Official eMule-Board: Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police - Official eMule-Board

Jump to content


  • (22 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • Last »

Razorback Servers Seized By Belgian Police

#356 User is offline   Kry 

  • No Support
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:30 PM

lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 08:13 PM, said:

Quote

Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".


I found plenty results. Must be something wrong on your side.
View Post


Hence "dunno about you". I can reproduce it since some weeks ago actually :)
Retired aMule developer.
Minister of Strange Operative Systems and Sarcasm (S.O.S & S) in President Birk's New World Order
0

#357 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:49 PM

Meh, both queries work for me. Seems like your anecdotal experience is limited to you for the time being.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#358 User is offline   m8h 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 834
  • Joined: 23-January 05

Posted 08 August 2006 - 06:55 PM

Kry, on Aug 8 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn".
View Post

I just tried both words and both are giving a lot of results. The problem must be on your side.
0

#359 User is offline   ElChele 

  • Miembro con emule 0.50a
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7295
  • Joined: 02-September 04

Posted 08 August 2006 - 07:36 PM

@ lugdunummaster
....And what's about This one..???
Is it Rb2 still seized...???
bye
Immagine Postata Make your own ipfilter file, and manage fake files. Take in count, You are the best filter for emule.
0

#360 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:27 PM

My opinion is that censorship is simply evil. And I wonder why ever a censhorship is needed on a meta data collecting server.
Google does not censor pedo arguments or porn images (search for any porno star's image in the image search engine and you'll see, litterally :P).
I wonder when meta data collecting server will be treated all the same way, be them connected to web, usenet, ED2K or whatever. WTH, I can look for MS cracks with Google as well, and download them with a MS browser and execute them with a MS OS.

This post has been edited by CiccioBastardo: 08 August 2006 - 09:28 PM

The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#361 User is offline   niclights 

  • lost in space
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10288
  • Joined: 01-November 04

Posted 08 August 2006 - 09:29 PM

lugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 07:13 PM, said:

I found plenty results.



Anything good? :lol:

I'm very confused why there is so much surprise and anger about this and more so why it seems to be directed at Lug. It makes sense that a filter option was implemented and the reasons for server admin adding keywords as a response to legal matters are clear. Is this really such a big deal? Kad overcomes most of these problems and there are plenty of servers out there to choose from. Maybe if you 'have' to choose the most popular then you are bound to get the filters.... :-k

Noone likes censorship, but copyright holders don't like their stuff being stolen. So I think this is an acceptable compromise!

Also, although servers are often referred to as 'fake', it was made clear by Corpo that this is misleading and the correct term (as far as our favourite servers list is concerned) would be 'correctly configured'.

This post has been edited by niclights: 08 August 2006 - 09:30 PM

0

#362 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 08 August 2006 - 10:04 PM

Quote

I'm very confused why there is so much surprise and anger about this and more so why it seems to be directed at Lug


Well...given that some people here think that "king" and "porno" are synonyms...

Quote

Google does not censor pedo arguments or porn images (search for any porno star's image in the image search engine and you'll see, litterally tongue.gif).


yes... so what ? did you found a server that had a 'porno' filter ?
I never did (but I confess I'm not checking every server every minute for that )

Now try to found pedo images on Google...

But as said by niclights,I am not responsible for the filtering done by some servers owners.

To people that complains about censorship, I think they should sent letters to RIAA/MPAA, explaining why filtering is useless or evil. Do *something*, instead of just complaining over and over.
0

#363 User is offline   CiccioBastardo 

  • Doomsday Executor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Italian Moderators
  • Posts: 5541
  • Joined: 22-November 03

Posted 08 August 2006 - 10:39 PM

This task should be accomplished by server admins, I suppose.
Accepting to censor an "argument" based on name, instead of a single file (which may be more acceptable) is really bad censorship. And denies what servers are born for: make you find files on the network.
Making them untrustable.
Thinking about it, I wonder where the network would have be if such a statement of yours of servers being untrustable was ever claimed in the past (probably we just would have had Kad earlier, I suppose).
The problem is not the client, it's the user
0

#364 User is offline   Kry 

  • No Support
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 09 August 2006 - 02:30 AM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Aug 9 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

Quote

I'm very confused why there is so much surprise and anger about this and more so why it seems to be directed at Lug


Well...given that some people here think that "king" and "porno" are synonyms...


Very funny lug. except I don't think they are synonims. I was just sharing my personal experience and asking for feedback. I didn't even talk against anything or anyone.
Retired aMule developer.
Minister of Strange Operative Systems and Sarcasm (S.O.S & S) in President Birk's New World Order
0

#365 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 09 August 2006 - 04:15 AM

Quote

Making them untrustable


I think everybody agree here.

They *always* were untrustable,but some of you discover that *today* ?

