Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

pzxc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#61

Post by mattm »

averageJoe4 wrote: post #55
citricsquid wrote: post #36

This guys website is just others content, HE is taking flash games created by others and publishing them on his website FOR PROFIT. I spotted some friends games on there that they are unlikely to gave permission to put on there. Also, he has taken a popular t-shirt design, copied it and then is selling it for profit here http://www.cafepress.co.uk/playitontheweb as advertised on his website. If the guy who posted thi…

In addition, if you visit www.playitontheweb.com, you'll see in the right column he prominently features Mario and Sonic flash games, games that make unauthorized use of copyrighted and trademarked characters, as well as game art and sound effects. This guy really has some nerve complaining about someone copying his crappy site design.

Indeed. Perhaps this is more of a case of "what comes around, goes around."

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#62

Post by rorrr »

Other fun ideas:

1) Redirect all of his traffic to your site

2) Put an iframe with his site in it. His hosting company would probably shut him down very quickly.

3) Put goatse / tubgirl on all pages (for his scraper only).

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#63

Post by pyre »

jbk wrote: post #54
DarkShikari wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I deal with companies ripping off GPL software. Not a single company -- or the webhosts they use -- have ever responded to a DMCA request.

And I do have exactly the same experience. In almost every language, a research for "vlc" gives you either adwords for scams, adware, software+toolbars, software+homepage-changer or websites in the first page of Google results (using rings to get higher). Most of the time, they don't offer the source, modify something and do not offer the source, or abuse trademarks. Since Google refuses to remove them from index, or…

  > I have literally sent hundreds of DMCA. It almost never works.
Are these US-based hosting providers?

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#64

Post by JoachimSchipper »

jedsmith wrote: post #20

Okay, I'll take the alternative view: this is embarrassing for the OP. What worries me is that the OP found the name Bart Burns on the WHOIS for the domain, and assumed (a) that's who registered the domain, and (b) that the information he found via a quick Google is actually Bart Burns. I can change the information on my domain to be whoever I want, particularly if I'm a scammer. Whatever I put in NameCheap's panel s…

"WHOIS may be wrong" is a very good point.

However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it? Putting a thief in jail does reduce the income of his/her family, but I wouldn't blame the victim for doing so!

You could argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but that's a much more subtle argument than you appear to be making.

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#65

Post by jbk »

pyre wrote: post #63
jbk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I do have exactly the same experience. In almost every language, a research for "vlc" gives you either adwords for scams, adware, software+toolbars, software+homepage-changer or websites in the first page of Google results (using rings to get higher). Most of the time, they don't offer the source, modify something and do not offer the source, or abuse trademarks. Since Google refuses to remove them from index, or…

> I have literally sent hundreds of DMCA. It almost never works. Are these US-based hosting providers?

Some, yes.

But as we are not US-based, it is kind of hard to enforce...

Not to mention that a SF-based company registered our trademark and sued Sourceforge afterwards...

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#66

Post by narrator »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #64
jedsmith wrote: post #20

Okay, I'll take the alternative view: this is embarrassing for the OP. What worries me is that the OP found the name Bart Burns on the WHOIS for the domain, and assumed (a) that's who registered the domain, and (b) that the information he found via a quick Google is actually Bart Burns. I can change the information on my domain to be whoever I want, particularly if I'm a scammer. Whatever I put in NameCheap's panel s…

"WHOIS may be wrong" is a very good point. However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it? Putting a thief in jail does reduce the income of his/her family, but I wouldn't blame the victim for doing so! You could argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but that's a much more subtle argument than you appear to be making.

FYI, the term for directing internet vigilantism at an innocent third party is known as a "Joe job"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job). It originated as a spammer's revenge tactic.

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#67

Post by jedsmith »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #64
jedsmith wrote: post #20

Okay, I'll take the alternative view: this is embarrassing for the OP. What worries me is that the OP found the name Bart Burns on the WHOIS for the domain, and assumed (a) that's who registered the domain, and (b) that the information he found via a quick Google is actually Bart Burns. I can change the information on my domain to be whoever I want, particularly if I'm a scammer. Whatever I put in NameCheap's panel s…

"WHOIS may be wrong" is a very good point. However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it? Putting a thief in jail does reduce the income of his/her family, but I wouldn't blame the victim for doing so! You could argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but that's a much more subtle argument than you appear to be making.

> However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it?

Spoken like a bachelor. Two things I firmly believe in, especially when it comes to Internet squabbles, disagreements and such:

- Don't mess with someone's livelihood.

- Don't mess with someone's family.

