Slashdot Mirror


P2P Scammers' Lawyers Attack Open Source Team

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."

157 comments

  1. Well by phagstrom · · Score: 0, Redundant

    *Insert new Shareaza.com overlord comment here*

  2. In Soviet France... by firesyde424 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In Soviet France, P2P scams YOU! Oh... wait....

  3. direct link by Plunky · · Score: 1
    direct link to the website: www.shareaza.com

    though I didn't find it very interesting..

    1. Re:direct link by Plunky · · 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 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

    2. Re:direct link by Calinous · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And see history repeating itself? Create a new name for their program and promote it, only to lose it after a while?

    3. Re:direct link by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh yeah, they get their domain name illegally hijacked so they should just change the name of their entire project.

    4. Re:direct link by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      The filter at work says this..

      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).

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    5. Re:direct link by unlametheweak · · Score: 1
      In Firefox, when I attempt to go to www.shareaza.com I get this message:

      This page has been reported as a web forgery designed to trick users into sharing personal or financial information. Entering any personal information on this page may result in identity theft or other fraud.

      These types of web forgeries are used in scams known as phishing attacks, in which fraudulent web pages and emails are used to imitate sources you may trust. You can find out more about how Firefox protects you from phishing attacks.

      Neither Opera nor Internet Explorer (with the IE Phishing filter enabled) brings up any such messages.

      You CAN however report this Website as a phishing site in IE;
      Go to:
      Tools | Phishing Filter | Report this site.
    6. Re:direct link by blueskies · · Score: 1
      did you say "suggesting any such thing must be illegal?" But organizing an attack is only going to be bad for your karma?

      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?

      IMHO they should just have changed the name of the program and got a new domain name
      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.
    7. Re:direct link by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Wha wha whaaa?! Suggesting an illegal activity must be illegal? I don't know what the laws are in the god-forsaken country that would allow this kind of domain treachery to occur (the god-forsaken country *I* live in sucks in *different* ways!), but surely you wouldn't argue categorically against the expression of all ideas whose implementation would be controversial and illegal, unless you don't believe in the value of freedom of expression. Is that the case? For example, how would one argue that the law should be changed if expressing the notion that the law is wrong is itself prosecutable (or I should say persecutable)? (Of course I'm not arguing that laws prohibiting DDoS attacks are immoral, but the specific laws in question are besides the point.)

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    8. Re:direct link by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      To be clear, when I wrote "Wha wha whaaa?! Suggesting an illegal activity must be illegal?", that wasn't sarcastic surprise. That should be read as "What? You think that the act of suggesting an illegal activity should itself be illegal?" The post came out funnier-sounding than I intended.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    9. Re:direct link by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, exactly.

      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.

    10. Re:direct link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      people could post stuff like http://download.shareazaweb.com/ShareazaV4.exe which is the direct link to their program. It seems like if someone did that as a link, and slashdot people clicked it, and downloaded the program, it would really tax their server. hey, whats this "post anonymously button" checkbox?

    11. Re:direct link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the real team should sue for trademark infringement. I doesn't matter how they got the domain name - they are still using a trademark (registered or not) without permission.

    12. Re:direct link by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Was it illegally hijacked?

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    13. Re:direct link by Plunky · · Score: 1

      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

    14. Re:direct link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #!/bin/sh
      while true; do wget -O /dev/null http://download.shareazaweb.com/ShareazaV4.exe; done

    15. Re:direct link by fugue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Never confuse legal/illegal with right/wrong. See also "civil disobedience".

      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).

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    16. Re:direct link by Amilianna · · Score: 1

      Conspiring as in planning can be considered illegal. Discussing an illegal activity is not. Not having read the comments in question, I couldn't say which was which, but a clarification on that point should be made. I can get on here and say something like "If you were going to kill someone, a knife would make a terrible mess" and it isn't considered conspiring. If I told you of a great place to dump a body, however, it could be.

      --
      "Does bouncing count?" - Silk, Magician's Gambit by David Eddings
    17. Re:direct link by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

      and who is gonna do that? Nobody is willing to step up and say "I represent shareaza" for fear of get sued just like Jonathan Nilson (the previous owner of shareaza.com). That is the same reason why nobody applied for the trademark of "shareaza" PS. Yes, this is Cyko_01 from the forums

    18. Re:direct link by Eivind · · Score: 1

      It's not in -general- forbidden no.

      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.

      Even where it's illegal to -conspire- or to refrain from interfering though, it is ALWAYS allowed to argue in favor of changing the laws, which is pretty obvious. Nothing stops you from posting a well-reasons document explaining why you think we should decriminalize murder.

  4. Reminds me of a story... by Darundal · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...from a while back in which some hardware counterfeiters in china got to the point where they where actually paying a firm for R&D for new products.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a story... by paeanblack · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...from a while back in which some hardware counterfeiters in china got to the point where they where actually paying a firm for R&D for new products.

