Louderback, former editor in chief of PC Magazine, believes MediaDefender launched the attack in a misguided attempt to frustrate pirates who appear to have in the past harnessed Revision3's server.

"If we're doing something that is possibly helping people to share copyrighted stuff, we would shut it down in a second," he said in an interview Thursday.

Revision3 uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute legal, professionally produced programs. From the beginning of April until last week, the company used a tracker that was open to outside users.

MediaDefender discovered the tracking server and suspected that copyright infringers were also harnessing it. MediaDefender then used it to plant phony videos and music online--a technique the company deploys to frustrate copyright infringers.

Last week, when Revision3 realized that outside parties were using the tracker, the company closed access to it. Shortly after that, the denial of service attack started.

said by Dodge :

"MediaDefender discovered the tracking server and suspected that copyright infringers were also harnessing it"

There is not proof that it was, at least not in what you wrote.

Randy Saaf, MediaDefenders CEO, tells us that illegal file traders were taking advantage of the same loophole, a charge Louderback(CEO of Revision3) doesn’t dispute.

said by Dodge :

"Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack."

Where do they admit that? They said they closed the back door and MediaDefender threw an "epic tantrum".

Once Louderback reached MediaDefenders, the company was able to stop the requests, which happened automatically when Revision 3 closed the hole. But it took all weekend to reach someone, Louderback tells us. And while he doesn’t object to MediaDefender’s tactics when it comes to combating piracy – which are perfectly legal – Louderback wishes the company had “checked to see that we are a legitimate site first.”

said by TKJunkMail :

»blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/30···english/»blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/30···english/

said by TKJunkMail :

While this doesn't get MediaDefender off the hook for the attack, it also removes Revision3 from the ranks of the pure and innocent. Their tracker was being used by pirates and they took a good long time doing anything about it.

Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack.

said by knightmb :

I don't think they were pure and innocent either, but neither is anyone else that I know of. I see it more of a matter of principal; they found a problem and fixed it. It may have taken a while, but that doesn't excuse Media Defender from using the same exploit that the pirates were using.

If my local bank ATM had a bug in which I withdraw $20 and it gives me $500 instead at no charge to my account, it shouldn't mean that I should come by the ATM every day to take out my $500 until one day they fix the bug, so I ram my car into the ATM in anger.

said by TKJunkMail :

Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack.

said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :

I agree.

Automating malicious intent isn't a way to avoid responsibility and it doesn't make the harm done unintentional.

Are they legal? And if so why should society tolerate the government legitimizing what is private company vigilantism using attacks that would normally be considered criminal.
We should not have private enforcers, above the law in their crusade to stamp out illegal behavior.

said by TKJunkMail :

While this doesn't get MediaDefender off the hook for the attack, it also removes Revision3 from the ranks of the pure and innocent.