracy-digita... From their own website: "Accurate Multi-Level Verification Use swift and accurate multi-level cyber verification techniques to confirm copyright infringement" It sure doesn't sound to me like a company that would like it on record that they aren't as good as they think they are. Have them publicly admit the cock up.
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  And yet....they arent even in DMARC reject mode.. https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dmarc%3aopsecsecurity.com&run=toolpage https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dmarc%3aopsecsec... But they are getting their own forensics feeds. This seems to me that they are willifully staying in p=none so they can try and have plausible deniability should these things get public.
zozbot234 5y ago
They have to state under penalty of perjury that they're authorized to act on behalf of the owner of some relevant right. While that might not necessarily involve the right to the Ubuntu ISO itself (e.g. they might have pattern-matched something else that they're acting on behalf of) they do need some good cover story to avoid perjuring themselves.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  In the 23 years DMCA has been active, not one single party has been hit with perjury for a false/"unauthorized" DMCA claim. Not one.
phkahler 5y ago
>> (especially given it very likely is just a cock up "Here's the hash of the file you're infringing." I mean, where did they get that from? It's a rather specific thing for a very specific file from a very specific source. How can that possibly be a mistake? At best it's a result of some automation that indiscriminately makes these claims, which doesn't fall under "cock up" in my book.
- rolph 5y ago
  i vaguely remember a project that was developing a file from hash application, the idea was to use an provided hash, and an arbitrary file to accompany a generated padding file that would be packed in so the whole torrent matched the hash. at about the same time there was a practice of a running padfile, that you would ammend every time you retorrented so that the hash would change and make it hard to kludge out the distribution network by tracking known hashes. in summary it think it is very possible to "forge" hash numbers and impersonate or obfusicate the content hash collision is rare, intentional hash mimicry maybe is not so rare.
xtat 5y ago
As I understand it bad faith is one of their core values.