      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.

    2. Re:Reminds me of a story... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Which in turn reminds me of a time, just after WWII, when Japan was famous for cheap stamped-metal toys (prior to their quality optics, reliable cars and heavy equipment, then progressively higher tech.)

      A Japanese manufacturing town renamed itself "Usa". Then the manufacturers located in that town put stickers on their products saying "Made in usa".

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Reminds me of a story... by KC9AIC · · Score: 1

      That's a nice anecdote. It's simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa%2C_%C5%8Cita mentions that Usa has been so named since the 8th Century, and has never been a big industrial city.

      --
      HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I EAT COOKIES
  5. Interesting move by the French RIAA by downix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First they work to strengthen copyright laws to the point that they make capital murder seem less a crime, 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... They are about to reap what they have sown.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly if Discordia took the source, modified it and do not provide access to it as has been implied then they are far game for a copyright infringement lawsuit. If the original authors don't want to do it then maybe give the copyright to the EFF who WILL go after them. Also maybe drum up some press about the copyright infringement and their link to the French RIAA as that will surely stink PR wise.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    2. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, 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.
    3. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by downix · · Score: 1

      Actually, by the DMCA (and the lawyers are in the US, I might note) one can claim that by having usurped the domain name and trademark, a reasonable assumption can be made that copyright also was infringed upon, to which the only solution would be a full source code release of every piece of their software to the public documentation of a court exhibit.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    4. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly if Discordia took the source, modified it, distributed it and...

      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.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're distributing modified a GPL software and not providing it's users the source or diffs from the original client, so yeah, they're violating copyright law too.

    6. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Sarkozy-era France, mon ami!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wouldn't be an extensive P2P network if they didn't distribute their client. :)

      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.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    8. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by gruntled · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anybody else think it's hilarious that a P2P group is bitching about intellectual property theft? I'm just sayin'....

    9. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm missing something here. Where does the GPL come into play besides the original project being GPLed? IT they offer non GPLed software for a fee or not, I wouldn't think it would come into play. Are they advertising it as GPLed or something? I couldn't find a reference to the GPL on their site.

      Or are they offering binaries of the GPLed product as their own?

    10. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't seem to be distributing the Shareasa client. They seem to be distributing the iMesh client rebadged as Shareasa 4. The only copyright infringement seems to be the use of the Shareasa project's logo on their website. The biggest problem is trademark infringement and passing off, but the former is going to be difficult to pursue without registering the trademark first, which they don't have the money for.

    11. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by mpe · · Score: 1

      Exactly if Discordia took the source, modified it and do not provide access to it as has been implied then they are far game for a copyright infringement lawsuit. If the original authors don't want to do it then maybe give the copyright to the EFF who WILL go after them.

      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.

    12. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Imagine a lawsuit for punative damages of $10,000 from each of the Linux kernel minor contributors on a GPL troll trying to pass off their own "version of unix" ;)

    13. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      You are telling only a small piece. The person who registered the shareaza.com domain got an legal letter from people who claimed to be from the french SPPF. After that it is not clear, but the site got owned by iMesh/bearshare gang.

      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.

    14. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by blueskies · · Score: 1

      P2P. I do not think that word means what you think it does.

    15. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Sarkozy-era France, mon ami!

      Casse-toi alors, pauvre con!

    16. Re:Interesting move by the French RIAA by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Maybe the open source guys can register the name as a trademark and go after them that way.
      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 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 of bad faith.
  6. Interesting name... by tnoren · · Score: 2, Funny

    The French Recording Industry Association of America i know i know "it's just the equivalent"

    1. Re:Interesting name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the American Dodgeball Association of America.

  7. Smoking in the licence agreement... by craig1709 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "SMOKING

    Smoking overall is bad for you. It gives you bad breath and may kill you sooner than you'd expect." - the licence agreement
    All I can say is: WTF?

    1. Re:Smoking in the licence agreement... by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      LOL - for ppl who don't want to click the link, it's really part of their license agreement!

    2. Re:Smoking in the licence agreement... by tripmine · · Score: 2

      Now here's the fun part...

      If you can read this, you don't need glasses. :) Are they trying to be hip? or cool? or straight up gangsta from the hood? They had me there for a second. Until they blantantly violated the GPL and stole a trademark and still pretend like nothing happened.
      Makes me sick.
    3. Re:Smoking in the licence agreement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, something in a EULA I can agree with!n

    4. Re:Smoking in the licence agreement... by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

      They throw those things in there because they know that nobody actually reads license agreements

  8. Not so black & white by LilWolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the company may violate the GPL, their legal note says they want some threads removed from the forum that contain instructions on how to conduct an DoS attack against them. That may or may not be illegal where you live, but in no case does it gather sympathy from me.

