P2P Scammers' Lawyers Attack Open Source Team 157
An anonymous reader writes "Late last year a company affiliated with the French RIAA hijacked the Shareaza.com domain name from the original, open source project's owner. They are passing off their own for-pay software, which violates the GPL, as the real thing. Now, having stolen the Shareaza project's identity, the scammers are threatening legal action to shut down the real open source team."
direct link (Score:2)
though I didn't find it very interesting..
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I should say, that the comments that the lawyers were objecting to was a thread regarding setting up the real shareaza program to query the www.shareaza.com [shareaza.com] site in order to perform a distributed denial of service attack on it and put it under.
Of course, suggesting any such thing must be illegal, and organising such an attack even in retaliation is not going to be good for your karma.
IMHO they should just have changed the name of the program and got a new domain name
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:direct link (Score:4, Interesting)
History of the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet:
When it was first published in 1830 by Lars Johan Hierta, it was a tabloid that reported news and also criticised the new Swedish king Charles XIV John. The king stopped Aftonbladet from being printed and banned it, this was answered by starting the new newspaper "Det andra Aftonbladet" (The second Aftonbladet), which was subsequently banned, followed by new versions named in similar fashion until the newspaper had been renamed 26 times, after which it was allowed by the king. [1]
Kinda similar.
Re:direct link (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be cool if they implemented their p2p software do DoS the hijackers. Is that illegal to think it would be cool?
Yeah, they should be the ones to change. I think they should have registered their name as a trademark and you wouldn't be suggesting that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
is "conspiring to murder" not illegal?
how about "conspiring to commit crime XYZ" in general? I wouldn't like to say where the limits are..
personally, I could care less for the illegality (sorry if that wasn't clear :) but the karma hit is significant. don't let them take it, just give it to them and move on. don't forget, that these guys are content creators and as such will always be at the front of the queue
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But be willing to submit to the punishment meted out by the people with the guns, and good luck getting CNN to pay attention to a protest that depends on an informed, educated, politically active electorate (or whatever).
Re: (Score:2)
But many serious crime have extra paragraphs stating that inciting others to perform the crime, or even just failing to try to PREVENT others from doing the crime is in itself illegal.
So the answer is, it depends on the crime.
If I -know- that you're planning to commit murder, but I do nothing to prevent it, I can be punished for this.
But if I know that you're planning to drive 60mph where only 50 is allowed, and I do nothing to prevent it, I cannot be punished for this.
Eve
Don't do that! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't do that! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't do that! (Score:5, Funny)
Sean Connery? is that you?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
WARNING: this code is provided for educational purposes only. don't EXECUTE IT!
(unless, of course, you are bored after reading TFA and feel like reading something interesting, like for example the shareaza.com website 1000 times in a row)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe not accessible ... (Score:5, Informative)
Andy
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. I use Firefox and do not get any kind of warning when I visit the site in question.
So I reported it.
From now on, I shall refer to the site as thieving bastards [shareaza.com].
Accessed it with Firefox... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The requested page is currently unavailable Access to this site (http://www.shareaza.com/) has been limited due to the rating of its content (copyright infringment,digital music).
Re: (Score:2)
p2p-freebie.com (Score:2)
These guys are after Limewire too it seems.
Reminds me of a story... (Score:4, Funny)
Reminds me of that time when... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reminds me of a story... (Score:5, Informative)
A hundred years ago the same thing was happening here in the US. Intellectual property law enforcement was non-existent in practice. US companies were ripping off European IP and then grew to the point when they needed their own R&D to compete with other US companies doing the same thing. Oddly enough, right about the time when serious commercial research was starting to take off in the States, the US IP laws grew some real teeth.
History is a funny thing. It almost seems like it keeps repeating itself.
Re: (Score:2)
A Japanese manufacturing town renamed itself "Usa". Then the manufacturers located in that town put stickers on their products saying "Made in usa".
