Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance

Posted by timothy on Wed Nov 27, 2002 06:59 PM
from the thankful-for-my-distant-lucky-star dept.
Slashback tonight with more on "anti-leech" anti-browser technology, Panamanian VoIP blocking, the Magic Box fraud, and LotR battle scene creation, fighting back against PanIP, and more. Read on below for the details, and (if applicable) have a good holiday.

Excuse me, is this well already poisoned? PHPee writes "Yesterday Slashdot posted an article (only thieves block pop-up ads) regarding anti-leech.com's anti-theft campaign. I happened to be one of many people who sent an email to anti-leech, explaining my disappointment, and I received an auto-responder message today, indicating anti-leech has posted a FAQ regarding its anti-theft campaign."

Wish he'd have been arrested for fraud, instead. MojoT writes "Following up from a previous story, Madison Priest, the so called inventor of a broadband Magic Box, was arrested Friday on drug trafficking charges and possession of a firearm by a felon. He must have been confusing the bit rate of his Magic Box with the number of hits he was getting off his stash."

You mean this stuff is just a kind of data? pelle writes "As a (non Panamanian) geek in Panama, I've been following the UDP story quite heavily. The Panamanian paper La Prensa reports that the Panamanian Supreme court has suspended the infamous order to block UDP's used for VOIP the Enteregulador (the governments regulator of utilities). The suspension was done on a complaint by a company called Net2Net Corp. There has been strong uproar amongst people in Panama about the blocking of the UPD's. So this is seen as a welcome thing. The article quotes Gonzalo Córdoba, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation as saying "Blocking the ports for accessing voice is a form of censorship". For Spanish readers the article is at: La Prensa Note, my Spanish aint all that yet, so I might have missed out several finer points."

I'll wait out the battle in my hobbit hole, thanks. An anonymous reader writes "First scooped at theonering.net: The official Lord of the Rings site has put up an amazing feature that goes into a lot of detail on the motion-capture techniques and programming that goes into the movies' battle scenes. It is one of the best-designed web features I have seen, very informative with interviews from the people working on it and interactive "design your own army"-type features. This should answer any questions left by the recent Slashdot article, and raise many more... (Requires Flash to view.)"

Don't PanIP Timothy Beere writes "Just a quick update to the Slashdot faithful. I received notice several weeks ago that PanIP was suing me and the PanIP Defense Group for the www.youmaybenext.com web site.

The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, defamation and unfair competition. They obviously see the web site as a big threat to their grand plan of suing the potential thousands of e-commerce sites that they could have targeted.

In a preliminary court hearing last week, a judge resoundingly denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the web site. This is the same judge that will be hearing the patent case. We will soon be filing a motion to have PanIP pay all attorney's fees for the web site case as we feel this was nothing less than a litigation threat meant to restrain our free speech. Apparently PanIP doesn't think we have the right to inform people about what they're are doing. Or maybe they are feeling very uncomfortable with the spotlight shining on them.

One other note. We currently have 16 members in our FightBack Defense Group. The FightBack group will soon be posted on the web site.

On a personal note. I can't say enough about the overwhelming response I got from the original slashdot post. I knew if I could get the word out there that people would be disgusted by what PanIP is doing.

We are in the process of filing our responses for the Group and the case will soon be under way in the court. We are still hunting for good prior art in an effort to have their patents invalidated. We intend to stop PanIP and we need your support!"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • "The only way..." (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Eric Smith (4379) <ericNO@SPAMbrouhaha.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:08PM (#4771605) Homepage Journal
    The Anti-Leech FAQ says:
    Running a website costs the webmaster behind that site time and money. The only way to cover for that income is using banner ads and pop ups.
    Strange, I was of the impression that there were other business models that worked better than banner ads and popups. In fact, the majority of web sites that I use somehow have managed to stay in business for years despite NOT having banner ads and pop ups. I guess I should expect those sites to fold at any moment.
    • Re:"The only way..." by Em Emalb (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:25PM
    • If you want people to read your content... by billstewart (Score:3) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:38PM
    • It is the only way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ted_Green (205549) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:28PM (#4772260)
      For some websites. Generaly the ones who use Anti-leech.

      Frankly I have *no* problem with Anti-Leech. I think they put it quite eloquently in their faq:

      You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups

      If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.

