Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Razorback2 Servers Seized 365

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the new-sterile-servers-back-online dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Slyck is reporting that Belgian and Swiss authorities have raided and seized Razorback2's servers. From the article: 'Razorback2 was an eDonkey2000 indexing server - very different in nature from an indexing site such as ShareReactor. Unlike indexing sites, Razorback2's index was only available through an eDonkey2000 client such as eMule. While it does not host any actual files or multimedia material, it does index the location of such files on the eDonkey2000 network. The legality of such indexing remains questionable, however this has not deterred copyright enforcement actions.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Razorback2 Servers Seized

Comments Filter:
  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:19AM (#14777104)
    I think they're blowing it a little out of proportion with that statement.

    But from the article's description, RazorBack2 does seem to be host to all sorts of unsavory content. Not to mention party to illegal activities. Now it's gone and some other network will step in to take its place.

    I'm sure all those poor kids who don't have money to go out and actually buy CDs will now be inconvenienced. Boo hoo.
  • Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:19AM (#14777106)
    How come when the property of regular citizens is siezed for investigation of a piracy or drug-related crime, you always hear the term "raid."

    I mean, surely when the Justice Department needs to take a look at Microsoft's paperwork, they send in in an elite squad of ATF agents to rappel down from above, crash through the roof, and storm the building with machineguns drawn.
  • Re:Decentralize (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:25AM (#14777155)
    Indeed. People will wise up. I hate the term piracy, because it's NOT actual piracy. Piracy is "stealing" a physical object. Intellectual property is NOT property, and I will forever hold to the FSF on this point.

    I prefer the term revenus stream hijacking, because the people that download stuff would not have bought it anyway.

    I'm looking forward to seeing more decentralized efforts put forth. This is why everyone needs to push for free software and strong crypto.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:46AM (#14777340)
    eases....

    the mpaa uses pirated pdf tools for their pressreleases

    also see

    http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19476& postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75 [slyck.com]

    (check the posting of the nxm dude in that thread)

    check their pdf at:

    http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_raze r.pdf [mpaa.org]

    (wonder why its named razer.pdf when the site they took down was called razorback2. are they as dumb as shit?)

  • Re:Decentralize (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PFI_Optix (936301) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:50AM (#14777384) Journal
    the people that download stuff would not have bought it anyway.

    That's just not true. People download more than they would have bought, that goes without saying...but services like iTunes have demonstrated that people will pay for their downloads if they're made available for purchase. I know people who never bought CDs who now buy songs online because they can buy only the songs they want. Prior to that, they pirated the material.

    As for the wording of it, whether you like it or not "unauthorized duplication and distribution" is becoming part of the definition of piracy. You might as well give up that fight.

  • by drasfr (219085) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <iomedever>> on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:56AM (#14777444)
    Why can't we, as an opensource community create a real completely decentralized p2p network? I have been thinking of doing this for a while and do have a lot of ideas for this. I have been online for 14 years and have seen a lot. After all we all know the problems with existing p2p networks from the past years:

    - It has to be truly decentralized. No main server. Whatsoever. Except websites to download clients. It has to be able to discover new clients/networks/etc...
    - Specs have to be open so anyone can implement a client.
    - It has to be secured. Using SSL for example.
    - It has to work from behind firewalls.
    - It has to be secure enough to differentiate dups and fake files.
    - Searches have to be decentralized, but cached, and verified for integrity.
    - Of course, it has to be ad-free/spyware-free.
    - It has to be built upon security, safety/integrity of the files and users in mind.
    - Most of all, it has to be thought off as a legal project with legal uses so it can't be stopped.

    I see no reason why this can't be implemented as a community effort? I have been a project manager for years, and for one would be willing to work/coordinate on such a project.
  • by Alarash (746254) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @11:58AM (#14777454)
    You can link to illegal content. You're pointing to it, you aren't hosting it. It's perfectly legal. What's wrong with these people.

    I don't want to live in a 1984-style society. But comments like this are not fair. Yes it's legal to link to illegal content, sort of. But when the _only_ purpose of a server is to link to illegal content, you have to be retarded to think it's just for research, or study or for the sake that it's not illegal.

    This intent of this server's owners is clear: they wanted to exploit a legal loop to provide copyrighted content. They played, they lost. They knew the rules, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to exploit them.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free, legal downloads for a private use. But these people can't say they didn't see this coming, unless they are liars.

  • by boxxa (925862) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @12:07PM (#14777515) Homepage
    The direct connect protocol basically does that and I belive even has SSL support now. Files are checked for integrety by hash values and the central server running the "hub" doesn't host any files or even index. All sharing and searching is done peer-to-peer.
  • by MMC Monster (602931) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @12:15PM (#14777560)
    If it is of questionable legality, shouldn't it be brought out in court. That way people will know if it is legal or illegal.

    While I am totally against frivilous lawsuits, having something brought to court to determine if it is legal is occassionally necessary.

    Assuming that things aren't settled on the sidelines, of course.
  • Aiding and Abetting? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @12:54PM (#14777869) Homepage Journal
    I suppose they could call it that technically Since you have to be on the network to access the indexes, and you cant get there accidentally.

    Except that ED2K also houses plenty of LEGAL files, so how can you claim its only used for illegal activities? That's like saying the corner newspaper store is really just a porn shop because it has a 'backroom'.

    But then again, if you have more money then the guy you just hit, you never have to make it to an actual legal decision before they drop out.

    i wonder if they will now start going through the logs and go after 'users'.

    There needs to be a way to run a server, and be a user, totally anonymously. Or this game of cat and mouse will never end.
  • What if... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jgoemat (565882) on Wednesday February 22, 2006 @07:53PM (#14781204)
    What if each file to be sent was split into two files of the same size that contained completely random data, but if you XORed them together you would get the original file. Each 'sharer' on the system would only share one of the two files. Anyone downloading it would get gobbledy gook unless they had the other part to the file themselves already. That way you are not actually serving the file since anyone looking at what they get from you will juse see random data. In fact, I could also create 'random' data to make the exact same data turn out to be part of a public domain movie from the gutenberg archives. This would double the bandwidth on the network, but the only sites vulnerable would be indexing sites, which you wouldn't need if peers could index themselves.

    For instance, let's say I have LINUX.TGZ and it is 5mb long exactly (old version of the kernel ;). I create a 5 MB stream of random bytes (A) and xor LINUX.TGZ with it to get another 5MB stream of random bytes (B). Then I take my MP3 of "Enter SandMan" (SANDMAN.mp3) which is also 5 mb and I XOR it with (A) to get another seemingly random stream of bytes (C). This way I can keep people from listening to my music without having (A). Then I xor LINUX.TGZ with (C) to get another seemingly random stream of bytes (D). I could then do a search for (A) by MD5 HASH and download it. Then I could do a search for (B) by MD5 hash and download it. Combining those two files would give me LINUX_KERNEL_0.99.TGZ. Now if I do a search for either (C) or (D) by MP3 hash and download it, I can reconstruct the others.

    1. Combine (A) and (B) and you get LINUX
    2. Combine (A) and (C) and you get ODE_TO_ME.mp3
    3. Combine (C) and (D) and you get LINUX

      Therefore, if I only share (A) and (B) on my hard drive, I can upload both parts needed to make LINUX to other users. If my friend shares (C) and (D) on their hard drive, it is the same, you can use both parts to create LINUX. Now if someone were to download (A) from me and (C) from my friend, they could illegally use them to recreate the SANDMAN.MP3 file, but why would someone want to break copyright law? My friend and I are just serving the parts to make LINUX.TGZ which is perfectly legal.

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. -- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

Working...