Quote

Very funny lug. except I don't think they are synonims. I was just sharing my personal experience and asking for feedback. I didn't even talk against anything or anyone.


Coming from you Kry, I took your Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn". as a serious alert, I took the time to boot a windows machine, launch a client, to connect to DsNo1, and tried a (sucessfull) search. But apparently you had a problem with a dev version of aMule. Next time, please provide up2date information. Thank you.
0

#366 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 09 August 2006 - 04:32 AM

View Postniclights, on Aug 8 2006, 02:29 PM, said:

I'm very confused why there is so much surprise and anger about this and more so why it seems to be directed at Lug.

View Postlugdunummaster, on Aug 7 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

they SHOULD/HAVE/MUST filter some files, that might hurt them.
If it appears that way, it's only because he condones the sloppy blanket filters that do more harm than good. Why wasn't a proper hash filter used instead to target the file itself and not the filename, disregarding even the dubious liability of metadata? Memory constraints, perhaps? Well, then isn't that a pretty decent argument in favor of not filtering in the first place? It's unreasonable to expect server operators to expend the extra resources to police their systems when most of them aren't even advertising their services to promote infringement; in fact, they usually encourage their users not to infringe. You can read all about that from the Grokster case.

Quote

It makes sense that a filter option was implemented and the reasons for server admin adding keywords as a response to legal matters are clear.
Since when were commonplace words copyrightable? And, no, it doesn't make sense. It's lunacy, a knee-jerk, panicked reaction to a spurious legal challenge. Do you think these server operators truly believe that making these words taboo is going to curtail the flow of illicit content in any appreciable way?

Quote

Is this really such a big deal? Kad overcomes most of these problems and there are plenty of servers out there to choose from. Maybe if you 'have' to choose the most popular then you are bound to get the filters.... :-k
Ah yes, the policy of appeasement. That went over well this past century. If you don't say anything when they come after the servers, what voice will you have when they come to mandate filters on Kademlia as well?

Quote

Noone likes censorship, but copyright holders don't like their stuff being stolen. So I think this is an acceptable compromise!
Uh huh, and what about the innocent casualties left behind by this clumsy form of censorship? Don't they deserve to have their work seen? This isn't compromise, this is heavy-handed, draconian, damn-the-consequences foolishness. The phrase "significant non-infringing uses" comes up a lot in legal circles as a general litmus test for the legitimate fair use of any technology. Wouldn't use agree that words like "king" fall well under that umbrella? And speaking of which...

View Postlugdunummaster, on Aug 8 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

Well...given that some people here think that "king" and "porno" are synonyms...
In a sense, they are: they're just common dictionary words used in a variety of perfectly legitimate contexts. The fact that a solitary word can be used to facilitate piracy in a single, narrowly defined context is completely unreasonable grounds for litigation. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. The problem is that the quick and speedy trial usually doesn't come quickly enough for most defendants and the Industry knows this. But I guess some words are more "serious" than others <_<

Quote

did you found a server that had a 'porno' filter ?
<snip>
Now try to found pedo images on Google...
What, you mean like this :-k? Methinks you're missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter what word is the trend du jour. Any keyword filter is impotent to completely halt "bad" material without severely sacrificing the rest of the network. Period.

Quote

To people that complains about censorship, I think they should sent letters to RIAA/MPAA, explaining why filtering is useless or evil. Do *something*, instead of just complaining over and over.
Oh, right, because we all know by now that the Recording Industry has a long, proud history listening and acting according to the consumers' bests interests. Don't you think it's been tried before, hence the "complaining over and over"?
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

#367 User is offline   Kry 

  • No Support
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 2018
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 09 August 2006 - 04:42 AM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Aug 9 2006, 06:15 AM, said:

Quote

Very funny lug. except I don't think they are synonims. I was just sharing my personal experience and asking for feedback. I didn't even talk against anything or anyone.


Coming from you Kry, I took your Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn". as a serious alert, I took the time to boot a windows machine, launch a client, to connect to DsNo1, and tried a (sucessfull) search. But apparently you had a problem with a dev version of aMule. Next time, please provide up2date information. Thank you.


Of course, I took it serious too. And I dunno what the issue were/is, but as it works for you, I'll keep investigating. I mean, I can boot windows and use eMule and still not get results. Weird, huh?
Retired aMule developer.
Minister of Strange Operative Systems and Sarcasm (S.O.S & S) in President Birk's New World Order
0

#368 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 09 August 2006 - 04:45 AM

Quote

Thinking about it, I wonder where the network would have be if such a statement of yours of servers being untrustable was ever claimed in the past (probably we just would have had Kad earlier, I suppose).


If you blindly use Kad, as you were blindly trust servers, you still may have bad surprise.

The problem is not the tool itself, the problem is the other peers, being 'servers' or 'clients'.