      If a website wants to use Anti-Leech, *let it* There's no reason it shouldn't.
      True, I think that people who say "We should force you to view our ads if you use are service" are missing a key element that people who don't want to view they ads probably aren't going to click on them.. but hey it's their content and their choice to block, charge or whatever with it*

      *So long as they don't try to prevent others from providing the same content *cough* siaa *cough*
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:It is the only way by Greyfox (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @11:07PM
        • Re:It is the only way (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2002, @11:22PM (#4772745)
          "If the MPAA can claim that California has juristiction in a lawsuit because the web site is available in California, why can't you? "

          You just touched on the issue generally known as "equal protection"
          and it is exactly why the people making all this anti-consumer litigation
          noise right now (??AA) should simmer down. Any precedents they establish
          might end up creating the very tools with which they are broght down.

          On a bigger political note, wonder at the enormous power grab that the
          Bush administration is making. They are 2, or maybe 6, or maybe 10,
          short years away from handing to their political opponents the same power
          which they have taken for their own ends in the Executive branch.
          By the time the Federal reorganization is really done (probably not even
          within 5 years, honestly), there could easily, and likely will be, a party
          in power who is not only in opposition to the Republicans, but also, could
          very easily have a radically, unpredictably different agenda for how that
          power should be used.

          I believe that is precisely the reason why no administration prior to
          the Bush II has ever made such a sweeping change, positioning the
          executive branch to have imbalanced power vis-a-vis the other two
          branches. All they are doing is creating specific means for a future
          regime to take it a step further. Much further in the direction they
          are headed today, and we will have to call it tyranny by Anybody's
          standards.

          [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:It is the only way by jmccay (Score:2) Thursday November 28 2002, @09:51AM
    • Re:"The only way..." by whereiswaldo (Score:3) Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:34PM
    • Re:"The only way..." by steve_l (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:47PM
    • Re:"The only way..." by 1u3hr (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @08:29AM
    • Re:"The only way..." by tgibbs (Score:2) Thursday November 28 2002, @10:41AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Google by Mattcelt (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:10PM
    • Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:30PM (#4771722)
      hint #1: you don't succeed by calling people that visit your site "thieves"

      hint #2: you don't succeed by creating a business that needs screenfuls of FAQs to justify it's existence.
      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Opera... by EverStoned (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:10PM
    • Re:Opera... by DNS-and-BIND (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:55PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Does anyone else think... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Bungi (221687) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:10PM (#4771614) Homepage
    ... that these anti-leech folks are kinda weird? Does anyone know where they are located? Their "english" seems a bit... off. If you read the FAQ there's a sidebar that compares them with Google (of all things), with a blurb about Goggle being a huge multinational or something like that. Eh?

    Also their "technology" is not really effective at all. The bit where they claim to protect the HTML source of a page is absolutely ridiculous and simple to circumvent. Do they actually sell this crap??

    Maybe it's just me, but they seem... well, weird. Kinda like those EARN $5,000,000 IN JUST THREE DAYS BY STUFFING ENVELOPES deals. Dunno. Maybe it's just me.

    Oh, and the FAQ page tried to install some Gator scumware on load. I bet they did it because they knew the FAQ was going to get hit, because none of the other pages in the site did that.

  • Anti-Theft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Un pobre guey (593801) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:12PM (#4771623)
    An organization is broadcasting information gratis for all to consume. It includes paid advertising it expects you to patiently and passively consume along with the rest of the content. How can it possibly be considered theft to decline to view the advertising?

    This has already been discussed quite a bit. Is there any compelling legal argument that there is a real contractual obligation, express or implied, to force us to consume the advertising?

    • Re:Anti-Theft by LostCluster (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:24PM
      • Re:Anti-Theft by EzInKy (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:51PM
        • Re:Anti-Theft by D+iz+a+n+k+Meister (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:30PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Not legal, but perhaps ethical (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MacAndrew (463832) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:12PM (#4771927) Homepage
      The law does not call refusing to watch commercials theft or any other criminal offense. We don't live in an Orwellian time where you could be forced to watch the commercials. It's also not any civil offense I can think of -- you're not breaking any agreement you gave real or implied consent to. I think it's going to be pretty hard to make out any implied legally binding promise on your part to watch ads.

      To use TV as an analogy, muting all the commercials is fine, and is anticipated by the advertisers. If anything the mute button has encouraged them to make ads less bombastic and more entertaining. However, it can get stickier, at least if you are recording and if you are using technology to block the ads. Recording is legal as a form of fair use, but I wonder if routine ad-blocking would raise a problem. I've heard this discussed in the context of these personal video recorders, where they could make ad-skipping very easy, but have made it slightly inconvenient to placate the industry. I don't know if this is out of legal concerns or political pressure. Now, ad blocking software might be a similarly suspect technology. But that seems weak, and as a practical matter the software will not be challenged.

      However, I do think an ethical argument could be made that you should watch the ads, perhaps just occasionally as a compromise. We now the ads are what keep the lights on, and that the advertisers are asking for a little of our time in return to make their pitch. If they ask you up front, would you be willing to watch a few ads in exchange for your nighttime dose of Stargate? Slashdot or Salon ask us to pay a subscription to suppress ads; surely it's implied that they'd rather you didn't do it on your own, thus evading both their revenue streams and being at least a bit of a leech. You're not subscribing for the convenience of having them block the ads, you're paying to block the ads, period.

      But this is perhaps just a lot of handwringing. Certainly ad-blocking is not a crime, but we have to acknowledge that in many cases, as with TV, we prefer ad-sponsorship over other models, such as paying. I used to use ad-blocking software and got tired of managing it. I now glance at the ads occasionally, or at least don't treat them like the Medusa, where a mere glance might be lethal. And, significantly, I avoid ad-choked sites altogether, denying myself the content while making the point that theirs is not a site to which I will give a "hit." If enough people do this, ad revenue drops and the site has to improve its scheme or perish.

      Vote with your feet. Boycott sites you don't like, and respect the sites that you do visit by suffering the content the webmaster has to include not to die. If you don't like it, walk, and if you care enough, send the webmaster a note explaining why.

      Sorry my prose rambles -- I'm still mulling this over.
      [ Parent ]
  • This is ironic. by mind21_98 (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:14PM
  • by RollingThunder (88952) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:15PM (#4771637)
    *mentally kisses karma goodbye*

    The article headline:
    "Inventor arrested on drug charges"

    In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs.

    Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?

    *shakes head*

    Not meant to be a troll, though I'm sure it'll be moderated as such. Just boggles my mind.
  • This is too funny... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Akardam (186995) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:15PM (#4771640)
    http://www.akardam.net/media/news/anti-leech-funny .png [akardam.net]

    That's all I'm going to say... this is too funny.
  • "Today" by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:16PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Karma caught the Priest... by craenor (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:16PM
  • boo fuckin' hoo by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:17PM
  • Pot calling kettle black by ekrout (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:21PM
  • Kazaa Lite and Anti-leech by jon787 (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:21PM
  • Translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Bungi (221687) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:21PM (#4771672) Homepage
    From here [prensa.com]

    La Corte Suprema de Justicia ordenó suspender los efectos de la orden del Ente Regulador de los Servicios Públicos (ERSP) que bloqueó los puertos de acceso de voz sobre Protocolo de Internet al admitir una acción de amparo de garantías constitucionales.

    The supreme court ordered the directive to block ports to be suspended based on a [claim] of constitutional guarantees.

    El amparo fue presentado por la firma Infante, Garrido & Garrido a nombre de la compañía Net2net Corp., en contra la resolución de la junta directiva del Ente No. JD-3576, del 25 de octubre del 2002.

    This law firm submitted the request to suspend the blockage on Oct. 25.

    Mediante una nota firmada por el magistrado sustanciador, Winston Spadafora, la Corte solicitó al Ente el envío de un informe acerca de los hechos sobre el caso y se ordenó la suspensión inmediata de los efectos de la mencionada resolución.

    Essentially what I assume is the federal prosecutor requested the company that would have been doing the blocking an explanation about the action, which was then given to the Supreme Court, who in turn stopped the order.

    Para el presidente del Ente Regulador, Alex Anel Arroyo, las llamadas a larga distancia internacional a través de internet son ilegales.

    The dude Alex Anel Arroyo thinks international long distance calls over the internet are illegal, yadda. I assume he's the one that initiated all this. Send him some email =)

    La orden del Ente fue dirigida a unas 50 empresas concesionarias del servicio 211 o servicio de internet para uso público, para que bloqueen 24 puertos de acceso User Datagram Protocol (UDP), que eran utilizados para transmisión de voz, incluso por algunas empresas que daban el servicio al público.

