I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but of course they'll do it again. Even after settling these cases, they're ahead.
I haven't seen numbers for Comcast yet, however the damages to Verizon customers was estimated at $156 million. Verizon paid $64 million. By my math, that means Verizon is up about $90 million minus lawyers cost (and since the "winning" side's lawyers got $20 million, Verizon is still definitely ahead).
Until companies have to pay more than what they gained when they break the law, there will never be any incentive for them not to do it in the first place.
100% agree. This is why I keep coming back to TD, and why TD is my first choice for news.
It's also amazing to me that Mike and the other TD writers can fit so much more useful and informative information or commentary in a few short paragraphs than the "in-depth" articles on other sites that are 5 times as long because they've got so much useless filler.
Sad I missed reading this last week, but I have a different take on this. I think Google is playing the long game. I don't think you're giving Google enough credit.
Google is giving the studios enough rope to hang themselves with (as they've been doing with the newspaper publishers). As you mentioned, they are basically asking for a flood of bogus DMCA notices. And when there are so many bogus notices coming in - they have a case on how unreliable they are, how much of a burden it is, and how something needs to be done to fix the law.
Also, Google has repeatedly shown they are experts (in the long run) of preventing people from messing with their rankings. Whenever a SEO figures out some way to manipulate rankings against the good of the end users, the tactic is found and killed off - we have semi-regular stories on Techdirt of just this, don't we?
There probably will be unforeseen consequences and causalities, but I think Google can withstand them better than the studios and knows exactly what they're doing.
"Independent artists" as a term has been corrupted pretty heavily. There's so many independent artists on "independent labels" which really are still owned by the big guys, or have deals and contracts just as onerous as a typical music industry contract designed to screw over artists.
Artists who hold their own copyrights get 100% of the proceeds, while artists who have allowed someone else to hold it get whatever their contract says (if they're lucky).
The issue is why a security-disabling MitM-attack feature exists at all.
Because everyone's needs are different, and that feature is just a tool that has legitimate uses.
and just happens to allow that corporation to log all the emails that went through their firewall.
That is a perfectly legitimate use - if you've never worked in a highly regulated industry - like banking and financial services - then you might not be aware that there are regulations that require just that in some situations.
Calm down and read what I actually posted and not what you misinterpreted through that fog of anger.
I never said a misconfigured mail server would modify a packet in transit. I said that a misconfigured mail server or spam rules could explain the screenshot. I also said jumping to the conclusion of modified packets without evidence from both ends of the connection wasn't warranted based on the extremely brief information presented in the article. I'll stand by that judgement. Any claim requires evidence, and their claim of an ISP deliberatly breaking email encryption was a heavy one. And now since we have a plausible explanation of a default configuration on a router that could cause exactly what is shown, I'll stand by my first comment: Stupidity, not Malice.
And I'll be sure to let my boss know I should be fired because some anonymous person on the internet said so.
I think that's a mostly specious argument. Even if there are some bad file names, most are going to be what they claim to be.
A much better argument is that it was the users of Mega that uploaded and shared those files. If it was the users, the Mega is just a service provider, and since they took down links in accordance with the DMCA, they're safe.
If the government can actually show that Kim or other Mega executives uploaded those files, then they're in the same position of Grooveshark. However, it's been almost 3 years since the raid, and the if the government had evidence, they would have said so long before now, just to shut the internet up. That they haven't is telling.
Then find me a case even vaguely similar to Megaupload, where a service provider was found guilty of aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement despite no one else even being charged with the direct infringement.
No one under the guise of stupidity alters packets in transit
Happens all the time. Misconfigured mail servers or aggressive spam rules could both explain the responses given.
in attempts to disable security.
It remains to be seen if that was the intent. There's just not enough data given to lead to a conclusion here. We don't know the methodology of the tests. We don't know what service this result was from. All we know for sure based on the graphic and description is that they did a telnet session over port 25 to apps.[redacted].com and got some admittedly odd results. Is the redacted server under Golden Frog's control, or is it the ISP's or someone else's?
My point isn't that there isn't malice here, but before jumping to the 'this mobile wireless service is disabling encryption on my email' you should examine other possibilities and give more evidence than a single screenshot. If you think packets are being altered, then proof I would expect would be packet capture logs from both sides showing that. That's not a new concept - its how the P2P forced reset packets Comcast was injecting were discovered.
I hope this is stupidity over malice. I wonder if someone's spam prevention measures are ill-thought-out. It's not quite clear what's happening from the graphic or description, and I can't see the filing (at work) if it's got additional details.
The obvious response to your statement is that no one needs to "prove his innocence" in a free country. If the government wants his stuff or to deprive him of his freedom, it needs to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.