Interesting move by the French RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't skip that step. You're allowed to make GPL into closeware ("nobody but me is allowed to use it"), but you can't distribute it to others without sources.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway after digging around they rebranded their own client they use for their other networks thus didn't violate the GPL at all. Maybe the open source guys can register the name as a trademark and go after them that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, TFA didn't have much detail about how this all happened, but if it's accurate and another organization has essentially taken over Shareaza's name, then it sounds like they have a pretty solid cyber-squatting case. ICANN's domain name dispute policy [wikipedia.org] is primarily based on bad-faith use of a domain name, and commercial gain using the original domain name holder's reputation is pretty much a slam dunk for evidence
Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of an open source program the copyright holders could easily comprise several thousand "people". It would only take one to go after an infringer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First they work to strengthen copyright laws to the point that they make capital murder seem less a crime,
Stupid move. So, if you're accused of violating some copyright, maybe killing a lawyer or 2 may get out of the original charge (for lack of "witnesses"...), and you'll be stuck with the lesser charge of capital murder...
THEN they help a group which targets a GPL piece of software, and as we all know, the GPL utilizes the full strength of Copyright for it's own power...
Well, the only trouble is that the shysters didn't violate copyright law, but rather trademark law. These are not the same thing, (un)fortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the act of the SPFF is related to the domain transfer is only speculation. It sounds more like a hobbyist who maintained the site was not careful with it and the domain was grabbed by the for profit people of iMesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or are they offering binaries of the GPLed product as their own?
Interesting name... (Score:2, Funny)
Smoking in the licence agreement... (Score:5, Funny)
Smoking overall is bad for you. It gives you bad breath and may kill you sooner than you'd expect." - the licence agreement [shareaza.com]
All I can say is: WTF?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me sick.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so black & white (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're violating the GPL then sue them for that, but don't complain if they come at you for something that's likely illegal where ever you live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see how having a thread indicating that such an idea is illegal (if not immoral) would be illegal. Forcing the sites admins to remove such a thread would (besides being an act of censorship) cause the admins additional pain because somebody else would come up with the same idea
Do better than that (Score:5, Insightful)
ShareazaV4, is totally fake. It violates the open-source license, GPL (Version 2) in many ways. Also, it isn't free nor open source. It requires a subscription and installs a suspicious toolbar. You can read what happened from this reference list: http://tinyurl.com/2cx7ff [tinyurl.com]
.
Please, update your Shareaza version to Shareaza 2.3.1.0, and change the site from Shareaza.com to the new official site at Sourceforge: http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
The short version of why this is happening from the article:
A company trying to pass itself off as vendors of the open-source file-sharing software Shareaza, has set the legal dogs on the real Shareaza forum. Discordia Ltd, who earlier turned Bearshare and iMesh into pay services, demanded action after a member of the real Shareaza forum suggested a DOS attack on the site.
This is due to this suggestion by real shareaza forum user [66.102.9.104] :
Make it so the real shareaza program queries their site [shareaza.com] every couple of seconds. As an individual user this won't take much personal bandwidth. But all shareaza users worldwide put together should be enough to kill their server and they won't really be able to do much since it will be coming from so many different IPs.
The letter by the shyster hired by the thief/impersonator of the shareaza domain and project:
This law firm represents Discordia, Ltd., the operator of the website Shareaza.com and owner of the rights in the Shareaza branded software distributed from that domain. Please be advised, that your forum contains a string of posts under the title: "suggestion to kill Shareaza.com." Under the string, the poster, RedSquirrel offers directions for users of Shareaza software to implement a DoS that would have the effect of destroying or seriously impairing our client's application and network. The poster OldDeath also offers a manner to illegally attack our client's business.
Despite whatever complaints your forum's users may have with our client's proper and legal business activities, the type of activity promoted on your forum is illegal. Therefore, we request that you immediately remove this string of posts and any future strings of this nature. My client respects your users' rights to express their points of view. However, the line is crossed when users begin to promote the destruction of a legitimate business (evidently based on out some misguided belief that artists and others who create music should not be fairly compensated for their efforts) via illegal or other predatory means.