They're related. You're going to sit here and tell me that it's justifiable that the alleged guy lose his job over this, possibly taking food out of his kids' mouths? If I copied your Web site and someone pulled a stunt like that with my employer, I'd be out for blood. You hurt my family, I hurt you. You'll understand when you have one.

You can't parallel this to putting someone in jail, because there wasn't really a crime committed (I'd like to see a prosecution), and OP is not the law.

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#68

Post by JoachimSchipper »

jedsmith wrote: post #67
JoachimSchipper wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"WHOIS may be wrong" is a very good point. However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it? Putting a thief in jail does reduce the income of his/her family, but I wouldn't blame the victim for doing so! You could argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but that's a much more subtle argument than you appear to be making.

> However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it? Spoken like a bachelor. Two things I firmly believe in, especially when it comes to Internet squabbles, disagreements and such: - Don't mess with someone's livelihood. - Don't mess with someone's family. They're related. You're going to sit here and tell me that it's justifiable that the alleged g…

I upvoted your comment because you are contributing to the discussion, and because I hope to understand you. You're right that I have no kids (I do have a girlfriend, though). I've also explicitly assumed throughout that the guy who was fingered really was the guilty party.

Under this assumption, though, I don't see what's so bad. First off, the guy did do something that he shouldn't; secondly, the actual punishment is almost certainly zero. Not only are we, indeed, not talking about jail time, we're not talking "meticulously SEO johndoeisathief.com to the top of Google" either; we're not talking "start a Twitter shitstorm until his boss fires him"; we're not even talking "publicly call him out" - the data in the post probably probably does identify exactly one person, but it's hard to actually make that link. I do admit that blacking out some more data would be prudent, but - what exactly would you be so upset about?

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#69

Post by jedsmith »

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #68
jedsmith wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, if he were actually certain to get the right guy, what's so bad about "attacking his family" as you define it? Spoken like a bachelor. Two things I firmly believe in, especially when it comes to Internet squabbles, disagreements and such: - Don't mess with someone's livelihood. - Don't mess with someone's family. They're related. You're going to sit here and tell me that it's justifiable that the alleged g…

I upvoted your comment because you are contributing to the discussion, and because I hope to understand you. You're right that I have no kids (I do have a girlfriend, though). I've also explicitly assumed throughout that the guy who was fingered really was the guilty party. Under this assumption, though, I don't see what's so bad. First off, the guy did do something that he shouldn't; secondly, the actual punishment…

That's a different argument than you started with. You lost the plot somewhere, which is that I think attacking his employment over this goes beyond a line. There is only one reason to proudly put in your attack:

    Someone that works at X should know better!
What reason do you think that is? Now they need to take a hard look at their decision to hire this guy; what is he up to in his private time? Suddenly, his private actions have become publicly tied to our company.

There's a reason I don't have my employer in my profile -- I have personally seen someone take a comment the wrong way, and spend days calling the employer to report what a piece of shit the employee is, and how much he was into drugs, and so on. Merely naming the guy's employer here casts them in a bad light.

Think back to Noirin Shirley accusing the guy from Twitter of sexual assault via her blog. When the media inevitably ran with it, it wasn't "an Apache member accuses another Apache member," it was "a Google employee accuses a Twitter employee," because that's a much juicier story. Now Google and Twitter have been sideswiped in something that isn't even their business, and I wouldn't have been surprised if Twitter had cut him loose over it. I don't think they did, so that is a lucky thing for him.

In this economy, I'm just as stretched as everyone else. Anybody who goes after my paycheck is playing with fire; that's all I'm saying.

Re: One Way to Deal with Internet Thieves

#70

Post by JoachimSchipper »

jedsmith wrote: post #69
JoachimSchipper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I upvoted your comment because you are contributing to the discussion, and because I hope to understand you. You're right that I have no kids (I do have a girlfriend, though). I've also explicitly assumed throughout that the guy who was fingered really was the guilty party. Under this assumption, though, I don't see what's so bad. First off, the guy did do something that he shouldn't; secondly, the actual punishment…

That's a different argument than you started with. You lost the plot somewhere, which is that I think attacking his employment over this goes beyond a line. There is only one reason to proudly put in your attack: Someone that works at X should know better! What reason do you think that is? Now they need to take a hard look at their decision to hire this guy; what is he up to in his private time? Suddenly, his private…

I see where you are coming from. I agree with you that e.g. phoning his employer would be an overreaction; and I agree with you that my earlier message was very unclear in that respect, although I wouldn't have posted it if he did, in fact, try to get the alleged thief fired.

Right now, though, "company X" does not seem to be heavily involved - the text in the original is in an image and not indexed. Don't you think that the actual damage is likely to be small?

Post reply on HN