Quote:
Record labels have also turned to Los Angeles technology firm MediaDefender Inc., which floods peer-to-peer services with decoy songs in an attempt to crowd out copyrighted material.
MediaDefender president Randy Saaf said the company can also block downloads through a technique called "interdiction," which closes off a user's hard drive to others on the network.
The industry has used the decoy service heavily, to the point where nine out of ten versions on a peer-to-peer network may be empty shells, he said. Interdiction has been less popular, he said, as it may run afoul of anti-hacking laws.
The part that seems wrong to me is "interdiction". I want to know exactly what "interdiction" is, and why they have the right to do it. By using "interdiction" the RIAA and Media Defender are saying that it is OK for them to break the law because it is for a good reason. That kind of attitude of taking the law into your own hands is commonly looked down upon by us here at Anti-Online. What Media Defender does is exactly the same as the people that crack web sites to post political messages, and the people that DOS sites that break the law. They are using the law as an excuse to break the law. Now my question is how come Media Defender can get away with these type of actions, while the rest of the world can't? I think that these actions are commonly looked over simply because it is a corporation that backs them. If this was a single individual, chances are he would have already been to court, and given punishment.