    The blocking order was originally sent to about 50 internet providers to block 24 UDP ports used for voice transmission.

    Esas empresas proveedoras de servicio de internet han presentado varias solicitudes de reconsideración ante el ERSP.

    The companies have in fact requested the order be examinated further.

    Entre los proveedores de internet que hicieron la petición de reconsideración se encuentran Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet A CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net y Senacyt.

    List of ISPs that requested the order be reconsidered.

    La Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Senacyt) criticó la resolución a través de su director, Gonzalo Córdoba, quien afirmó que el bloqueo de los puertos de acceso de voz "constituye una forma inusitada de censura".

    The government technology agency criticized the attempt to block the ports, etc.

    A la posición de los proveedores de internet se suma la de muchos usuarios que se verán afectados con el bloqueo de los puertos de acceso, conocidos como User Datagram Protocols.

    Not to mention individual users who would find themselves screwed (my emphasis) by the UDP blockage. Duh.

  • TTT burn all movs! by dark-br (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:22PM
  • by Omega Hacker (6676) <omega@nOSPaM.vcolo.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:22PM (#4771678) Homepage

    OK, so I load up the "anti-leech" FAQ, and what do I get? A doubleclick add for....: anti-popup software [omegacs.net]

    ROFL!

  • Anti-Leech - there will always be a way to beat it by BladeMelbourne (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:22PM
  • I'm a really bad person (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:22PM (#4771681) Homepage
    rant mode on

    Not only do I use a browser that blocks pop-ups, I also have added a variety of advertiser URLs to my "hosts" file. While the pop-ups are annoying no matter what, I generally will let banner ads, etc. download in peace... as long as the ad gets successfully served. The only advertisers in my host file are those who have consistently managed to effectively block the content that I was interested in by not being able to serve the ads they contracted to serve for those sites. If you're going to hit me with an ad, at least do it correctly.

    rant mode off

    Back to "anti-leach"... I guess I'm also supposed to read all the ads in free newspapers and not take a biology breaks or grab a beer when there's a commercial on TV and its a high crime if I hit the mute button. Maybe that's why I'd rather just read a book.
  • To Anti-Leech: by rnturn (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:28PM
  • The war of words... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raytracer (51035) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:29PM (#4771717)

    I'm frankly amazed at the degree to which people go to redefine words to try to change the tenor and direction of debate. A good example is the anti-leech trying to redefine your desire to not read their advertising as theft. To use the word theft to describe such actions is to belittle the meaning of the word theft, making it useless to describe actual property crimes.

    Anti-leech would have you believe that you are under some obligation to make their particular business model (which is apparently to gain money by annoying people with popups) or else you are stealing from them. They admit that in a legal sense, it is of course incorrect to call it theft, but in a moral sense such a label is justified.

    They are, well, full of it.

    It isn't the responsibility of consumers to make a particular broken business model profitable: that is the responsibility of business owners. If you can't figure out a way to make money on the Internet, then you can't, but it seems pretty silly to bitch at your target audience for that problem. When your viewers decide to employ pop-up blocking or ad-filtering software, they are sending you as their content provider a message: this stuff is not of value to me, I don't want to waste even a single brain cell dealing with it. It is true that eventually your advertisers will likely notice that the response rate from web based advertisements are ridiculously low and will stop spending money on click-throughs and the like, and that will (at least according to anti-leech) spell an end to many websites.

    Which would of course be a hideous tragedy, because who doesn't want to read through more advertising.

    Businesses should learn a new lesson: intrusive pop up advertising doesn't work. Spam doesn't work. Stop paying for it. Be creative, and try to make information about your product visible to those who actually want it, don't cast it scattergun style in front of millions of people for whom it just represents an annoyance. Browsers such as Mozilla now have pop-up blocking because users want it, and that means that the users don't want to read your add for X-10 cameras or you've won a free prize while trying to access their bank accounts. Listen to your customers, and develop a business based upon respecting them, not on blanketing them with crap everytime they log in.

