Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
http://astatalk.com/ = fatal error
http://www.demonoid.com/ = changed to http://www.demonoid.me/ = cannot locate the internet server or proxy server
http://underground.com/ = has gone to a search engine
http://torrentfreak.com/ = taken down
http://www.nowtorrents.com/ = index no longer do torrents
http://isohunt.com/ = has had to change domains
http://btjunkie.org/torrent = taken down
http://www.torrentroot.com/ = just a search engine now
http://www.torrenthound.com/ = download porn only site now
http://www.scrapetorrent.com/ = has gone to a search only
http://www.torrentfly.org/ = gone to a porn site
Yes, while the sites could come back up because anything is possible, this is an example of what's to come for pirating sites.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Jessica, you are from Portugal, username angel13js, you hang around Mininova, enjoy Twitter at http://twitter.com/angel13js, actively participate in book giveaways that authors hold and are associated with a certain review site, which has been contacted and informed of your activities.
Your IP addy, recently changed, was 18.104.22.168.
According to your Mininova profile, you still illegally download books as of this month. http://forum.mininova.org/index.php?showuser=194494.
Your illegal activates did two things: 1-posted your IP address and 2-makes you a criminal.
Based on the above, I am not in violation of privacy invasion, but am withholding the remaining information and sending it to legal authorities.
Oh, Saturndark, guess what I have?
And there is so much more. Your IP is being honed in on so I only need you to make one more slip and changing ISPs won't do the trick.
Come on, give it up.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
They say three’s the charm. Well, three is definitely the proof that some pirates really do lack intelligence.
Here’s a comment posted on an eBay seller’s site:
Legal Stuff: I have sole re-sell rights to this material under GNU licensing and i have permission from the Licensee
I have complete Re-sell rights from the licensee’s authority.
Let’s clear up something real fast—while you, the seller on EBay, are the licensee…the licensee’s authority is the FSF - Free Software Foundation—creator of the GNU License.
I have complete Re-sell rights from the licensee’s authority.
This claims you have the resell rights of those CDs granted to you by the FSF. Interesting and a contradiction.
When an organization supports someone, it means the supported activity is okay by the organization’s standards. Does the FSF support your activity?
I find that claim alone amusing in that it is in direct violation of everything the FSF stands for.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is a non-profit corporation founded by Richard Stallman on 4 October 1985 to support the free software movement, a copyleft-based movement which aims to promote the universal freedom to create, distribute and modify computer software. The FSF is incorporated in Massachusetts, USA.
This organization created and holds power of the GNU, GPL and the likes.
Maybe you better contact the FSF and see what the FSF really thinks of your making a buck by selling a CD of unauthorized copyright protected work while hiding behind the GNU license without proper documentation and claiming you have the support of the Licensee’s authority.
I’d like to see a copy of the legal documentation granting you those resell rights, please.
Apparently, someone didn’t read beyond the first paragraph or research the purpose and content of the GNU and its creator/s.
Did you read that you cannot add works under a GNU License that are not approved by the original author/copyright holder? You might want to invest in an attorney because you are selling illegal goods on EBay under a misused license and your PayPal account and anything it is attached to—like your bank account—can be frozen until the investigation is complete.
Claiming you have permission from the Licensee’s authority means that the FSF is are going to back you when a judge asks you to produce proof that you have legal permission to put all those books together and sell them under the GNU license/guidelines.
The FSF did not intend the GNU/GPL to allow anyone to make a profit as GNU contributors do so with the confidence that their work benefits the whole world and remains free.
Did you get a signed and notarized statement from every author whose books are on those CDs? If not, guess what? You have violated copyright and even the copyleft, GNU and GPL cannot save you.
Who gave you the resell rights? It couldn’t have been the FSF because the FSF never held legal copyright to the CD content from the start. Did the authors? I seriously doubt that. Produce the statements, prove it. You’ll have to in court.
Who gave you the distribution rights? It couldn’t have been the FSF because the FSF never held any resell rights unless each copyright owner individually gave the resell rights to the FSF and then it would have been the master resell rights, not the normal resell rights, in order for you to distribute the CDs in the manner you are using. Did the publishers under contract to those authors? Right. You know, there is a publisher that loves to take people to court for stuff like this and once they sink their teeth in, there’s no letting go.
Do you leave the covers on those books? The GNU license says everything must stay intact and any changes must be logged. Removal of the covers violates the GNU license you are touting so the covers must be there. Do you have the signed and notarized statements from each artist involved? You’re going to need all those signed statements of permission in court because if you don’t have signed and notarized statements of permission, the GNU is null and void.
As I said before, GNU contributors do so with the confidence that their work benefits the whole world and remains free.
Your selling of something, claiming the GNU license gives you the right to do so, means you’re:
1-failing to meet the guidelines of the GNU by compiling unauthorized works,
2-violating the GNU license by exploiting the product—exactly what the GNU was designed to protect from since its inception.
I’m pretty sure the organization would not approve of you trashing what they stand for.
And if you want to change to the GPL—the General Public License, part of the GNU—read on as I covered that also.
The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free documentation, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU Project.
The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL’d work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.
This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work.
I’ll reiterate a few points:
GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license.
Material that restricts commercial re-use is incompatible with the license and cannot be incorporated into the work.
Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
That means money cannot be made from sale of the GNU/GPL protected work because it violates the GNU/GPL.
Works not authorized by a contributor cannot be included in the GNU/GPL protected work because it violates the GPU/GPL.
I guess all that means you have made the GNU license null and void so what you are doing is called fencing, selling stolen property, illegal activity. I wonder what PayPal and the IRS are going to say?
1-Astatalk has moved into pirating movies:
2-EBay has no issues of sellers marketing and selling stolen goods and expect buyers to buy before complaining, forcing buyers to participate in illegal distribution, aka, piracy:
Of course, Yahoo us still facilitating piracy, via its groups. Hey, Yahoo, some of those groups that are not marked adult are pirating explicit adult material. Maybe you should hire someone to search through the Yahoo groups and see just what Yahoo is affiliated with or participating in by authorizing the group in the first place. You might even want to disallow file sharing.
It’s sad to say that even the search engines are helping people find pirated material.
Granted Google does remove links when requested, but why does the burden have to fall on the owner to hunt and request removal? Doesn’t everyone know what torrent means? Any link with the word torrent in it should be automatically banned from even showing up in a search engine to avoid driving business to a pirate site.
For that matter, advertisers might want to check where their ads are appearing. To see an ad on a pirate sites tells me that most advertisers either don’t know or don’t care where their ad appears. Hello! An ad on a pirate site is only going to get your material pirated, not sales as pirates do not purchase, they steal.
Hey, Google, step up and take charge, ban the word torrent, bittorrent, bit torrent, bit-torrent and other suck well known and common piracy language. Show the world you are a topnotch search engine keeping pace with the times, maybe even stepping ahead.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Dumb is when a thief questions the morals, ethics and actions of someone else while their hand is in the cookie jar.
Honestly, it’s just plain stupid to commit an illegal act while pointing at others.
Below is a link to a conversation where one thief questions three eBook covers and the artists involved while another thief even questions the ethics and motives of the cover artist/s.
Granted a few of the pirates tell the two who failed to research the probability of where artists get cover images, aka the facts, but that doesn’t make the conversation intelligent material.
Come on, pirates, thieves, whatever you want to call yourselves—it’s all the same—if you’re going to illegally upload and distribute copyright protected material without the owner’s permission, the last thing you should be doing is questioning anything another does.
The use of stock images is not only legal, but accepted. The fact some images are duplicated just happens because unlike you, who sit on your backside illegally distributing others’ copyright protected work without permission, contracted artists are not only within the limits of the law, but they don’t have time to track down the use of every picture. At least the artists are paying the cover models for the use of the photos. That’s more than I can say for you thieves who distribute copyright protected work without the owner’s permission.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Sharing groups my derriere, pirating jerks.
Amusing is how pirates are complaining. Complaining about having to deal with annoying quizzes to get to illegal files. Complaining about how certain file host sites limit downloads if not a member. I think host sites are doing such in an attempt to hinder piracy because those host sites do not want to face criminal charges of facilitation.
Funny is how pirates are whining that authors should turn out better books. Come on, pirates, get real. You lazy, whinny, crybaby wimps want authors to spend even more time, effort and work putting out books for what...so you can STEAL those books? Get off your lowlife backside and get a life--do something of importance with your life...like get one or at least a job and pay the authors for the hard work. If you think it's so easy to write a story and get published, try it.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
First, any businessperson should be familiar with the law before opening and operating a business. Second, any CEO or head of a company, especially the big ones, should have an attorney at their fingertips to make sure of certain legalities.
Look at Cisco and MS, now they know how to run a business and don’t play games. They even enjoy crushing illegal activity, like pirating, and would NEVER, EVER be caught facilitating it.
YEA for Cisco and MS for being upstanding.
In my opinion, it seems Yahoo may be straddling the line. Straddling the line is foolish and will get you racked.
Personally, when someone knows an activity is happening and they do not react, they are condoning the activity and when someone makes something possible, they are facilitating the activity. Some examples would be the owner/creator of Astatalk, Underground and Demonoid.
Take this prime example of what seems to be Yahoo’s condoning and facilitating of illegally distributed copyright protected material. There’s a Yahoo group that has been complained about for sharing copyright protected material, but Yahoo has done nothing in response.
I re-typed the group’s intro—public info as it is made available to the general public—but the group seems to enjoy threatening people with suing if anyone uses their words. Please, sue me so I can countersue for illegal copyright distribution as I’m sure a few of the big boys would love to turn the group owner and probably a few members into known criminals. I think I’ll alert MGM, MS, EA and a few other big guys to this group and hope others follow my example.
Okay, onto the group’s welcome screen…and this part is public, Kim.
1-calls themselves a sharing group
2-shares music, movies, programs, games, ebooks and audio books.
3-says that no download links are allowed in the group unless with a specific file.
4-says no adult content, but certain ratings of movies are okay.
5-members must apply using certain channels or they will be denied membership.
6-refuses to allow stories, jokes, Paint Shop Pro and pictures.
7-recommends having a gmail account and that members must be on individual mail.
8-says members must have their program in order to get the attachments.
Since this group is authorized by Yahoo, that, to me, indicates Yahoo sanctions piracy by facilitating the transfer of copyright protected property.
Yahoo, we beg you to realize that there are many groups doing this and although countless complaints are filed with your abuse department, nothing has been done.
Our questions are simple:
Where does Yahoo stand on the piracy issue? Why does Yahoo allow their groups to be used for facilitation of illegally distributed copyright protected property?
Bull. You better grab a dictionary.
I don’t care if you call it, sharing or loaning, but you need to understand the word you use or use the correct word and understand copyright law.
The fact is, just buying an eBook doesn‘t mean you own the copyright. If that were the case, the person who bought a Stephen King book would own the copyright to that book and the person who bought a Bible would own the copyright to that Bible and the person who bought an MS program would own the copyright to that program and the person who bought an MGM movie on DVD would own the copyright to that movie and the person who bought an EA game would own the copyright to that game and—I hope you get the point because I know that Stephen King, MS, MGM and EA will happily meet you in court, anytime, anywhere.
If you allow someone to have a copy of your eBook, movie, program or game WITHOUT the consent of the name of the person beside the copyright symbol, you are making or allowing copies to be made—IOW, you are pirating, you are stealing, you are a thief.
Yes, we teach our kids to share. When you watch your child share, it means your child surrenders possession of what your child has in their little hands to another child so the other child has SOLE possession of it in their hands and your child no longer has that object. In no way did you see your child make a copy of the item—what you saw was your child actually GIVING it away WITHOUT keeping ANY part of it. THAT is sharing.
I was both offended and stunned to be in a public place and watch two small children share by exchanging their toys while their parents openly discussed pirating.
When I asked the parents if they knew what they were plotting was pirating, stealing, they said sure, that they didn’t care and laughed.
I looked at the two children, my comment being—it’s a shame the intelligent teachers are demonstrating sharing—I looked back at the parents—to fools who ignore lessons—then I walked away.
What’s pathetic is that a parent is supposed to teach a child yet in this case, the dumb adults could learn a lesson from the kids.
It’ll be sad to learn of the day fate taught the parents their ways when their kids steal a car and go to jail. Then again, some parents are blind, stupid and just plain dumb.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Your name on Underground Forum is starbreeze and
your name on Astatalk is kitiaraSkie. Why two names?
Because you were banned on Underground. For months, your IP was 22.214.171.124. That IP addy gave the following free and public information: Lat 41.6675, Long -72.786 in the vicinity of Hartford County, New Brittan, Connecticut 06050, area code 860, via DSL, ISP of AT&T, domain of SBC Global.net.
Then your IP was 126.96.36.199 when you re-entered Underground. That IP addy gave the following free and public information: Lat 41.6675, Long -72.786 in the vicinity of Hartford County, New Brittan, Connecticut, area code 860, via DSL, ISP of AT&T, domain of SNet.net.
The past couple of weeks, your IP has been 188.8.131.52. That IP addy gave the following free and public information: Lat 41.6741, Long -72.8573 in the vicinity of Hartford County, Plainville, Connecticut, 06062, area code 860, DSL, ISP of AT&T, domain of SNet.net.
Does the intersection of East Main Street and Kneal Ct ring a bell? Nice public library. Do you want me to reveal more? Maybe your marital status? Do the other members in that house know what you’re doing can jeopardize everything?
And if you pull the I’m a teenager, what can they do to me gig, the homeowners/parents can be sued in your place and some lawsuits can be postponed until you are of age.
And before anyone gripes, this is information the IP user gave when commenting the illegal activity called pirating so don’t say I posted her private info because starbreeze/kitiaraSkie herself gave those IPs
She pirates Jordan Castillo Price, DJ Manly & and Carol Lynne among others—104 posts in one day—and there were nineteen more titles when I pulled this information. She’s hits many other authors, too.
She pirated the anthology Stealing My Heart a few days ago in the same manner. The multi-upload links are multiple listings and she uses 4shared to post on Underground using the name starbreeze yet the 4shared file owner is kitiaraSkie.
Anonymous tip. Fair Use... only a portion of publicly posted material
Anabolina on Asta is a TEACHER!!! in Seoul Korea
She has posted (or reposted) the following links to copyrighted works in posts.
anabolina pm 11 Oct 2009, 00:00 ! #
release: Jayne Ann Krentz - Falling Awake
I found this one. btw, it's not named correctly and you need to delete the author's name so it ends in rar to extract it, but it extracts fine after that.
anabolina pm 11 Oct 2009, 00:04 ! #
release: Jayne Ann Krentz - All Night Long
It's not named correctly, so you need to delete the author's name at the end so it ends in rar and it extracts fine.
anabolina pm 13 Oct 2009, 17:49 ! #
release: Lucy Monroe - Hired: The Sheikh's Secretary Mistress
That ones's broken so here's another
release: Jaid Black - Breeding Ground
the file's been removed, so try this link instead.
anabolina pm 01 Nov 2009, 01:16 ! #
release: Janet Evanovich - The Grand Finale
anabolina pm 01 Apr 2010, 23:02 ! #
release: Mary Balogh - A Christmas Promise (rtf)
The file has expired, can someone repost this? Nevermind, I found it.
Friday, June 11, 2010
A link was brought to my attention and I was beyond flabbergasted.
Please follow this link as this abuser has the audacity to complain that people are filing takedown notices. She's uploaded hundreds of books and needs to be harrased.
Let's start filing reports. :)
Monday, June 7, 2010
Clipped and shortened from the US Copyright Office at: http://www.copyright.gov/
What Is Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
• To reproduce the work in copies;
• To distribute copies to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership;
It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. (—pause quote—Please Note: Those who upload for the world to share without verifiable permission from the author—aka pirating—are in violation of copyright law—continue quote—)
Who Can Claim Copyright?
Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright. (—end quote—Please Note: If you do not have permission from the author, you are in violation of copyright law)
Reiteration for those who don’t understand is put in simple terms and clipped and shortened from the Copyright Alliance located at: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/index.php
A copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights granted to a creator of an original work of authorship that has been fixed in a material medium. Physical paper book and eBooks are both tangible mediums.
Copyright owners are granted the exclusive right to control the:
Reproduction of their work
Distribution of their work
(—pause quote—Again, Please Note: If you do not have permission from the author and upload the eBook for others—aka pirating—you are in violation of copyright law—continue quote—)
Works of original authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium qualify for copyright protection, including:
Literature, poetry and other literary works (—pause quote—this includes eBooks—continue quote—)
Under the Copyright Act, the person who creates a work is the copyright owner and as such is the beneficiary of the exclusive rights of copyright.
Once a work has been fixed in tangible form, the exclusive rights of copyright apply automatically. The work does not need to be registered with the Copyright Office. (—end quote)
Again, information is from the US Copyright Office at: http://www.copyright.gov/ and the Copyright Alliance located at: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/index.php . Please visit those sites for greater detail.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
1-I did it to make sure that if someone wishes to attack this blog, it gets published because I want the world to witness said poster’s behavior/attitude.
2-I also did it to make sure that if someone has a comment against pirates that they WANT readers to see, it gets published because I want those who read it to know how many are against pirating/illegal distribution
For those who asked, no worries, I never kiss and tell, or in this case, read and tell. What info I get is my secret.
If you have something you do not want others to see, feel no fear as I will read it over, see what you wish me to see, collect what you wish me to have and then delete the post.
Remember, I have this blog moderated for a reason so if you wish to post me something and not have it published, all you have to do is ask.
Personal and confidential information: It's not ok to publish another person's personal and confidential information. For example, don't post someone else's credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, unlisted phone numbers, and driver's license numbers. Also, please keep in mind that in most cases, information that is already available elsewhere on the Internet or in public records is not considered to be private or confidential under our policies.
---end clipped section---
Unless I'm stupid, the information that I retrieved from various public places on the web, to include Yahoo and Google and so many more wonderful places, what I posted is already public and therefore not private. :)
Friday, June 4, 2010
It just so happens that someone in possession of that eBook sent out warnings of such and that one of those warnings landed in my email inbox along with permission to pass it on from the source who found it. No, I did not copy and paste, simply retyped the info of that IP addy and traced it, not a hard task, and found the matching name and other information via a very publically accessable resource.
So all in all, it turns out Melissa Mergan's unauthorized distribution of an eBook she is not the copyright owner of revealed her information to the public.
I just decided that since the pirates think it's okay to share what's they get access to that it's okay for me to do the same and share it here.
ISP: Comcast Cable
Real name: Melissa Mergen
Address: vicinity of HWY 52 and Lenape Rd
City, State: West Chester, PA
perhaps you should research the legalities of stolen property distribution. Proof of your removal of all posted links to books you did not write will remove you from this spot. Your refusal to cease distribution of stolen property equals my refusal to cease broadcasting your information collected via other resources available to the general public.