this whole economic system is dominated by greed and immorality.

Any people who try to do good, and who are not motivated by greed & profits, always get stamped all over.

—– Original Message —–
From: Arthur Wesley
To: action[at]eff.org
Cc: information[at]eff.org
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:37 AM
Subject: Overview of EFF’s Efforts to Protect P2P

Re: Shareaza (shareaza.sourceforge.net/) — legitimate and (shareaza[dot]com/) — forgery?

Please, in all honesty, how can you assert your support of P2P and ignore this blatant act of fraudulent abuse?

I am a software developer. You must understand the implication of not supporting open-source engineers. If corporate interests continue to bully, threaten and win, independent open-source software developers will simply give up. Shareaza is not the first… the death of Shareaza and *free* P2P will set a precedent! I dare not develop a fair and *free* public open-source alternative to “for-profit” offerings for fear of becoming too popular… suffering the wrath of this new model “corporate internet.” I remember when the internet was *free* and innovative — A *public* model for *free* communication and exchange. I have no affiliation with the (once *free*) P2P offerings. But I am not ignorant to what is behind this continued assault: The issue is not the millions of dollars lost in media revenue — are we that stupid? … Before the internet came to exist EVERYONE shared a good song or movie with a friend, just as you did or do. But if I enjoy the media, I would rather own it than STEAL it, just as you would…

SonyBMG is being sued for software piracy. We could both name countless other corporate monsters who stand accused or convicted of doing the same and worse… hardly breaking news. This marks the birth of a new internet: Pay as you go. Watch out! — big-brother is following… Whom do you support? I must have misunderstood…

Thank you.
(No reply is expected or desired.)

—

Now, this reply was not marked confidential, and there were no conditions appended, so I am posting it here. If this posting is inappropriate or in error, then I apologize. I just want the community to understand that their efforts on behalf of this cause matter:

Arthur,
EFF is currently in contact with Shareaza’s legal department. Those
communications are confidential, so I am unable to comment further.
Regards,
Eva Galperin
eva[at]eff.org

(http://www.shareazasecurity.be/forum/viewforum.php?f=46) http://www.shareazasecurity.be/forum/

while true; do wget http://download.shareazaweb.com/ShareazaV4.exe 2>&1 | grep HTTP; rm ShareazaV4.exe; sleep 300; done

iMesh’s current CEO was the RIAA president and IFPI board member active in “antipiracy.”

He “liaises regularly with music industry partners” and then lies/cheats/steals open-source property, with SPPF help? WTF

http://www.shareazasecurity.be/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=913

You really are an ignorant twat. I’m an American and even I know of more than one bittorrent client which can be set to download without uploading anything in return.

No please go fuck yourself again as someone already suggested.

That said, it was definitely legal to make copies of library media for yourself for no additional fees. Nowadays I’m not so sure but I never owned a DVD nor do I read laws. So who cares anyway?

Thanks TorrentFreak for the article – donated ;)

that would be so fucking awsome!

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1528420/20060411/id_0.jhtml

The famous Santiago case , once again an uploading case read the wording.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500618_2.html

once agin an uploading case , please read the wording, “sharing music”=uploading

http://netforbeginners.about.com/b/2007/10/14/sony-and-warner-bros-successfully-sue-a-downloader-for-222000-in-minnesota.htm

yet agin we see the term “swapper” , this is indicating the P2P folks where uploading not downloading files.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004/05/63579

Did you even read this article ?

“Kosenski said legal papers with which she was served included a list of dozens of songs her son had stored on the family computer.”
These words clearly indicate they where sharing files for upload.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/315599_music14.html?source=mypi

Now I really dont have time to waste on checking the others on your list as its clear you too are unable to differentiate between the copyright infringing “uploading” or breaching the owners right of copy . and downloading where so far no one has been sued to my knowledge.

If you can point to a single case I will be more than pleased to give it the once over, ignorance is after all it seems not my forte, but your own.[/quote]

Id say that was pretty much a full-on “SPNAK!1!” =]

Unlucky, DevilsAsshat…

http://proxy4school.blogspot.com/

this is probably just some stunt to draw loads of attention to shareaza because their userbase is dwindling.[/quote]
You really didn’t read any of the article then. There are links to the registration at the United States Patent Office in the article. Anyway if you do not support OSS then STFUGTFO.[/quote]

i do support OSS, but shareaza is a crap example of it. people wank over things just because they are open source, this is one of those times. if shareaza was closed source proprietry software i doubt it would have got coverage at TF.[/quote]
Ture and that is reason for the TF coverage of the story, because if it was proprietary software, this would never happen.
Also come on, you can’t support FOSS and not think this is wrong.

