What is Digg?153 Comments
- spinchange, on 06/02/2008, -3/+524Wait a minute, here: Media Defender's business practices are wrong and this is an opportunity make them stop. Rev3 is a victim of a DDoS attack from them. If they need a legal defense fund to sue these assbags and bury them, I'm pretty confident their fans and lot of people on net would get behind them. Digg it if you agree.
- Neticule, on 06/02/2008, -4/+201oh my zeus I cant believe I am actually hearing this.
Its like David versus Goliath, except this time David decides that the fight isn't worth it this time.
ITS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY! If you take up legal action, I am sure you can get donations from PLENTY of internet users to support your case. When I read the first story, I was so excited for the next update, to see what kind of ***** MD would get into for ddos'ing a LEGAL torrent host for days, and now I hear... Its not worth it? - 9mmCensor, on 06/02/2008, -2/+101Fight the good fight.
- darkened, on 06/02/2008, -0/+95Fine don't sue them, pursue criminal charges with the FBI that is free.
- compu73rg33k, on 06/02/2008, -2/+85Yeah, what the hell Rev3? These ***** have been committing crimes all over the internet, suing the same general user base that the Rev3 network relies on, and when they directly target Rev3, there's no lawsuit? If they want to live by the sword, why not seize the opportunity to have them die by the sword?!
- WiseWeasel, on 06/02/2008, -1/+71It would be worth it for us; I'm sure a donation drive to the cause would be quite successful, and would bring a lot of extremely positive publicity to Rev3. EFF would likely provide legal support for such a case as well. What a huge missed opportunity for Rev3. It really makes you wonder about how sane Louderback is, if he's turning down such a huge opportunity for free publicity falling in his lap like this. The actual damages awarded are completely secondary to the attention the lawsuit would attract. Milk it for what it's worth, buddy! We're all behind you!
- VanD, on 06/02/2008, -0/+58I would donate to help the cause!
- david76, on 06/02/2008, -0/+54Rev3's case is civil. The FBI's is criminal. The FBI's case is worth persuing because it can result in charges which shut down the operations. The civil case, unless it bankrupts them, likely won't.
- billizm, on 06/02/2008, -2/+45I would personally donate $5 to this cause.
- UU7a, on 06/02/2008, -2/+38They're a business, that's it.. not some "cool" organisation. But it's sad that they would not stand up for whats right.
- WhoRadley, on 06/02/2008, -3/+38Damn.
- sinrtb, on 06/02/2008, -0/+33the problem is they won't be prosecuted at all.
- Skooma714, on 06/02/2008, -0/+31Hacking and network disruption: Only illegal if you are poor.
- DteK, on 06/02/2008, -0/+25Exactly, its the principle of the matter not how much damage they actually did. Rev3 has a chance to set a precedent and hold this company and their shady tactics up to the light. I'm a little disappointed they are going to let this opportunity get away. Not to mention that MD would no doubt bring a lawsuit against Rev3 if they had even a small reason to do so.
- DigitAl56K, on 06/02/2008, -0/+22Maybe Rev3 won't sue them, but the FBI should still prosecute them.
- slonkak, on 06/02/2008, -0/+18I listened to TWiT, and it sounded like Jim was not going to pursue anything "at this time." He made mention of the possibility if the FBI thinks he should. I hope, for all of our sakes, that they put MediaDefender out of business.
- WiseWeasel, on 06/02/2008, -0/+18Nice troll, *****. This was a legitimate business harmed by MediaDefender, not "pirates".
- SIRBERUS, on 06/02/2008, -1/+18I think its a bit pathetic that the original article by the CEO made it seem like what MD did was so horrible, especially if it happened to a hospital or something else, yaddah yaddah yaddah.
But then what does Revision3 do when they have the opportunity to help stop MD's evil practices?
They puss out.
Good job for pointing out how bad MD is yet doing nothing to stop them, Revision3. - threepio, on 06/02/2008, -3/+18If I were given the choice about fighting a time consuming, money draining protracted legal battle or operating my business the way I wanted you can be sure I'd ditch the lawsuit too.
This is a job for the FBI. MediaDefender broke the law and they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of that law. - vvaduva, on 06/02/2008, -0/+14I don't get it - why not file charges and let a prosecutor handle it?
- rock774, on 06/02/2008, -1/+14How about a class action lawsuit from all the Revision3 users for not being able to get on the site !
- jlee2081, on 06/02/2008, -1/+14Is there a hole in their case?
- bluesatin, on 06/02/2008, -2/+15I have to agree with spinchange and Neticule, it's not just about the company, it's about the greater good that might come of a lawsuit.
- me1.0, on 06/02/2008, -5/+17It's pretty simple. There were probably less than legit trackers on there also and this would have to come out in a trial. Rev3 doesn't want or need that. Totally speculation on my part, but you don't sue when someone steals your weed.
Apparently the FBI is investigating, but Rev3 servers would most likely be subpoenaed in a civil suit whereas in a criminal investigation all the FBI needs are MediaDefenders servers. - twiztidsinz, on 06/02/2008, -0/+11It'd be completely worth it to bring down their name and set a precedence for other people, smaller than Revision3 whom become subject to this sort of action.
MediaDefenders 'response' was complete and total ***** covered lies. They are pushing their limits to see how far they can go before someone pushes back. NOT pursuing this is -exactly- what they want.