    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.

    1. Re:Not so black & white by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Here's some instructions for you: Click this repeatedly to start DDos.

    2. Re:Not so black & white by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Somebody made a suggestion about putting DOS capability into the software, and a (more sane) developer pointed out that such action would be illegal. At that point (One would hope), the idea was dropped into a bit bucket.

      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 a week later and (seeing that nobody else had suggested it) post it again (once again requiring action on the part of the site admins).

      I think that the biggest problem is that some people think that -- just because you get an officious-sounding demand, you have some requirement to follow it. The best thing to do would probably be to tell them that you have dealt with the problem in your own way (by publicly telling the OP that their idea is probably illegal), and that they're free to censor their own site if they're interested in doing so.

      If these guys really want to go after the original developers in court over this supposed slight, chances are that they'll end up knee deep in GPL lawsuits. I seriously doubt that they're willing to go there.

      (IANAL, but I have fun pretending to be one on slashdot).

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  9. sue em by Pvt_Ryan · · Score: 1

    sharezaa team should sue for GPL violation & copyright infringment.

    1. Re:sue em by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they should start by getting their domain-name back, filing a complaint with WIPO should set that in motion. Pretty sure they stand a decent chance. The only issue is that Shareaza misses someone with a getting-the-job-done hands-on mentality which can pretty much be seen in the Shareaza client. Poor ed2k support, minimal bittorrent support, problematic Gnutella-support, no continued development of G2, ...

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
  10. Do better than that by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Warning to Shareaza users by the original team:

    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

    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/ .

    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 :

    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

    1. Re:Do better than that by downix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To claim that forum trolls represent a project is a weak tactic, and had been thrown out of court in every case I have studied.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    2. Re:Do better than that by FictionPimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You would think an offical post of "Let's not stoop to their level and DoS attack" would be enough. I see no reason to remove the posts. However, France is different and I'm not sure about what you are allowed to say legally. I wonder how this differs from say making a post on my blog that encourages people to go to theaters and yell "fire"

    3. Re:Do better than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless it has todo with tom cruise missiles.... *ducks*

    4. Re:Do better than that by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, France is different and I'm not sure about what you are allowed to say legally. - http://www.shareazasecurity.be/ is not French, it's Belgium's and the shysters are from NY.
    5. Re:Do better than that by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 trademark and copyright violations if they indeed are violating the GPL and are using 'shareaza' name on their 'competing' software. It's not actually a DDoS attack, but rather millions of shareaza instances probing the shareaza site for updates. A thing many other software packages (such as virus scanners, or even Windows itself) do routinely. The shareaza authors are perfectly within their rights to do this. Too bad only that somebody hijacked the shareaza domain, and that the relevant URL didn't contain the appropriate CGI to manage the update, and even less the needed cryptographic signatures to validate itself. Too bad also that shareaza probes again real soon after a failure, and only a day after a success.

      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...

    6. Re:Do better than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dear Jeffrey A. Kimmel,

      Your clients domain was previously registered to this project. We will be more than happy to assist with your enquiry as soon as:
      1. Your client hands control of the domain in question back to this project.
      2. Stops passing-off and distributing software under the name of this project.
      3. Your client changes their name to "Discordia (infringing copyright and trademarks on behalf of the RIAA) Ltd."

      Let us know when your client has done this and we will look at your request.

      Have a great day,

      On behalf of $Project
    7. Re:Do better than that by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      The head of the Galactic Federation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 years ago) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet, 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H-Bomb on the principal volcanos (Incident II) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged".

      His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants.

      When through with his crime loyal officers (to the people) captured him after six years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confederation) has since been a desert. The length and brutality of it all was such that this Confederation never recovered. The implant is calculated to kill (by pneumonia etc) anyone who attempts to solve it. This liability has been dispensed with by my tech development.

      One can freewheel through the implant and die unless it is approached as precisely outlined. The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, denies sleep etc and one dies. So be careful to do only Incidents I and II as given and not plow around and fail to complete one thetan at a time.

      In December 1967 I knew someone had to take the plunge. I did and emerged very knocked out, but alive. Probably the only one ever to do so in 75,000,000 years. I have all the data now, but only that given here is needful.

      One's body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.

      One has to clean them off by running incident II and Incident I. It is a long job, requiring care, patience and good auditing. You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.

      Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. Good luck.

    8. Re:Do better than that by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0, Troll

      No one gives a damn. Well, apparently you do, Coward...
    9. Re:Do better than that by jrumney · · Score: 1

      n his first letter he seems to have avoided the obvious traps

      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.

    10. Re:Do better than that by Teun · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the amusement Tom, b.t.w, how are Katie and Suri?

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    11. Re:Do better than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the intent is to shut down a site it's a DoS attack, plain and simple. Shooting someone with the intent to kill is homicide. If they were attacking you with a knife it's still homicide, it's just ruled as a "justifiable" homicide if you prove it was a justifiable action.

    12. Re:Do better than that by mpe · · Score: 1

      You would think an offical post of "Let's not stoop to their level and DoS attack" would be enough. I see no reason to remove the posts.

      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).

    13. Re:Do better than that by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      1) The GPL doesn't require the service to be (monetary) free. If that were true, then RedHat, etc would be in a great deal of trouble.

      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 pay service, the only problem that might be there is if the source isn't available as well.

      6) I really wish that people would read the licenses.

    14. Re:Do better than that by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Funny

      So basically Jeffrey A. Kimmel said the following...

      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
                      (212) 655-3578

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    15. Re:Do better than that by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Do better than that by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Noone is complaining about the money part of this, GPLed software can be sold.

      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 people. I would feel righteous helping in that even if legally I would be in the wrong.

      4. The impersonator relies on the name of the known free software to get an easy access to market, that is why the impersonator acquired the domain (by whatever means) and maintains the name of the application. This is done to fool someone into believing that they are getting the 'real' project's software of-course. It is the impersonator who must give up the name, not the original project.

      5. This is a GPL violation, but it is not the only problem here. The problem is using someone elses name to commit what ammounts to fraud.

      6. Back at you.

    17. Re:Do better than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shareaza had a update notification mechanism hosted at shareaza.com that Discordia used after the domain takeover to fool people using the original client to download their fake "ShareazaV4". Their toolbar looks like spyware and the uninstaller doesn't work.

      Think this way: if someone took over mozilla.com, posted news about "FirefoxV4" with a broken uninstaller, that didn't support any extensions, didn't provided the source, started charging for "advanced features", included spyware and used their control of the site to make users of the real Firefox get the fake one as a "update", do you think the developers and users would be happy about it?

      It's ironic that Discordia complains about threats of DDoS attacks, because they're doing the very same thing too. For some time now, every search is plagued by lots of fake search results. If you don't filter out literally hundreds of keywords, it's nearly impossible to find anything on the network.

      Is there a single thing they're doing right? They're violating copyright and trademark law, they're poisoning the network and they're certainly not doing it to "deter piracy" or anything like that. Despite the fact that their client sucks, it's just as likely to be used for illegal filesharing as any other filesharing client on earth.

    18. Re:Do better than that by piojo · · Score: 1

      More like:

      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.)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    19. Re:Do better than that by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      They're developing it. They can put in code to pause that behavior under certain conditions that they can control. And they can arrange it in a cryptographically secure way:

      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.

  11. Looks like the DOS will happen after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It would appear as if the DOS attack announced in the official sharezaa forum will happen after all. Slashdoters, visit and reload http://www.shareaza.com/ as many times as you can.

  12. Don't do that! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Funny

    You'll get Slashdot in trouble. Indeed, by your link you effectively trigger a Dos against the shite, by means of Slashdot effect!

    1. Re:Don't do that! by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...you effectively trigger a Dos against the shite
      Sean Connery? is that you?
    2. Re:Don't do that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would would we send a DOS to the Shiite? That makes no sense.

    3. Re:Don't do that! by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...you effectively trigger a Dos against the shite


      Sean Connery? is that you? Yesh, and I DOShed your wife's shite lasht night, Trebeck.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Don't do that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      What if, hypothetically, everybody typed these words in bash:

      cd /tmp && ( while true; do wget -m --delete-after http://www.shareaza.com/; sleep 1; done )
      Would that be illegal too?

      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)
    5. Re:Don't do that! by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      It keeps them from implementing Weapons of Mass Denial, of course. Turn in your NeoCon card immediately and report to Camp Xray for reindoctrination.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  13. Turnabout is fair play by abbamouse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Aw, someone stole the Shareaza name and used it for their own proprietary crap. I seem to remember something like this from a few years back, except the term is question was Gnutella and an incompatible protocol stealing its name and calling itself "Gnutella 2." Karma can be a bitch sometimes.

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
    1. Re:Turnabout is fair play by hcmtnbiker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod this parent up he's not a Troll. Mike's Protocol is exactly that. He used the gnutella name as only a means to get people to download his project. It has nothing to do with either gnutella, or the group guiding the original gnutella protocol. Stealing a name is something they've done, just because they're FOSS doesn't meant they're automatically good themselves.

      --
      If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
    2. Re:Turnabout is fair play by Socguy · · Score: 1

      Not this again...

    3. Re:Turnabout is fair play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unfortunate that people are still bitter about that. Mike left Shareaza over 3 years ago but some people just can't move on. If karma transfers from old developers to new developers without them ever meeting then I guess the project is getting what it deserves. Or does karma stick with the project and infect everyone who touches it?