  • Yes. Happy Xgiving if applicable... by dagg (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:30PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Oh, the irony @ cdcovers.cc (Score:4, Funny)

    by I Love this Company! (547598) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:30PM (#4771726)
    It seems that the site [cdcovers.cc] using anti-leech software (it blocks Opera in this instance) just got issued a notice from the RIAA to take down its CD cover scans section (must be due to lost profits!) If that's not juicy irony, I don't know what is.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Expect My Bill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by limekiller4 (451497) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:30PM (#4771728) Homepage
    From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
    "A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

    Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

    The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

    The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

    This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

    Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

    And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

    Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
  • Anti-leech should look at the ads they serve by gburgyan (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:32PM
  • The problem with anti-leech by Jeriki (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:32PM
  • Anti-Leech question for the masses. by dumboy (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:36PM
  • Why trust a company... by professortomoe (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:36PM
  • A fine piece of advice by Syncdata (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:38PM
  • Correction to Panamá slashback by Ramsés Morales (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:42PM
  • I've never laughed my ass so hard. by His name cannot be s (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:59PM
  • by limekiller4 (451497) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:00PM (#4771879) Homepage
    I was writing a reply [slashdot.org] to the anti-leech website when I realized that using the same logic, I could charge the site for my content!

    I realize, of course, that the owner of anti-leech.com did not request the content in question, but this fact seems largely irrelevant to Mr. Wennberg. After all, much like the "thieves" who "steal" from his clients, he did not actually ask that I compose a reply, but I did and it did cost me bandwidth to post, time to create, etc., and as such I expect Mr. Wennberg to pay for the resources that have been expended.

    It is in this vein that I have billed Mr. Wennberg for my rebuttal (content) on a net-30 basis and fully intend to collect. I really hope that Mr. Wennberg is consistent with his application of fairness. After all, I did spend a lot of time putting together my response and if he does not pay my bill, it might very well cause me to go out of business altogether.

    ---------------------

    Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:42:05 -0500 (EST)
    From: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
    To: johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
    Bcc: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
    Subject: Crashspace: Invoice #0001

    Anti-leech.com,

    Thank you for your recent content purchase! Here is your order confirmation.

    Invoice: 0001

    Content:
    ----[%begin]----
    From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
    "A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"

    Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.

    The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.

    The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."

    This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?

    Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.

    And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?

    Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...

    My .02,

    Limekiller
    ----[%end ]----

    Total Charge: $90.00 USD

    We bill on a net-30 basis. Past due accounts are charged an additional 18% annual APR fee, accrued every 30 days (1.5%).

    Again, thank you for using Crashspace content!

    Regards,
    Jason

    --
    ----

    "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." - Charles V
  • Anti-leech market segmentation by perp (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:09PM
  • Meh.. I'm not worried by marcushnk (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:09PM
  • LOTR 'Inside the Effects' by Andorion (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:10PM
  • Oh the delicious irony... (Score:4, Funny)

    by marmoset (3738) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:10PM (#4771919) Homepage Journal
    Look closely at the banner ad [freeke.org] that was running when I took a look at the Anti-Leech page.

  • the ridiculous FAQ (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stinky wizzleteats (552063) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:25PM (#4771983) Homepage Journal

    Here's a response I was working on. I would send it, but I have no confidence they would actually read it.


    Thank you for your response. I read your FAQ, and have the following questions and comments.
    Running a website costs the webmaster behind that site time and money.

    While I won't dispute that web sites take time to develop, many thousands of web sites operate non-commercially, and I've run several at no cost. The web is a place to share information. You characterize user preferences as theft, and even implicitly advocate turning that characterization into law:
    Legally it is of course not theft to block pop ups (today),...

    In essence, therefore, you are attempting to restrict an environment of free exchange of information to support a commercial venture, based upon the fallacious argument that the environment depends on the success of that venture. I find that reprehensible.
    However, Google is a multinational huge company with an enourmous(sic) sale(sic) force and budget.

    Actually, according to this: http://www.google.com/press/investors.html [google.com], Google is privately funded, owned by a small consortium of U.S. IT business leaders. And despite having actually used Google's advertising services, I have not been contacted by any member of their vast sales force. I have received not even a single piece of spam. I point this out because Google's business success has come from their attitude toward their intended customers. People want unbiased, accurate, ad-free search results. Google is successful because they have found a way to give people what they want and a way to make money on it, rather than trying to force an outdated business philosophy to the Internet, and screaming epithets such as "thief!" when it doesn't work.
  • Battle scene creation by Animats (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:26PM
  • PanIP and Acacia Media by gopherdata (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:27PM
  • One good point in the FAQ by Darkforge (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:27PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Gregoyle (122532) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:31PM (#4772015)
    I translated this with a little help from Systran(Sherlock). I lay no claim to the words being mine though, as the article was written by someone else.

