SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Tuesday February 03 2015, @08:20PM
from the pics-or-it-didn't-happen-oh-wait... dept.
from the pics-or-it-didn't-happen-oh-wait... dept.
Lucasfilm is demanding that popular photo-sharing site ImageShack ( https://imageshack.com ) cough up the identity of one of its users the studio says uploaded an infringing photograph connected to its upcoming Star Wars movie.
ImageShack has already deleted the picture from user "Darth-Simi" whose account was used to post a picture that was described as a villain from the upcoming "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" movie. The image included a glimpse of a red crossguard lightsaber like the one shown in a teaser trailer officially released in November. Lucasfilm's parent company, Disney, is seeking a San Francisco federal court to order California-based ImageShack to turn over Darth-Simi's personal information.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Lucasfilm Heads to Court to Unmask "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Image Leaker
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
All this time I've been VIEWING a RUSSIAN MIDGET SODOMIZE a HOUSECAT!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday February 03 2015, @09:23PM
The difference in number of cries of "oppression" when following proper procedure versus not is almost(but not quite, thanks for being a sane one) zero. That background noise is actually part of what makes violating rights so much easier, because collectively, as citizens engaged in discourse, we love to cry wolf.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:04PM
What makes them think this will lead anywhere other than to a dummy email address, and a bounced IP address.
To me it seems like a pointless exercise.
If I were going to leak something like this it would be via a some offshore server, that was only accessed via a vpn through some other off shore server which was only accessed via ssh from some third server, etc.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:21PM
Personally, I'd do it from a Starbucks with a spoofed MAC address. A lot simpler and almost certainly just as effective.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:03AM
Ever notice how many cameras there are in starbucks?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @08:43AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @04:06PM
Using cameras won't magically enable you to see everyone's laptops, and by the time they find out which Starbucks, the footage might be gone.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:22PM
Most people don't think that far ahead, nor do they have the technical proficiency to pull it off.
(Score: 4, Funny) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday February 03 2015, @10:27PM
...and we all know based on all the TV network cop dramas that none of this matters, as in seconds they can always find your street address, the gps coordinates at which the picture was taken, and your brand of underwear.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @12:15AM
> What makes them think this will lead anywhere other than to a dummy email address, and a bounced IP address.
Probably the fact that the guy chose a username that suggests where he lives - simi valley which is hollywood adjacent.
Sure, you could argue that's probably deliberate misinformation but given that very few people have a clue about opsec, I'm going to argue that it probably isn't.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday February 04 2015, @04:09PM
The difference in number of cries of "oppression" when following proper procedure versus not is almost(but not quite, thanks for being a sane one) zero.
Too bad the "proper procedure" often ends up with people being given ridiculous punishments whenever copyright is involved. That could be one factor.
That background noise is actually part of what makes violating rights so much easier, because collectively, as citizens engaged in discourse, we love to cry wolf.
There truly is a wolf here, and that wolf would be scummy corporations and the politicians in their pockets.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Wednesday February 04 2015, @04:56PM
You. You're the problem.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday February 04 2015, @11:27PM
I don't think acknowledging the fact that copyright enforcement often results in unjust punishments is a problem at all. It's good that they're at least going through the proper channels, but that is all that is good about this.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday February 05 2015, @02:43PM
Okay, fine. I was too harsh.