james holden

This has been the top-ranked download site for the FairUse4WM utility for some time now. It’s served up over 45,000 copies of the utility since I put the page up and there’s no sign of demand slowing down. Now, some months have passed, and it was widely reported in the media that Microsoft was sending takedown (although curiously not DMCA takedown) notices to sites hosting copies of the utility, and many sites did indeed disappear, but so far I’ve not heard anything from anybody regarding the hosting of the file.

I don’t use Windows - it just doesn’t do the things I need a computer to do for me - but I was sufficiently irritated that people were getting a raw deal on the music they’d purchased that I was prepared to put my neck on the line and host the file, fully expecting to be nastygrammed at some point.

It’s not that I’m intending to tempt fate by dragging the issue up, but enough time has passed for me to call bullshit on the presumption that Microsoft is behind the notices. Let’s examine the facts:

* Sites reporting the news noted that the notices were sent on behalf of Microsoft by so-called Internet Investigator “James Young”.

Now, this James Young chap seems to have sent a few takedown notices for a handful of cracks and keygen type tools, but not much else. I have no idea of determining whether or not he really is acting on behalf of Microsoft as he claims.

* The site the takedown notices originate from doesn’t appear affiliated with Microsoft.

microsoft-antipiracy.com, the site the takedown notices have originated from was registered via a UK consumer ISP, Nildram. The site is also hosted by them in UK. Mail for the domain also goes to mailboxes on Nildram’s servers. If this were a bona-fide Microsoft operation, I’m quite sure the hosting arrangements would be different.

* There has been no comment from Microsoft on the notices.

Microsoft have consistently stayed silent on the whole subject, apart from reassuring their partners that they’ll fix their crummy DRM again and again if they have to.

* The takedown notices don’t bear any legal weight.

Even when sending notices to US sites (jamesholden.net is hosted in the US, but I’m a British citizen living in the UK), the DMCA is not invoked. The boilerplate is purely a request to remove the offending file, with no clear legal threat.

So, I assert that Microsoft isn’t responsible for the takedown notices, and that James Young isn’t acting on behalf of Microsoft. I suspect that Microsoft turns a blind eye to his misguided vigilante notices, preferring to take comfort in the fact that he’s a volunteer cog in the Microsoft FUD machine.

…and what the hell is an “Internet Investigator” anyway?