Public Intelligence
February 24, 2010

As of February 24, 2010, the main Cryptome site at cryptome.org is no longer accessible and any requests via that domain return a 404 error message.  The site’s hosting was deactivated by Network Solutions at the request of Microsoft’s Anti-Piracy team in response to the publication of Microsoft Online’s Global Criminal Compliance Guide.*  Graeme Grant, a anti-piracy investigator working for Microsoft, served both Cryptome and Network Solutions with a takedown notice on February 22, 2010.  John Young, owner and administrator of cryptome.org, served a counterclaim on February 23, 2010 stating that the document “provides important information for the public to understand how Microsoft violates the trust placed in it by customers to protect their privacy and confidentiality of personal data and usage of Microsoft products. Microsoft is improperly using copyright violation claim to conceal this violation of customer trust, a purpose not intended nor supported by copyright law.”  Network Solutions responded on February 24, stating that the site would be disabled for “not less than 10 days, nor more than 14 business days following receipt of the Counter Notification. During this time, the complaining party must initiate litigation.”  This is supposedly in accordance with Network Solutions’ DMCA policy.

Microsoft’s unwarranted and reflexive use of DMCA takedown notices is appalling and emblematic of the company’s approach to the marketplace.  Rather than working with consumers to establish a relationship of trust, Microsoft has once again demonstrated its complete lack of accountability and openness to the public’s concerns.  Under the thin guise of “copyright infringement”, companies like Microsoft are able to manipulate  ISPs and legitimate businesses to abuse the rights of their customers.  Microsoft is one of the worst offenders in the field of blanket DMCA notices.  A simple search for “”Demand for Immediate Take-Down” Microsoft demonstrates the level to which Microsoft has abused copyright law in the U.S. and abroad.

The message this sends:

Anyone with money and an army of lawyers can control the dissemination of information. Even when there is a compelling reason for the public to have access to that information, such as the policies concerning retention of their own information, companies may simply invoke a set of laws and statues designed to protect the legitimate contributions of artists, intellectuals, and creators.

The Copyright Act of 1976, states that copyrights are applied to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”  The act further defines a “work of authorship” as any of the following:

1. literary works,
2. musical works, including any accompanying words,
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music,
4. pantomimes and choreographic works,
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

You will notice that none of these categories involve “corporate spying documents”.  In fact, it is difficult to understand the way in which a great deal of modern copyright claims can be made by most companies.  For example, the Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks case is a tremendous example.  In this instance, a U.S. judge removed access to the site’s main domain for the publication of the bank’s internal account information, revealing anonymizing trusts in the Cayman Islands.  The judge’s justification was infringement of the company’s trade secrets as well as their copyrights.  However, we ask you, where in the categories above do you imagine bank account information to fall into?  What about publicly damning information on offshore money laundering?  Even the broadest category of “literary works” is obviously referring to works of creative merit, that is works of an artistic nature, scientific studies, etc.  It does not seem that bank statements are “literary works”.  To quote from an upcoming study regarding copyright as a means of information control which will be released by Public Intelligence in the next few weeks:

There must be something original in the work which is capable of making it a work of authorship.  In fact, the word author comes from the Latin auctorem which literally means “one who causes to grow”.  The word is a form of the Latin word augere which means “to increase”.  An author is one who increases the sum of knowledge in a community by contributing an intellectual work which is able to be communicated to others within that community.  Copyright is a means of recognizing the contribution that such a work makes by providing a set of rights which allow the creator to be the one who benefits from their own work.

Microsoft Online’s Global Criminal Compliance Guide does not do this.  The Microsoft guide is a description of the ways in which the Microsoft Corporation retains your data, providing law enforcement easy access to some of your most intimate information, including private messages.  The publication of such material is clearly protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, regardless of any copyright claims.

…

* As a side note, the recent glut of new spying documents on Cryptome as well as the Microsoft Online’s Global Criminal Compliance Guide were taken from the same server on which Public Intelligence found the Network Intrusion Responder Program (NITRO) Course.  The files were a part of a 292 MB file containing all slides, documents, and information from the 2009 Crimes Against Children Conference.  While we do not begrudge Mr. Young for publishing these documents prior to us, which we had intended to do, we are concerned with the fact that access to the files had already been disabled at the time that we notified Cryptome regarding the U.S. Secret Service’s notices to us about the NITRO course.  This is clearly stated in the Secret Service messages and was subsequently verified by us.  In fact, there are only four ways that Mr. Young could have obtained the documents:

1. Via the owner of intelizone.com (not likely)
2. Via the Secret Service (not likely)
3. Via a visitor to both Cryptome and this site who had the foresight to download the 292 MB zip file, search through its contents, and systematically provide the documents to Mr. Young (less likely)
4. Via us (not true)

This perplexes us.  We have the entire 292 MB file and will likely make the information available in the coming days.

Related posts:

1. Cryptome releases large collection of 9/11 photos
2. Defense Contractor Allen-Vanguard Threatens Public Intelligence with Imprisonment
3. German government warns against using MS Explorer
4. U.S. Secret Service Requests Removal of Documents from Public Intelligence
5. Multiple Fusion Centers Request Removal of Documents from Public Intelligence