In a perfect world, without guys sharing copyrighted/illegal files, MPAA/RIAA would not even exist and force network nodes (especially well known nodes, also called servers) to add a filter that should work for at least the copyrighted files included in the official complaint, in less than a day. As the official complaint contains names (not file hashes), a server owner is forced to reject a legal files named "King ... you know what", because he doesnt want to spend millions of dollars in a trial.

In the real world, guys sharing legal files, might get sued by MPAA/RIAA, because MPAA/RIAA have *evidences* of them using a p2p application and sharing copyrigthed files. Think about it, because many p2p adepts wont be able to prove they werent sharing illegal stuff (they dont have the money to pay a lawyer)

Still, you can find many 'unfiltered servers' around (because MPAA/RIAA not yet sent them their lawyers).
Still, you can find many 'copyrighted files' shared by clients (because MPAA/RIAA not yet caught them)
So most of the time, the emule/edonkey 'network' just works as is.

I am the eserver author. I am not an evangelist. I wont lie saying that "emule/edonkey network is trustable", because it's not true.

Quote

If it appears that way, it's only because he condones the sloppy blanket filters that do more harm than good. Why wasn't a proper hash filter used instead to target the file itself and not the filename, disregarding even the dubious liability of metadata? Memory constraints, perhaps? Well, then isn't that a pretty decent argument in favor of not filtering in the first place? It's unreasonable to expect server operators to expend the extra resources to police their systems when most of them aren't even advertising their services to promote infringement; in fact, they usually encourage their users not to infringe. You can read all about that from the Grokster case.


eserver has the ability to filter by hashes since ages. And very fast. list of 100.000.000 hashes is OK.

If you are able to send the list of all hashes of the film "King ... you know what" that is copyrighted, then no problem, DsNo1 owner can replace the "king"OR "kong" filter by your list.
If you sign a contract with DsNo1 owner, taking the responsability of a single file not covered by your list being found on its server, no problem.


Quote

It makes sense that a filter option was implemented and the reasons for server admin adding keywords as a response to legal matters are clear. Since when were commonplace words copyrightable? And, no, it doesn't make sense. It's lunacy, a knee-jerk, panicked reaction to a spurious legal challenge. Do you think these server operators truly believe that making these words taboo is going to curtail the flow of illicit content in any appreciable way?


MPAA/RIAA have to the money to sue a server owner.
They have the money to copyright common words. Welcome to the real world.
If you can find money to open a trial, then I suspect this filter can go out.
For the moment, DsNo1owner prefer being called with whatever word you can chose.



Quote

Quote

Well...given that some people here think that "king" and "porno" are synonyms...
In a sense, they are: they're just common dictionary words used in a variety of perfectly legitimate contexts. The fact that a solitary word can be used to facilitate piracy in a single, narrowly defined context is completely unreasonable grounds for litigation. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. The problem is that the quick and speedy trial usually doesn't come quickly enough for most defendants and the Industry knows this. But I guess some words are more "serious" than others <_<


Then explain us why DsNo1 received several official lawyers letters with explicit names to filter ?
Maybe you dont know german laws, but DsNo1owner had the choices of:
- closing
- filtering
- spend millions arguing that 'superman' or 'king' were common words.

Quote

Any keyword filter is impotent to completely halt "bad" material without severely sacrificing the rest of the network. Period.


Sure, but google have some filters too. And they have thousand of workers that are paid to fine tune their filters. Not DsNo1 owner.



Quote

Quote

To people that complains about censorship, I think they should sent letters to RIAA/MPAA, explaining why filtering is useless or evil. Do *something*, instead of just complaining over and over.
Oh, right, because we all know by now that the Recording Industry has a long, proud history listening and acting according to the consumers' bests interests. Don't you think it's been tried before, hence the "complaining over and over"?


Yes ? And what results did you get ?
0

#369 User is offline   muleteer 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 09 August 2006 - 07:53 AM

View Postlugdunummaster, on Aug 9 2006, 04:15 AM, said:

Coming from you Kry, I took your Well, dunno about you, but in DSn1 I can search for "sex" but not for "porn". as a serious alert, I took the time to boot a windows machine, launch a client, to connect to DsNo1, and tried a (sucessfull) search. But apparently you had a problem with a dev version of aMule. Next time, please provide up2date information. Thank you.

I'm facing similar problems too, and not just with a few specific words. The behaviour is very similar to server blacklisting. I'm usually on DSn1; when I search for something, I often get nothing at all. But if I manually connect to another server, say DSn2 and repeat the same search, I'll get results immediately.