    Court Suspends Internet Blockage Ruling

    Mario A. Muñoz
    andresm@prensa.com

    The Supreme Court of Justice ordered to suspend the effects of the Public Services Regulating Body (ESRP) order that blocked the ports for voice over IP, due to a finding that it was constitutionally protected.

    The motion was presented by the firm Infante, Garrido & Garrdio for the company Net2net Corp, in opposition to the Oct. 25th, 2002 resolution JD-3576 by the board of directors of the Regulating Body.

    In a letter from the Chief Magistrate, Winston Spadafora, the Court asked for a report on the facts of the case and ordered the immediate suspension of the effects of the aforementioned resolution.

    The President of the Regulating Body, Alex Anel Arroyo, thinks international calls made through the Internet are illegal.

    The ESRP order was given to 50 Internet Service Providers, ordering them to block 24 UDP access ports that were used for voice transmission, including some companies that offered that service to the public.

    Those ISPs have presented several requests to the ERSP for reconsideration (of the order).

    Among the ISPs that issued the request are Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet a CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net, and Senacyt.

    The national Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation (Senacyt) criticized the resolution through its director, Gonzalo Cordova, who affirmed that blocking the voice access ports "constitutes a different form of censorship".

    The ISPs position is added to that of the many users would be affected by blocking the access ports known as UDP (User Datagram Protocols)

    All rights are reserved by Prensa corporation. internet@prensa.com
    (hopefully those don't include translation rights)
  • Please don't feel offended - we understand you by phorm (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:38PM
  • What's the difference... by connsmythe96 (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:39PM
  • anti-leach FAQ has banner add for an ad-blocker! by dcd (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:42PM
  • Blocking Pop Ups by da_Den_man (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:47PM
  • PanIP letter sent. by Anonymous Freak (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:48PM
  • Ever heard of Economics? by Anonvmous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:50PM
  • anti-leech and php? by Russ Nelson (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:58PM
  • Oh, sweet irony! by thorrbjorn (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:25PM
  • In other news... (script blocking) by gnixdep (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:33PM
  • Here's your darwin award (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thaelon (250687) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:34PM (#4772281)
    Nature doesn't acknowledge pleas or namecalling if you can't get your food to survive. The buisness world is just another part of nature, if your methods of survival don't work, then you don't get to survive.

    Nobody likes banners, popups, or spam all they do is annoy users and steal OUR bandwidth, so when your buisness model based on popups, banners or spam fails, analagously speaking you die.

    Google's advertisments work because they're TARGETED. You search for something and they slip in a couple of text based ads related to WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

    Here's a weird analogy: In Vietnam the U.S. dropped more blanketing bombs on North Vietnam than in all of WWII and it accomplished almost nothing. It was a stupid strategy because just like with mass spamming/popups the liklihood of any given bomb accomplishing something was nil just like the odds of any single ad generating a profit are nil, you're just wasting "bombs" that never make an impact just like your untargeted ads face a disinterested audience.

    Google gets to survive because their method works, you don't because yours doesn't.

    No hurry up and croak, we're tired of your bs.
  • Ad-blocking and P2P... by blank_coil (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:37PM
  • enourmous? by ipxodi (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @09:50PM
  • humm... but the banner they're running... by cdtoad (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:44PM
  • Anti-leech scumbags.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:48PM (#4772567) Homepage
    Hmm I clicked on the link to see their FAQ and their attempt at redeeming any of their legitimacy.. and what do i get? the trademark of the scummiest sites on the internet.... a Gator install request.

    Sorry, but they are scumbags through and through. anyone supporting the invasive popups and allowing gator anywhere near their servers are worse than telemarketers that scam old people.