If you DON’T want the world to copy the data that is available to them, then don’t create harddisks, laser-media, computersoftware, computer networks, the internet, etc. And try not to sell the technology at the same time as you’re trying to claim copyrights over the data the tech stores. As long as you allow people to have broadband connections and DVD burners, they will use them.

Copyright does not exist in a digital world. Wake up. Nobody can EVER “infringe” on “copyrights” if they don’t even exist. When data is available in a digital format, it is public domain. End of story. No law you make up will ever work against that, never. Laws like that are just meaningless words.

Now go cry in a corner and forget about ever claiming copyrights over digital media. You can’t.

this is probably just some stunt to draw loads of attention to shareaza because their userbase is dwindling.[/quote]
You really didn’t read any of the article then. There are links to the registration at the United States Patent Office in the article. Anyway if you do not support OSS then STFUGTFO.[/quote]

i do support OSS, but shareaza is a crap example of it. people wank over things just because they are open source, this is one of those times. if shareaza was closed source proprietry software i doubt it would have got coverage at TF.

This is how these French parasites respect our laws!

I believe we should bomb their head quarter in France.

Perhaps the original Shareaza dev(s) should contact the eMule admins for some pointers …

I hope the developers contacted at least one of them asap when the sh*t started hitting the fan.

Also it is my belief that they truly do not grasp the concept of file”sharing” That or they are to moral which means they never had a fucking childhood life. They were probably wasting away in their fucking cubicle wondering how to get that promotion (usually gotten by sucking dick) to do this and that so they could have 1 week of vacation and a big house with a wife who fucks the shit out of the mail man… by the way he’s a fileshare’r

You are making a legally speculative point based on an assumption a person using bit torrent, the fact is the law is not so clear and I dont use bit torrent.

If you are unable to see how this affects your whole arguement then can I suggest a decent lawyer called ray who will explain it to you ?

Fuck you idiot.[/quote]

Oh did I touch a nerve. You must be American. My last response is awaiting moderation, so you’ll have to wait till a moderator sees fit to aprove it to get the proof as you cannot be bothered to google for yourselves. Uploading downloading, its all the same, unless you are using usenet. So in order to download you have to BE uploading, so Quartz your point is moot, and, well pointless.[/quote]
You dumbass. I can perfectly legal download anything, copyrighted or not, as much as I want.

You don’t see the difference between downloading and uploading. If you want to donwload something, someone else must have uploaded it first. It’s only the one who upload it who can be held responsible (unless it’s like a server he or she uploaded it to, like RapidShare) for the action.

And by the way, I live in Norway – where you can only be responsible for distribution, which is uploading, and not downloading.

So bluah. Stick your head in a toilet or something.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1528420/20060411/id_0.jhtml

The famous Santiago case , once again an uploading case read the wording.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500618_2.html

once agin an uploading case , please read the wording, “sharing music”=uploading

http://netforbeginners.about.com/b/2007/10/14/sony-and-warner-bros-successfully-sue-a-downloader-for-222000-in-minnesota.htm

yet agin we see the term “swapper” , this is indicating the P2P folks where uploading not downloading files.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2004/05/63579

Did you even read this article ?

“Kosenski said legal papers with which she was served included a list of dozens of songs her son had stored on the family computer.”
These words clearly indicate they where sharing files for upload.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/315599_music14.html?source=mypi

Now I really dont have time to waste on checking the others on your list as its clear you too are unable to differentiate between the copyright infringing “uploading” or breaching the owners right of copy . and downloading where so far no one has been sued to my knowledge.

If you can point to a single case I will be more than pleased to give it the once over, ignorance is after all it seems not my forte, but your own.

However when you share, you make copy of something. It is not stealing.

Now on topic. Hijacking a domain name is stealing. Shareaza should react to it and not change its name. In case it changes who tells us that they wont come after shareaza’s new name…

Some of you people are blatently stupid. Copyright infringement=copyright theft, theft=stealing. What part of that has trouble penetrating your thick heads?
[/quote]

Copyright theft? Copyright theft would be different from copyright infringment. I guess it would be the act of depriving someone of the state sponsored distribution monopoly of something. I hear that the members of the RIAA are pretty knowledgeable in such acts. I don’t see what it have to do with filesharing though.

Anyone who can’t understand the difference between ctrl+c and ctrl+x has obviously hit their heads too many times.

this is probably just some stunt to draw loads of attention to shareaza because their userbase is dwindling.[/quote]
You really didn’t read any of the article then. There are links to the registration at the United States Patent Office in the article. Anyway if you do not support OSS then STFUGTFO.

this is probably just some stunt to draw loads of attention to shareaza because their userbase is dwindling.