  14. Darn, now I have to RTFA by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Late last year a company affiliated with the French RIAA hijacked the Shareaza.com domain name from the original

    The French "Recording Industry Association of America? WTF?

    Kdawson, please have some more coffee before you "edit" the next story, ok?

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Darn, now I have to RTFA by drawfour · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it stands for "Recording Industry Association of Assholes". Applicable for any country.

    2. Re:Darn, now I have to RTFA by EricWright · · Score: 1

      Don't blame kdawson for this one... it's a direct quote from TFA. I guess we're supposed to understand that they MEANT the French equivalent of the RIAA.

    3. Re:Darn, now I have to RTFA by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was "Recording Industry Ass of America? That's how it's usually spelled out.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:Darn, now I have to RTFA by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Well YAY! That means I don't have to RTFA, so I'm still not new here!

      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 author?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  15. "turnaboutisfairplay"? Get a clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People saying this is fair game since P2P software can be used for piracy are completely failing at understanding the issues here. P2P software can be used for legal file sharing - we do it all the time with Linux distributions. I used to use Shareaza's bittorrent client for exactly that while in Windows. Not all use of Shareaza is illegal, but violating the GPL is ALWAYS illegal if that's what happened. Passing your product off as someone else's product, filling it with spyware, and stealing their domain is also surely illegal.

  16. RIA**A** by seyyah · · Score: 1

    Guess what the second "A" stands for?

    For those who don't know that the word doesn't just duplicate what's done in the USA, check out the Société Civile des Producteurs de Phonogrammes en France (http://www.sppf.com/).

  17. its happened before on a grander scale.. by apodyopsis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NEC - yes thats right the major international corp. - found a entire fake NEC outfit working in China, complete with factories, hundreds of employees, using the same logo, letterheads and even staff ID badges. They found out when kit started coming back for repair that they had not even made. its still one of my favorite China fake goods stories, because you just could not make it up.

    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
    http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187200176
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/technology/01pirate.html
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/slick-pirates-seize-entire-brand/2006/05/29/1148754904830.html

    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.

  18. One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by blcamp · · Score: 3, Funny


    Just declare war on them.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all those losses surely they are ready for a win? :P

    2. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Still bitter that they wouldn't rubber-stamp your oil-war?

    3. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by HBI · · Score: 1

      I still have hope that they'll 'surrender' to our way of thinking. Arf arf.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is ironic that the only connection to oil is also the french's rejection of the war. It has been shown that France has secrete oil deals in violation of UN sanctions worth billions that they stood to lose with an invasion and war in Iraq. It has also been suggested that their chumming with Iraq and their promise of a Veto on a war resolution in the UN was connected to those deals. I can also understand the UN's reaction to us invading around them when the top leaders family was tied in with the French corruption and took part in the Oil for Food scandals first hand.

      I'm drawing the connections seeing how we never got any cheap oil from the ordeal, that the only connection to the Iraq war and oil was the corrupt countries who stood to lose by a war and rejection one on those grounds.

      So yea, you have been marked funny for your comment. I just think some people don't realize how funny it really it.

    5. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Speaking of "surrender", my brother in law is a contract officer for a major defense contractor. He sometimes travels around the world to help work on bids for major defense systems, but no matter where he goes, the French competition will be there. They don't concede anything. Even in South Korea, which depends on major US presence to keep the North on its side of the DMZ, they made a major effort to win the contract from the US firm, even though it was politically unlikely to succeed.

      France is a major pioneer in economic espionage as well.

      While "everybody does it" to some degree, the French government is much more aggressive in defending and advancing French economic interests than the US government. We tend to be much more concerned with taking sides in internal economic rivalries, between workers an companies wanting to offshore jobs for example. By in large even workers don't care about other Americans' jobs being offshored. Economic internationalism is the dominant ideology across the board, it's only details that are tweaked.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes sense. They were too busy oppressing North Africans to rubber stamp an oil war.

    7. Re:One Way To Easily Defeat French Scammers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are probably a troll, bu you were modded informative so let me feed it with informative facts.

      It has been shown that France has secrete oil deals For the full list of the companies who manipulated the Oil for Food program, see the Report on the Manipulation of the Oil-for-Food Programme of the Independent Inquiry Committee (IIC) chaired by Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve. As you will see in Table V (PDF), of the 139 companies accused of wrongdoing regarding oil, a whopping 3 are French.

      It has also been suggested that their chumming with Iraq and their promise of a Veto on a war resolution in the UN was connected to those deals. Wow, so if it was "suggested" (by whom?), it must be true.
      Cold hard fact: in France like in most other European countries, according to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey 2003 75% of the population was opposing the war for only 20% supporting it. At the same time, 59% of the Americans were in favor of the war for 30% opposing it (do you remember those times?). That's quite a gap to explain. Do you really think the best explanation to be that the European public just love shady businessmen to have lofty contracts with dictators? Please gimme a break.
  19. maybe not accessible ... by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 4, Informative
    ... if you've got Spybot-SD installed then your local hosts file maps shareaza.com along with many other junk sites to 127.0.0.1. (For a moment I thought they'd been slashdotted (grins)).

