MethLabs Shuts out PeerGuardian

Lost&Confused writes to tell us Slyck News is reporting that most of Methlabs.org administration and development staff have been forced out of their own website. For the time being PeerGuardian is being hosted on sourceforge. However, users are advised to stop using the Methlabs.org and Blocklist.org hosted blocklists in favor of the Bluetack list until they can sort things out.

Comments

Hmm

[Saiyaman]

I have gotton various things, at methlabs.org it says to ignore e-mails I get from anyone about PG unless it is from @methlabs.org. In an e-mail I got from someone else saying to go to the Sourceforge site. So for the time being, I probabaly will not download anything from either place since I don't know who to believe.

Re:Hmm

[Xarius]

At the bottom of the article:

UPDATE: William Erwin, now confirmed as the hijacker, has posted news on Methlabs.org, claiming the hijacking news is false and stems from a revolt by former team members.

However, after speaking to the Methlabs team and various connected members of the community, P2Pnet, SuprNova and Slyck can all confirm that the original story that the domain has been hijacked is genuine.

PeerGuardian users are advised to stop using the Methlabs.org and Blocklist.org hosted blocklists in favor of the Bluetack list.

I'd probably believe all of this is true, if it's all lies then the person who is in control of methlabs.org would have already set a libel lawsuit rolling methinks.

Dupe!

[Bogtha]

Not really. But it sounds almost exactly the same as what Michael Sims, the Slashdot editor, did to the Censorware Project.

Expecting a bitchslap in 5... 4... 3...

Re:One of those things about the open source crowd

[PhrostyMcByte]

Indeed. We (Methlabs) had an admittedly stupid setup and were working to change it. Obviously, we worked too slow. It's a shame that small groups of friends even have to think of legalities but I guess that's reality.

Anyone have advice on keeping this from happening again, to us or other OSS groups?

Re:What an asshole!

[mikael]

He thought that methlabs.org had established such a good reputation that they could start charge customers money for the service?

But didn't he realize that the developers would have backup copies of the site and just set up a new site elsewhere?

I've seen this thing happen with small companies. They recruit a couple of software architects to get the core software written. Once they get the software developed they give the architects the boot, and hire cheap graduates to do any customisation.

Re:One of those things about the open source crowd

[WhiteWolf666]

Also, 2 more points ;-)

1. Form the LLC anyways. Use the name, MethLabs LLC

File a cybersquatting request. Even if you loose, its not a bad way to go. If you can show you started the project, you'll be in *really* good shape, I think. As far as I know, if you have a business name, you are virtually guaranteed the domain name. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Emphasize that its a *security* site. ICANN generally frowns on people trying to subvert security software.

2. Trademark the term "Peerguardian". This costs about ~$400. You may have to take a collection for this. Then, you can pretty reliably prevent him from using that term on methlabs.org.

A trademark will help you achieve number 1, above, and virtually guarantees number 3, below.

3. Sue in small claims court. Make sure to sue in *his* state, but not necessarily his jurisdiction. Even if you don't get the domain back, claim the maximum (usually $3000) in damage. The loss of your projects domain name is easily worth much, much more, but $3000 should be fairly easy to start up again with (pays Domain fees hosting fees LLC fees, etc. . .), and its a fun way to stick it to him.

Small claims court usually only takes a day of work, and the filing fees are pretty small, too. Even if he doesn't pay, you can enter a judgement against him, have the pleasure of actually employing a creditor FOR you (not against ;-) ) and use this as additional proof (even though small claims doesn't set a precedent) for your cybersquatting claim.

Plus, small claims judges are big on practical issues. They don't like to see people get screwed, and generally side with the abused party.

Re:Update on the Methlabs.org site

[Johnny Doughnuts]

I know Ken (d3f) personally, and most of the ml.org staff. Ken would shoot someone for putting up a message like that.

Re:No honour amongst theives.

[Chmarr]

Yes, I agree that the use of 'theft' is inappropriate. However, it really is drawn out to say 'copyright violation' all the time. Can we take it as read that I DO understand the difference between theft of proprty, and the unlawful redistribution of information ?

And, no, you don't get a specific vote on copyright law. You didn't get a specific vote on a bunch of things. You live in a republic, not a democracy. The last TRUE democracy was ancient Greece, where they voted on near everything, and things didn't turn out so well for them :)

My point (and I really don't see why it was labelled 'off topic'... even 'flamebait' might have been more accurate) was that P2P communities are rife with people that just want their free stuff, and they don't give a damn who they hurt. So, it should be NO surprise that one of them turned against the PeerGuardian developers. William wanted his free stuff - where 'stuff' here meant the methlabs.org site - and he didn't give a damn who he hurt.

No surprise whatsoever.

If one wants to deal only with ethical people, don't create programs that will attract a highly disproportionate amount of unethical people.