| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri Apr 8 02:26:23 2005 From: security at brvenik.com (Jason) Subject: Re: Case ID 51560370 - Notice of ClaimedInfringement IANAL but it seems this thought process is broken. Jason Coombs wrote: > Come on, people, get a clue. > > The copyright owner has authorized the forensic investigators to > download the infringing material. If it was there, according to a > forensic investigator, then you have to prove it was not. This position does not hold water, there is no way for them to not break the same laws they would be attempting to enforce by performing the investigation from a remote location and without a valid search warrant. You do not have to prove that you did not have the content, you only have to prove that you have content that appears very similar to the remote reviewer. If you were to place a copyrighted work of your own there then would they be forced to download it and break the law in order to prove that it was not the other copyright owners property? If they show in the logs as having attempted a download does this make them guilty? It is as simple as creating a server that will return filenames and hashes found on the network but actually provide /dev/random for the download or your copyrighted content with an engineered hash collision. It only takes one case to prevent the civil suit from being filed. To file the suit would be admitting to having broken the law. You cannot bring suit when the basis of the suit is itself illegal activity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists