Anti-piracy Company shuts down Revision3 – it can happen to you too!
Jim Louderback, CEO of Revision3 an internet site that aims to be the first real U.S. internet television (or monitor) network, describes here how an (in)famous company known for its contract work for the MPAA and RIAA to counter internet piracy purposefully or accidentally shut down the Revision3 business over the long Memorial Day weekend.
According to the blog post Dimitri Villard, CEO of ArtistsDirect (ARTD.OB) and Ben Grodsky, Vice President of Operations at Media Defender “willingly admitted to abusing Revision3’s network, over a period of months, by injecting a broad array of torrents into our tracking server.” That is an amazing confession and seemingly made without hesitation or any shred of remorse. That may be a problematic statement against interest if charges or litigation follows.
How was the infiltration accomplished? It was simple – Revision3 configured “the server to track hashes only – to improve performance and stability. That, in turn, opened up a back door which allowed their [Media Defender] networking experts to exploit its capabilities….”
Louderback mentions there are 12 laws that are implicated by the activities that were admitted to by the officers of ArtistsDirect and Media Defender. Let us look at one of the laws expressly mentioned in the Revision3 blog post – The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). That law was enacted and is the only federal antifraud statute directed solely at computer crime. The interesting aspect of this federal law is that it provides both criminal and civil remedies. This means the government can send persons convicted of an offense to FEDERAL PRISON (this is not your local jail offense) AND an injured party can sue civilly to recover for the damage cause.
Penalties
Lets say a person is convicted of a crime under the CFAA. That person is in for a world of hurt and at a minimum may be subject to a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A second conviction under is punishable by imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
The civil penalty relevant to this issue that can be recovered by a person who sues for damages is limited to economic injuries only. In essence, this means losses can be covered but damages intended to punish a wrongdoer can not be awarded. If Revision3 wants to sue Media Defender they must do so in the next two years.
What is a violation?
An offense is committed by a person if he intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage; and, among other things, causes a loss of $5000. A loss includes the cost of responding to improper access or attack.
So, for the government to convict the officers of Media Defender and SEND THEM TO PRISON, the government would have to prove MediaDefender:
1) intentionally accessed a Revision3 protected computer;
2 ) did not have authorization to Revision3 to access the servers; and
3) caused damage because of that conduct.
Don’t worry about the term protected computer, it just means a computer which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States. That is any commercial computer hooked up to the internet.
Scary for Media Defender Officers
The allegations (and the facts relayed by Mr. Louderback are just that at this moment) if true could very well lead to a conviction. A conviction would carry with it possible imprisonment. Also, the company can be civilly sued, one might wonder what the personal liability may be for criminal activity performed at the direction of a partner.
If a person is the type to root against anti-piracy companies there must be great disappointment that Texas is not the state covering this conduct. Texas has a provision in its Penal Code called the law of parties. In essence a person or company acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of an offense is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. If such a law exists in California (and if California’s cyberlaw has criminal penalties) then the RIAA and MPAA companies that HIRED Media Defender could also be dragged into the criminal inquiry.
Not over yet
This is clearly not the end of this story. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
The business axiom to take from this is overaggressive approaches to any business plan or model is a vice not a virtue.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment