MediaDefender Speaks

R

Rich Tate

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
5,955
Apparently the rampant reports of the MPAA using a fake site to attempt to catch pirates may not be quite truthful. According to the CEO of MediaDefender, the company responsible for the site, it had nothing to do with any lawsuits, and was not even meant for public use.

MiiVi has nothing to do with the MPAA, the RIAA, or any music or movie studio. It was not even meant to be used by the general public at this time. MiiVi has nothing to do with lawsuits. The original story is a complete fabrication.
Click to expand...
 
ahahahhaahhahaah
lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
 
'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I am the great and powerful OZ!'
 
imagine, the **aa's are in denial. whoodathunkit?

who to believe, who to believe...? :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, sure. I'd like to see someone take the MPAA and MediaDefender to court for entrapment.

We all know they're full of shit. Like a company called MediaDefender would make a website for internal use that advertises free movie downloads.:rolleyes:
 
Hmm, so they created that "internal" site for the the purpose of?? A "tool" they were working on, that got unwrapped too soon perhaps?? What other purpose could they have for a site like that considering what they do for a living??

Effects me little, I don't download movies or music, legal or otherwise, but I hate to see further invasions into what little privacy we have left..
 
The load in my toilet every morning smells better than the bullshit that's coming out of their mouths right now.
 
hahaha

Sounds to me like they simply got caught with their pants down, and are now trying to put a little spin on it to save face. :rolleyes:
 
So... a public website is not supposed to be viewed by the public? Who's fault is that? These people are so asinine, it makes me wonder if there's some piracy advocate working in there, purposely trying to make them look dumb.
 
jasonstjohn said:
Yeah, sure. I'd like to see someone take the MPAA and MediaDefender to court for entrapment.
Click to expand...

Except, well, you know, the laws regarding entrapment only have to do with Law Enforcement, and have no bearing on a civil suit relating to Copyright Infringement :rolleyes:
 
<i>"It was not even meant to be used by the general public <b>at this"</b></i>

The statment is more telling than what they want it to say not ment to be used by the general public at this time? What the heck does that mean? So this site was to be used by the limited public, targeted people, perhaps its just a cover?


Saying not ment for use by the general public <i>at this time</i> seems to suggest that at one point the site would be used be used and that its intended use isn't that far from what it is now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top