If the above cited illegal activity on your site does not immediately cease and desist, our client will take all necessary action to vigorously and relentlessly protect its rights. To be clear, if this action is not immediately taken and, as result, our client's business is harmed, we will not only pursue, locate and hold fully responsible each and every one of those who have implemented this, or any similar DoS, but also those responsible for maintaining your site and the forums.
Please confirm that the requested action is being taken immediately.
Jeffrey A. Kimmel
Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP
140 E. 45th St., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
(212) 655-3578
I suppose the law is in their hands in terms of a DDoS attack, so it would be more correct to sue the impersonator/thief for t
Re:Do better than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the posts were removed, because they violated the forum's terms and conditions, before the letter was received (possibly even before it was sent).
Re:Do better than that (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and Meister Seelig needs to be very careful where he steps, so that he doesn't accidentally perjure himself by claiming rights that his clients doesn't have... In his first letter he seems to have avoided the obvious traps (... simply by not using the term "under penalty of perjury ...) but I'm sure that as soon as the action starts, and more letters become necessary, he will end up making a mistake.
The appropriate reaction to such a letter is to ask the shyster lawyers whether they are ready to uphold their claims under oath in front of a court of law...
Re: (Score:2)
He did however acknowledge the legitimate existence of the open source Shareasa client, which should help with any trademark or passing off lawsuits that the developers want to bring against Discordia.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Installing a "suspicious toolbar" has nothing to do with the GPL.
3) Though a DOS attack is certainly illegal and tells of the mentality of a/the real shareaza person/people. And apparently you.
4) Name changes due to trade-marks, etc aren't unheard of. Look up the Pigeon project if you don't believe me.
5) IF they have taken the application itself and used it for there pa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Installing a suspicious toolbar has nothing to do with the GPL, but it does so under the disguise of the 'real' Shareaza project. This casts a shadow and causes problems to the real project.
3. DDOS attack is not necessary in this case, only a copyright / trademark lawsuit is necessary, but if a DDOS will make the thief/impersonator suffer in this case it is a good thing, it provides moral support to the real project's peopl
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
PLEASE WIDELY PUBLICIZE MY CLIENTS AND CAUSE UNENDING DOS ATTACKS ON THEM.
Thank you,
Jeffrey A. Kimmel
Meister Seelig & Fein, LLP
140 E. 45th St., 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Re: (Score:2)
Make it so the real shareaza program queries their site [shareaza.com] every couple of seconds. As an individual user this won't take much personal bandwidth. But all shareaza users worldwide put together should be enough to kill their server and they won't really be able to do much since it will be coming from so many different IPs.
Great - if they did that, then managed to get their hijacked domain back, they'd have DoS'd themselves :) Like shooting yourself in the foot to kill a fly.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Try to download a cryptographic key from a particular directory.
2. If that succeeds, try decrypting a certain text with the key.
3. If that text matches the expected result, disable the DoS code.
4. If the DoS code is active, download the entire contents of the shareaza site a few times and delete it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Jeffrey A. Kimmel,
My organization paid for this domain, and we will do whatever we please with it, unless you can show that we transferred ownership to your clients.
Regards,
$Project
(Of course, I don't know the details, and this may not be applicable.)
Looks like the DOS will happen after all (Score:2, Funny)
Turnabout is fair play (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Darn, now I have to RTFA (Score:3, Interesting)
The French "Recording Industry Association of America? WTF?
Kdawson, please have some more coffee before you "edit" the next story, ok?
Re:Darn, now I have to RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But for those who actually did RTFA, if TFA said that then it was written by someone stupid, ignorant, or both. How can you take anything it says seriously? Can anybody point to a FA from a less developmentally disabled [uncyclopedia.org] author?
"turnaboutisfairplay"? Get a clue. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but, I'm also wondering about validity of the copyright claims of Discordia Ltd. At the bottom of the pages, it says either:
or
Apart from violating the GPL and infringing on trademarks/copyrights, they also make false/invalid (copyright) claims by stating copyright as of 1999. Isn't there a law against this as well?