    Sorry, but their actions and how their site acts says contrary to someone interested in doing legitimage business and I will continue to warn people away from their company and anyone that uses their services.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Hmmm... Strange... by Misch (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @10:59PM
  • Anti-leech fiasco by atgrim (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @11:55PM
  • BEWARE by deblau (Score:2) Thursday November 28 2002, @12:50AM
  • Anti-Leech: run by morons? by Mirkon (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @01:29AM
  • Thank you anti-leech... by cyt0plas (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @01:30AM
  • Blocking Spam / Ads / Banners / Popups by timerider (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @03:45AM
  • anti-theft?? by radja (Score:2) Thursday November 28 2002, @03:51AM
  • Mozilla Spanks Anti-Leech by jvance (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @05:04AM
  • Last Post! by alpg (Score:1) Wednesday December 11 2002, @05:02PM
  • Re:Sue PanIP? by nricciar (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:11PM
  • Re:voip by Morgahastu (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:14PM
    • Re:voip by EvilStein (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:20PM
    • Re:voip by Lordfly (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:22PM
    • Re:voip by Whatever Fits (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:52PM
  • Re:Sue PanIP? by YahoKa (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:15PM
  • Re:Sue PanIP? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by omaha (41554) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:22PM (#4771674) Homepage
    It looks like they are taking contributions for the effort ala PayPal.
    http://www.youmaybenext.com/help.html [youmaybenext.com]
    If everyone pitched in a buck I bet we could blow PanIP out of the water. I know that I don't want any of my clients getting sued and all of them fit in the category that is being preyed upon by these parasites. Shoot, I just talked myself in to contributing a buck for every website I manage. I would suggest that if you build sites for others that you do the same.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Sue PanIP? by Twirlip of the Mists (Score:3) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:41PM
      • Re:Sue PanIP? by psamuels (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @12:01AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Sue PanIP? (Score:3, Informative)

    by darkonc (47285) <stephen_samuel.bcgreen@com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:35PM (#4771748) Homepage Journal
    You can't really sue someone for pursuing a patent infringement case, unless you can show that the case is/was frivolous and a waste of the court's time. If they can reasonably argue that they really were hoping for the judge to rule on their side when they started, then it's hard to nail them on this.

    It's slightly different for the 'youmaybenext.com' application. That's clearly a commentary site describing the lawsuits and what they see as the fallout from them. No real malice or illegality there (just lots of indignation and anger). Many states have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation [casp.net]) laws. Running against those can get you bitch-SLAPPed.

    [ Parent ]
  • Move to a State with anti-SLAPP laws by goombah99 (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:38PM
  • Re:Information doesn't want to be free.. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:38PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Don't click link by Galahad2 (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:41PM
  • Re:voip (Score:4, Informative)

    by Twirlip of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:46PM (#4771816)
    [Voice over IP] will replace phones as we know it... why isnt it more widely used?

    Just about the worst telephone call you can make-- in my experience-- is the US to Sydney, Oz. The call must be routed over a satellite link or something, because the lag is on the order of half a second. When you're talking to someone in Australia, you get used to saying, "How are you today?" and then waiting while the perceptible lag passes to hear the reply, "Fuck off, you piker! It's three in the bloody mornin'!"

    Every VOIP call is like that, only the lag varies from a merely noticeable fraction of a second to between one and two seconds from moment to moment, due to varying net traffic conditions.

    VOIP, in other words, is more annoying and less effective than your average instant messaging system.
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:voip by ewieling (Score:1) Wednesday November 27 2002, @08:01PM
    • Re:voip by awch (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @11:28AM
      • Re:voip by Twirlip of the Mists (Score:2) Thursday November 28 2002, @11:50AM
        • Re:voip by awch (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @12:00PM
    • Re:voip by Twirlip of the Mists (Score:2) Wednesday November 27 2002, @11:39PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Easier if they beat them first (Score:5, Insightful)

    by billstewart (78916) on Wednesday November 27 2002, @07:50PM (#4771835) Journal
    Sometimes it makes sense to sue somebody while they're suing you, as a bargaining tactic that lets you both drop your suits against each other. But if you're not doing that, you're much more likely to succeed if you first win in their lawsuit against you, especially if you can get the court to award you your legal costs, which is a strong indication that their suit was bogus. In this case, the PanIP folks have gotten some people to pay them off rather than fighting a lawsuit, which makes their case look stronger, instead of looking like the bogus piece of fluff that it is, which is a bit tough on a preemptive countersuit.

    The other way to play it is to tell them "drop the suit or we'll squash you into the ground for making a frivolous attack on us" and hope that works, but unfortunately the patent system is biased towards people who can talk the patent office into giving them patents, so this is difficult.

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:LotR requires Flash 6 by Daengbo (Score:1) Thursday November 28 2002, @03:15AM
  • 22 replies beneath your current threshold.