However, after a few hours on DSn2 I get the same problem. If I manually connect to DSn2 this time, I start getting results again. Maybe it is a momentary glitch in the connection and my request never got to the server at all, or maybe a glitch on the server side zeroed all my credits (I stay connected for days without any searching, so I'm quite baffled about the possible reason for getting blacklisted). About 5 or 6 active files (mostly rare, total sources about 100), about 400 shared files (mostly rare, total users waiting about 500), about 10 files complete every week.

Could you please provide some support for a server credits meter or blacklisting status indicator? Send the credits info to the client, eg, during the periodic server connection refresh. IMHO this will go a long way to influencing users to use their clients responsibly.
0

#370 User is offline   lugdunummaster 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member_D
  • Posts: 1040
  • Joined: 19-September 02

Posted 09 August 2006 - 09:34 AM

Quote

Could you please provide some support for a server credits meter or blacklisting status indicator? Send the credits info to the client, eg, during the periodic server connection refresh. IMHO this will go a long way to influencing users to use their clients responsibly.


No thank you.

Credits are caped to 1200. Staying connected more than 20 minutes wont give you more credits.

If you were out of credits, you simply would be disconnected.

If you get no results, it might because you search criteria is 'too difficult to solve (no keyword for example : full scan of all files)' and the server is too loaded to spend 20 seconds of CPU time just for your request. On a small server with plenty of CPU, you could get an answer.

You could have some trafic shaping problem, as most ISP are throtling the trafic from/to servers, in a hope to reduce p2p bandwidth.
0

#371 User is offline   niclights 

  • lost in space
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10288
  • Joined: 01-November 04

Posted 09 August 2006 - 10:24 PM

Paco. Have a cup of tea or something.

None of this is that serious. Really.
0

#372 User is offline   Some Support 

  • Last eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yes
  • Posts: 3649
  • Joined: 27-June 03

Posted 09 August 2006 - 10:56 PM

I really don't want comment filtering too much as its none of our business what server admins do. However, one thing which would be nice is informing a publishing as well as searching client when files for this query/publish are filtered.
There is a difference between implying that there are no results for a query and informing the user that results are filtered for whatever reason. This could be done with a server message or even a "fake" results which explains it within the filename, maybe even (ed2k-)linking to a file with a more detailed explanation.

#373 User is offline   MadlyMad 

  • Golden eMule
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3745
  • Joined: 29-October 02

Posted 09 August 2006 - 11:20 PM

seems a really nice idea to me :+1:

The extreme limit of wisdom, that is what the public calls madness.
0

#374 User is offline   tHeWiZaRdOfDoS 

  • Man, what a bunch of jokers...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5630
  • Joined: 28-December 02

Posted 09 August 2006 - 11:34 PM

View Postmuleteer, on Aug 9 2006, 09:53 AM, said:

Could you please provide some support for a server credits meter or blacklisting status indicator? Send the credits info to the client, eg, during the periodic server connection refresh.

That wouldn't help much but only cause unnecessary overhead...
However, Lugdunumaster, some time ago I sent you a PN with a similar context though I never received an answer, so I abuse this thread now and ask again:
Could you please provide a "price list" for every user action? e.g. "Publishing files costs X (base) + n(number of files)*Y (cost per file)" - TCP/UDP
There once was a list on "SilentBob" but it lacked great parts plus it's too old, now...
That way modders could write a proper "respect server credits" feature to e.g. limit searchresults or whatever and to prevent getting banned by a server.
I'm currently estimating most values but I still get banned sometimes... especially after completing several small files pretty fast as the filelist is then updated and sent to the server again and again.

GreetZ,
WiZ
0

#375 User is offline   PacoBell 

  • Professional Lurker ¬_¬ (so kyoot!)
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 7296
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 10 August 2006 - 12:11 AM

View PostSome Support, on Aug 9 2006, 03:56 PM, said:

However, one thing which would be nice is informing a publishing as well as searching client when files for this query/publish are filtered.
Precisely! I mean, is it so hard to send a message listing the filter(s) matching the query? I mean, it's not likely the server will have to send its entire filter list even given even the theoretical 100M hashes it could store.

View Postniclights, on Aug 9 2006, 03:24 PM, said:

Paco. Have a cup of tea or something.

None of this is that serious. Really.
Thanks, I did. MmMm...barley tea =9 Well, if none of this is serious, I guess we shouldn't care about fake servers either. Their performance is pretty similar, what with the indiscriminate dropping and redirecting of queries. Remove them from the ipfilters and have eMule autoupdate the server list from servers and clients alike. After all, what's the harm? There's plenty other servers where those came from. What exactly is the distinction that seperates the "good" from the "bad" servers then? Or is there some privileged übersecret Tri-mule Commission I'm unaware of?
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Math is delicious!
MmMm! Mauna Loa Milk Chocolate Toffee Macadamias are little drops of Heaven ^_^
Si vis pacem, para bellum DIE SPAMMERS DIE!

  • Member Options

  • (22 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • Last »

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users