Copyright notice from ISP for pirating...Linux?(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Copyright notice from ISP for pirating...Linux?
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/nkztyv/copyright_notice_from_isp_for_pirating_linux_is/
7 comments
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27287716
The reddit thread mentionned in the article [0] is more interesting. Notably it mentions who filed it (OpSecSecurity) and apparently they claim their DMCA process was spoofed.
[0] : https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/nkztyv/copyright_not...
EDIT : Link got changed to reddit already.
[0] : https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/nkztyv/copyright_not...
EDIT : Link got changed to reddit already.
I wonder if DMCA-leeches like "OpSecSecurity" realise that their misconduct opens the door for an easy-out strategy by "pirates" like the following:
- upload a copyrighted work to the 'net under the name 'ubuntu-[some-old-edition]-[some-odd-architecture].iso' - share the BTIH (bittorrent hash_) on a forum giving the true name - sit back and watch downloaders use the simple defence of "I just downloaded Ubuntu, what are you talking about?"
Using an older release and an odd architecture makes sure those looking for the real Ubuntu (or Debian or Wikipedia or whatever, as long as it is well-known and freely distributable) are not likely to end up downloading/sharing the latest bit of Hollywood drivel.
They will lose this fight, they probably know they will end up losing it but they're willing to leech their customers for their "services".
- upload a copyrighted work to the 'net under the name 'ubuntu-[some-old-edition]-[some-odd-architecture].iso' - share the BTIH (bittorrent hash_) on a forum giving the true name - sit back and watch downloaders use the simple defence of "I just downloaded Ubuntu, what are you talking about?"
Using an older release and an odd architecture makes sure those looking for the real Ubuntu (or Debian or Wikipedia or whatever, as long as it is well-known and freely distributable) are not likely to end up downloading/sharing the latest bit of Hollywood drivel.
They will lose this fight, they probably know they will end up losing it but they're willing to leech their customers for their "services".
The OpsSecSecurity.com response: https://twitter.com/OpSecSecurity/status/1397695279932096515
Amusing. They claim to have 'incontrovertible evidence' that it wasn't them. That is literally impossible, unless they have incontrovertible evidence who did it and that that party did not acton their behalf.
E.g. if their proof is that these claims were sent from a gmail address they would need to be able to either identify the actual sender or prove that none of their staff or agents could have access to that account.
E.g. if their proof is that these claims were sent from a gmail address they would need to be able to either identify the actual sender or prove that none of their staff or agents could have access to that account.
Also pretty amazing they admit it’s happened before. Yet
https://web.archive.org/web/20210526232505/https://twitter.c...
Yet their dmarc is still set to p=None
https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dmarc%3aOpsecsec...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210526232505/https://twitter.c...
Yet their dmarc is still set to p=None
https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dmarc%3aOpsecsec...
[deleted]