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand... It seems like this might become a useful 'protection' tactic for P2P and other open source projects which probe for updates to use. That way if anyone hi
its happened before on a grander scale.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Think I'm joking? I assure you I am not, here are some references...
http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800416910_1800007_NT_5c0424e2.HTM [eetindia.co.in]
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187200176 [eetimes.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/technology/01pirate.html [nytimes.com]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/slick-pirates-seize-entire-brand/2006/05/29/1148754904830.html [smh.com.au]
The hardest thing is sometimes to persuade people that what they are doing in actually wrong in the first place, I guess this is the case with Shareaza.
One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... (Score:4, Funny)
Just declare war on them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Enough with the OT frog bashing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
France is a majo
a quick strings shows they do have the same parent (Score:5, Informative)
strings shareaza.exe gave loads and loads of function names error messages etc.
Downloaded the source from real shareaza (from sourceforge) ran grep against those names and everyone tried matched.
I need to try and do a proper comparasion, but IMHO the exe is created from the a branch of the open source 'true' version
What GPL code are they using? (Score:4, Insightful)
What GPL code are they using? Are they actually using some identifiable GPL code in their distributed software without complying with the GPL licensing requirements? Are they using the original SHAREAZA team's actual software (modified to do the nasty things)? All I see in the article are issues regarding an allegation of a stolen domain and an allegation of a plot to perform a distributed denial of service attack. If they did in fact make any use of GPL software without complying with the GPL licensing (such as making the source code available to anyone they distribute the software to), then by all means pursue legal remedies for that. Otherwise, the standing issues are the stolen domain and DDoS plot.
Oh, delicious irony. (Score:3, Funny)
"It's no surprise that emotions run high when people are ripped off..."
It's not getting "ripped off," it's SHARING!
Typical scammer behaviour (Score:5, Informative)
The original shareaza.com site resolves to an IP address (207.232.22.55) in New York, but listed with a fake front company with an Israeli ISP. The ISPs netvision.net.il and elron.net are known pink-contract, i.e. spammer friendly, hosting companies, they've been known to set up netblocks for spammers and run them until they are in every blacklist, then migrate in another netblock for the spammers. Most of the dodgy hosting is done in the U.S. and Russia. elron.net has been associated with the Russian Business Network, but a quick google doesn't turn up any easy links to back that up.
Someone posted above about shareazasecurity.be (195.47.247.137), but that goes to a server hosted in Denmark.
Although there is some mis-direction by throwing international company names into the mix (a classic scammer tactic), this appears to be mostly a U.S. based operation.
the AC
French EFF (Score:2)
SCPP (Score:3, Informative)
page source shows all redirected - shareazaweb.com (Score:3, Informative)
DNS1=NETVISION.NET.IL
this is all in a hebrew-looking language and unreadable by me
DNS2=ELRON.NET
nowhere did I find in the list of companies they own for IT software does it list Shareaza
Many might already have noticed that Firefox flags this as a possible hijacked site and it sure looks like a strange partnership is behind this. IMO.
raw whois data:
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/ [internic.net]
for detailed information.
Domain Name: SHAREAZAWEB.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com/ [godaddy.com]
Name Server: DNS.NETVISION.NET.IL
Name Server: NYPOP.ELRON.NET
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 28-nov-2007
Creation Date: 22-nov-2007
Expiration Date: 22-nov-2008
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:28:26 UTC
if you can't spell SCHADENFREUDE, don't tag (Score:2)
Not exactly illegally hijacked... at all... (Score:2)
A source close to this case has told TorrentFreak that Jonathan Nilson, the owner of the Shareaza.com domain has been contacted and he has confirmed that he has sold the domain to the scammers. It looks like the domain is lost forever[...]
While later stories are not clear on this, as Jonathan is still listed as the contact, he could initiate a transfer. So what we have is not so much a domain hijacking as a shady deal to alter the end point of the site.
Just a dumb concept ... (Score:2)
They are French (Score:2)
They are French. Just threaten invade their country and they will quickly roll over an surrender. Works even better if send the threat from a German email address.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)