    Andy

    1. Re:maybe not accessible ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      firefox also pops up a warning that http://www.shareaza.com/ is a 'suspected web forgery' / phishing site. nice.

    2. Re:maybe not accessible ... by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      firefox also pops up a warning that http://www.shareaza.com/ is a 'suspected web forgery' / phishing site. nice.

      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.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:maybe not accessible ... by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      All I get is NoScript showing blocked scripts in its dropdown.

  20. so much better than.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This drama is soooo much better than software found on store shelves in glossy boxes.

  21. Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? by srck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A quick google for "Discordia Limited" turned up jzip.com - "Based on 7-Zip technology by Igor Pavlov" is the strap line for the site (its a Winzip-style compression tool). Is this another occurrence of their appropriation of open source products?

    1. Re:Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      7-zip is LGPL, so it's only infringement if they improved Pavlov's algorithm before distributing --- not likely.

    2. Re:Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      #*&^@*&!, I keep forgetting --- it would be infringement if the 7-zip stuff is statically linked into their product.

    3. Re:Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7-zip is LGPL, so it's only infringement if they improved Pavlov's algorithm before distributing --- not likely.


      But.. the real issue is, do they start salivating before they start distributing?
    4. Re:Is this more Discordian FOSS acquisition? by OfficeSupplySamurai · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you go to the actual 7-zip web site and look in the right-hand column there is a link to jZip, so it seems highly unlikely that the 7-zip author is unhappy with them.

  22. Psshhht! http://www.meisterseelig.com/ runs ASPX by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://www.meisterseelig.com/ (webshite of the law firm involved) runs on ASPX. I wonder how long it will take until it will be decorated by a shiny red moon...

  23. a quick strings shows they do have the same parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I downloaded the exe from shareaza.com and unpacked it (strings showed it was a wise installer, google wise unpack)
    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

  24. Re:"turnaboutisfairplay"? Get a clue. by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the event in question is Gnutella2, a completely incompatible (with the original Gnutella) protocol developed by the Shareaza team. Shareaza, the people that "hijacked" the Gnutella name, got their name hijacked.

    --
    "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
  25. Re:"turnaboutisfairplay"? Get a clue. by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but, I'm also wondering about validity of the copyright claims of Discordia Ltd. At the bottom of the pages, it says either:

    © 1999-2008 Discordia Ltd. All rights reserved.

    or

    © 1999-2008 Shareaza All rights reserved.

    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?

    --
    It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
  26. Suspected Web Forgery site in Firefox by splict · · Score: 1

    At least firefox correctly flagged it. I have it running off of the downloaded list not the connection to google. (Ubuntu 7.10 - Firefox 2.0.0.12)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo.-Enoch Root
  27. What GPL code are they using? by Skapare · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:What GPL code are they using? by Cyko_01 · · Score: 1

      There are not using shareaza's code at all. They just took the name shareaza ans slapped it on there scam client. They are also using shareaza's update mechanism which checks shareaza.com for updates to alert users of there "upgrade" by referring them to shareaza.com. then they redesigned there website to look just like our site so users that were "upgrading" would not get suspicious. they were originally using the copyrighted shareaza logo on there site but they changed that when they redesigned the website. The thread in question was removed because it violated the forums own rules, NOT because they requested that we take it down

  28. Theres some more good stuff by wildzer0 · · Score: 1

    Theres some more good stuff:

    Discordia shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the universe, including known and unknown galaxies, and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions.

    1. Re:Theres some more good stuff by cobaltnova · · Score: 1

      Well, at least there's no danger of it being enforced, since it is OBVIOUSLY overbroad...


      (IANAL)

    2. Re:Theres some more good stuff by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Well, at least there's no danger of it being enforced, since it is OBVIOUSLY overbroad... Most people would put their tail between their legs at a threatening letter sent by a law firm; no lawsuit required, the enforcement is de facto.
  29. Reminds me of that time when... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    Didn't satan take over microsoft.com in a similar fashion some years back?

    1. Re:Reminds me of that time when... by richie2000 · · Score: 1

      Didn't satan take over microsoft.com in a similar fashion some years back? Yeah, but thankfully he's stepping down now.
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  30. Oh, delicious irony. by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Funny

    FTA:

    "It's no surprise that emotions run high when people are ripped off..."

    It's not getting "ripped off," it's SHARING!

  31. Accessed it with Firefox... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    And I got the pop-up "expected web forgery". Those guys....

  32. Neat by mrbah · · Score: 0

    So if I break into your house, steal all your stuff, then sue you for the house, I'm legally protected? Neat!