I'm pretty damned sure that if Revision3 opened up a paypal account to be used to cover the court costs and it was submitted as a Digg article they'd get enough donations to cover the bill and then some not to mention organizations like the EFF who I'd venture the guess would salivate over a case like this. - goofygarber, on 06/02/2008, -6/+17They're either lazy or they lied about Mediadefender (or at least exaggerated).
This is no good. - richardhenry, on 06/02/2008, -1/+11Second that. Where am I sending it?
- Snakedal337, on 06/02/2008, -2/+12The hell with that! These guys need Criminal Charges brought against them and you need compensation for the DAYS worth of lost revenue! How could Rev3 allow them to get away with this?
I'll donate to any fund willing to take these guys on. - ralphthemagi, on 06/02/2008, -0/+10It is about the money.
- amaranth, on 06/02/2008, -1/+11The CEO is right. He's not worried about the amount of money he would get from the lawsuit. He is worried about the time/effort/money this would cost Rev3. If the court battle were extended it could end up costing the company more than just what was lost from the attack. He did make the comment on Twit that if the FBI asked he would press criminal charges.
I'd love to see media defender strung up in the public square but not at the cost of Rev3. Why hasnt the internets destroyed these ppl yet? Where's the digital angry mob with 8bit torches and pitch forks? - t3rmv3locity, on 06/03/2008, -0/+10I'd donate 50.
- kuwan, on 06/02/2008, -1/+10"Digg if you agree" != $$$
- Tenoq, on 06/02/2008, -0/+9Time to fix the legal system, clearly.
- Sraza, on 06/02/2008, -0/+8Your speculation is true. I just listened to the most recent twit podcast which had Louderback, Patrick Norton, and Martin Sergeant on. Louderback kind of danced around Leo bringing up Media Defender's claim that they were running illegal torrents. While I doubt they were running it I wouldn't doubt someone else was using it because it was open.
Not sure I like your analogy though. Rev3 may have done nothing wrong other than leaving the door unlocked. Just because someone was doing something illegal doesn't mean Media Defender can trash the place. - SuperJimmyJimbo, on 06/02/2008, -2/+10It's an open/shut case, they just need the right attorney. I hear this guy is pretty good : http://www.bluthfamily.com/characters/barry-zucker ...
- Aharoni, on 06/02/2008, -2/+10I think Revision 3 are overlooking how much business such a lawsuit can bring them. Most of the mainstream folks haven't heard of Rev3 or it's shows. The amount of news and blog exposure such a lawsuit will bring will put them in the center of attention = drive business.
You're missing a business OPPORTUNITY here guys! - sinrtb, on 06/02/2008, -5/+12So it seems that anyone with CEO in their job title is douche. Thats too bad.
- threepio, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7They ARE doing that.
- lexbaby, on 06/02/2008, -1/+8Rev3 is a media company. A small media company by Louderback's own admission. Do you really think they want to make enemies with the big players? Sure, they're pretty ticked at MD, but when it comes down to a civil suit, that have so much to lose and little to gain.
Business is business, even for the little guys. Alliances are built. Favors are asked. Rev3 will not pursue this and I'm sure they'll become more and more reluctant to even talk about this incident from now on. - cmapes2, on 06/02/2008, -0/+7Your equation seems a little bit off.
Here, I'll help you out:
(You + DDoS Attack on MediaDefender) = Federal Pound-Me-in-the-Ass Prison - rhkaloge, on 06/02/2008, -0/+6I think you wankers need to realize a lawsuit, no matter how "open and shut" (and nothing in law is ever "open and shut") is a drain on the resources of even the biggest company, no matter the outcome. Forget the money, how about the time Louderback would have to devote to this that isn't spent running his company. Let Rev3 concentrate on developing a business and let the FBI deal with the criminals.
- lexbaby, on 06/02/2008, -1/+7You're talking about CRIMINAL charges which the FBI might still pursue and I'm sure Rev3 would cooperate with.
What Louderback said is that they won't pursue a CIVIL case against MD. - Hollandboy, on 06/02/2008, -3/+9The FBI is investigating it!
- graemee, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6REV3 - I'll I can say is "Per packet - per packet"
- mav7469, on 06/02/2008, -1/+6I think that Revision 3 should sue with the help of the EFF. I agree with Neticule, it is not about the money. It is about the fact that Media Defender must be sent a message that they can not just bring down a web site. Mistake or not. If you do not sue Media Defender and at least get them to admit publicly why they did it and make them pay either monetarily or with criminal charges, then you can not legally go against anyone else who attempts a DOS attack against you to stop access to your web site. If this was a U.S. citizen who did this and you knew who it was, would you be so lenient?
- Weaselboy, on 06/02/2008, -0/+5This has been turned over to the FBI for criminal investigation. Rev3 would be tainting the criminal case of they pursue civil damages. Makes it look like they just want the money and not criminal justice. This is the better way to go for them.
- logicalnoise, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5maybe maybe not. On Twit it was apparent that the CEO just didn't think it was worth the company's tiome and money but he is cooperating with the FBI and will see if their interested in helping.
- bassman12593, on 06/02/2008, -2/+6Goddammit Jim, you need to get them back, or better yet, to all the viewers of Revision3 and users of Digg: 10:00 PM GMT/5:00 PM Eastern/4:00 PM Central/3:00 PM Mountain/2:00 PM Pacific/1:00 PM Alaskan/12:00 AM Hawaiian June 4, 2008, DIGG EFFECT!!!
Mediadefender.com - spidoman, on 06/02/2008, -1/+5My guess is they have a couple of movies being shared on their network, thus don't want to deal with it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is