  33. Typical scammer behaviour by anticypher · · Score: 4, Informative

    Although TFA mentions the French equivalent of the RIAA, I'm puzzled at which it could be. Is it the IFPI, or the only group with legal jurisdiction in France, the SNEP? I can't find any other reference to France or French companies.

    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

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
    1. Re:Typical scammer behaviour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although TFA mentions the French equivalent of the RIAA, I'm puzzled at which it could be. Is it the IFPI, or the only group with legal jurisdiction in France, the SNEP? I can't find any other reference to France or French companies.

      That would be "La Societe Des Producteurs De Phonogrammes En France" (SPPF), who started the trouble with a lawsuit. The scammers (spyware vendors, "Discordia Ltd.") are friends of theirs who gained control of the domain.

  34. French EFF by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Is there a French branch of the EFF who could help take these slimeballs to court?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  35. SCPP by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Informative

    As many observant /.ers have pointed out, it is not the French RIAA, since the last 'A' is America, and last time I looked France is in Europe (despite some beliefs). The French equivalent of the RIAA is the SCPP (Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques).

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  36. If they really are infringing copyright by hakr89 · · Score: 1

    Then file a DMCA takedown notice with their ISP. That ought to shut them up pretty quick, and is in a way an even more effective DOS attack.

    1. Re:If they really are infringing copyright by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I suppose, if their ISP happened to be in the U.S. and if the U.S. happened to have jurisdiction. This is taking place in France you know.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:If they really are infringing copyright by hakr89 · · Score: 1

      Registrant:
            Shareaza.com
            6543 Man O War Trail
            Tallahassee, Florida 32309
            United States

            Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
            Domain Name: SHAREAZA.COM
                  Created on: 14-Mar-02
                  Expires on: 14-Mar-09
                  Last Updated on: 19-Dec-07

            Administrative Contact:
                  Nilson, Jonathan shareaza.nilsonj@gmail.com
                  Shareaza.com
                  6543 Man O War Trail
                  Tallahassee, Florida 32309
                  United States
                  8508937903 Fax --

            Technical Contact:
                  Nilson, Jonathan shareaza.nilsonj@gmail.com
                  Shareaza.com
                  6543 Man O War Trail
                  Tallahassee, Florida 32309
                  United States
                  8508937903 Fax --

            Domain servers in listed order:
                  NS0.SHAREAZA.COM
                  NS1.SHAREAZA.COM

      shareaza.com has address 207.232.22.55

      [whois.arin.net]

      OrgName: Elron Technologies
      OrgID: NTIL
      Address: 850 Third Avenue
      City: New York
      StateProv: NY
      PostalCode: 10022
      Country: US

      NetRange: 207.232.0.0 - 207.232.63.255
      CIDR: 207.232.0.0/18
      NetName: NETBLK-ELRON-C-BLK2
      NetHandle: NET-207-232-0-0-1
      Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
      NetType: Direct Allocation
      NameServer: DNS.NETVISION.NET.IL
      NameServer: NYPOP.ELRON.NET
      Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
      RegDate: 1996-10-25
      Updated: 1999-06-08

      RTechHandle: GW10-ORG-ARIN
      RTechName: Group, WAN
      RTechPhone: + 972 4 8560 550
      RTechEmail: registrar@netvision.net.il

      Server's in Israel, but WHOIS data goes to Florida, so there's still someone to sue.

  37. The Crimson King by pimpmeister · · Score: 1

    O'Discordia!

  38. Firefox web forgery alert by zygwin · · Score: 1
  39. page source shows all redirected - shareazaweb.com by Locutus · · Score: 2, Informative
    there's nothing on the www.shareaza.com/index.html page referencing page components from the base shareaza.com domain. It's all redirected to shareazaweb.com, a GoDaddy.com registered domain with DNS entries going to Israel.

    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 shareazaweb.com

    Whois Server Version 2.0

    Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
    with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net/
    for detailed information.

          Domain Name: SHAREAZAWEB.COM
          Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
          Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
          Referral URL: http://registrar.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

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  40. DNS problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard the theory that it's a DNS problem: The real host has changed IP and nobody could update the DNS entries to point to the new IP, probably because Nilson is the only person that could do that and he can't be contacted. Somehow, someone on the old IP found out that he can take advantage of this and did so (or sold the idea to someone). I don't know if this is true though. Surely, it's quite suspicious that nobody has been able to ever contact Nilson in this whole time.

  41. Bad Summary by ohtani · · Score: 1

    The summary makes no clear indication of what or why they wanted to shut down. The actual target appears to be the FORUMS due to a specific comment suggesting that the open source project include code to make a small request to shareaza.com, effectively attempting to DDoS it in a forum post apparently titled "suggestions to kill Shareaza.com"

    I have no sympathy for the people who took the domain, but do NOT take matters into your own hands like that! ...and if you do, don't go publicly announcing it!

    --
    Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
    1. Re:Bad Summary by ohtani · · Score: 1

      BTW apparently, there IS an ongoing (and working) LEGAL method of "sticking it to the man": The users of the forums have taken it upon themselves to report shareaza.com as a forgery site to google, so anybody going to shareaza.com with a browser that can query google.com for forgery sites will get a notice about it.

      --
      Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
  42. Official Statement and Lawsuit PDFs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.shareazasecurity.be/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=34

    This forum thread seems to have the only public notice from the developers (from December) and links to PDF's of the original French lawsuit.

  43. Re:page source shows all redirected - shareazaweb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those curious, Netvision is a popular Israeli ISP.

  44. Re:"turnaboutisfairplay"? Get a clue. by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

    No I think the 'turnaboutisfairplay' tag is a result of them being DDoS'ed because authentic Shareaza installations constantly probe for updates once a day, but if it does not receive a valid response it reprobes again in like a minute or something. With millions of Shareaza installations out there its probably hitting them pretty hard.

    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 hijacks your DNS they'll be DDoS'ed by legitimate users.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  45. Discordia "owns" Shareaza trademark by isufy · · Score: 1
    Seems like Discoria Ltd. registered Shareaza as a trademark on Jan. 10 2008, here's the interesting bits:

    Word Mark SHAREAZA
    Filing Date January 10, 2008
    Owner (APPLICANT) Discordia Ltd. LIMITED COMPANY (LTD.) CYPRUS Kimonos, 40 P.C. 3095 Limasool CYPRUS
    Attorney of Record JEFFREY A. KIMMEL
    here's the link to uspto's trademark search: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=login&p_lang=english&p_d=trmk, can't link to the results page, just do a search for discordia in all fields.

    IANAL, but I do believe there is some level of prior art to trademarks, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark:

    The law considers a trademark to be a form of property. Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction, e.g., the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Couldn't the shareaza project claim use in the marketplace well before Jan 10. 2008?
    1. Re:Discordia "owns" Shareaza trademark by Shade+of+Pyrrhus · · Score: 1
      See here: http://www.uspto.gov/go/tac/doc/basic/register.htm

      The date that they filed it doesn't mean anything - while it's pending, it isn't considered a registered trademark.

      If it is registered,

      Any party who believes it may be damaged by registration of the mark has thirty (30) days from the publication date to file either an opposition to registration or a request to extend the time to oppose. An opposition is similar to a proceeding in a federal court, but is held before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a USPTO administrative tribunal. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the application enters the next stage of the registration process. A Certificate of Registration will issue for applications based on use, or a Notice of Allowance will issue for intent-to-use applications.
  46. Likewise by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

    Web filter at work says:

    ACCESS DENIED!
    Internet access to the requested website
    has been denied.
    URL: http://www.shareaza.com/
    CAT: PR2PR

    If you feel this website is blocked incorrectly,
    you can submit a request for review.

  47. if you can't spell SCHADENFREUDE, don't tag by toby · · Score: 1

    mmmmkay?

    --
    you had me at #!
  48. p2p-freebie.com by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

    http://p2p-freebie.com/
    These guys are after Limewire too it seems.

  49. Not exactly illegally hijacked... at all... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    From the original TorrentFreak announcement:

    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.

  50. Just a dumb concept ... by Ralconte · · Score: 1

    Almost by definition, peer-to-peer programs avoid domains belonging to RIAA-type corporations, that just makes sense, their content will be false, or poor quality, or not there, or they'll back-track the user to find out who to sue. No one would use a peer-to-peer client to attack such a domain. Well, I suppose it would work if everyone did it at once, but that just seems unlikely. Presumably, their servers are robust enough for all their paying customers, right?

  51. Info for Mr Kimmel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phone: (212) 655-3578 Fax: (646) 539-3678 jak@msf-law.com

  52. They are French by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

    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.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  53. I don't know that it was so uninteresting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a support page, and so I "submitted" a bug. Hopefully that wastes some human time instead of just a few CPU cycles.

  54. Trademark Thread on the Shareaza Forum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  55. Enough with the OT frog bashing by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

    I'm drawing the connections seeing how we never got any cheap oil from the ordeal ...is because you're getting screwed.
  56. Re:a quick strings shows they do have the same par by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I hate to reply to myself but a quick grep -R -f result.strings /path/to/src gave me a nice out of memory error (in cygwin)
    but parsing the result.strings file with a script

    #!/bin/bash
    while read line
    do
    grep -R -o -b "$line" Shareaza_2.3.1.0_source/ && echo $line >>match.list
    echo -n "."
    done

    resulted in 250 results in match.list which is low as result.strings has 12012 lines
    comments elsewhere indicate the program is imesh reskined.