PDA

View Full Version : MPAA violating Ubuntu trademark, possible copyright infrigement



phrostbyte
November 25th, 2007, 05:38 AM
It seems in a new level of hypocrisy the anti-piracy goons at the MPAA created a tool for spying on University students' computer activities called "University toolkit", which they are heavily promoting to University administrators across the USA. The tool is actually a modified version of Xubuntu, and in fact doesn't change any of the artwork. No source code is provided on their website either at http://universitytoolkit.org/

There would be reason to believe that they are at minimum violating Ubuntu's trademark, and likely also violating the GPL and thus committing copyright infringement or "piracy" as they like to call it.

-grubby
November 25th, 2007, 05:42 AM
that's illegal. Someone should do something

linux noooob
November 25th, 2007, 05:45 AM
but guys it is under the GNU license so it can be re distributed

*but yes i am also *** pissed off

akiratheoni
November 25th, 2007, 05:46 AM
but guys it is under the GNU license so it can be re distributed

*but yes i am also f*** ing pissed off

But if it's released, so does the source code, right?

Also, it just might be something similar to Ubuntu Ultimate... in other words, just Xubuntu with some different applications pre-installed. I'm not sure if that's illegal though.

phrostbyte
November 25th, 2007, 05:47 AM
but guys it is under the GNU license so it can be re distributed

*but yes i am also f*** ing pissed off

The GNU GPL requires any modifications to a software program to be distributed with the source code or easy to access to the source code. If nothing is modified from standard Xubuntu, they are in the clear but somehow I highly doubt this. Even without this, Xubuntu is a trademark and you cant distribute products on the Xubuntu name which are clearly not Xubuntu.

-grubby
November 25th, 2007, 05:47 AM
but guys it is under the GNU license so it can be re distributed

*but yes i am also f*** ing pissed off

where is the source code?

linux noooob
November 25th, 2007, 05:50 AM
good point!

lets sue em!

wow i never noticed the source code thing when i went to download the only thing that popped up was source code

phrostbyte
November 25th, 2007, 05:53 AM
good point!

lets sue em!

wow i never noticed the source code thing when i went to download the only thing that popped up was source code

No, that's MPAA webmaster suckage. Their webserver is getting mimetypes wrong. If you want to download the ISO you have to right click and choose "Save Target As.."

linux noooob
November 25th, 2007, 05:56 AM
oohh

haha they suck and c'mon who's there I.T. guy he should be sued for lack of geeky smarts:lolflag:

jaakan
November 25th, 2007, 06:22 AM
it's a basicly a Sniffer with a web interface,
They are using NTop and Snort, both open source and in the Ubunutu distros....


burn that iso, check it out, and give us all a full report on what it really is.....

here is a review of it
http://mytakeonsecurity.blogspot.com/

http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/

"Technically, there's not much to worry about here -- at least not yet. I do worry about putting monitoring tools in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing and seeing them act on misconceptions. It's also important to identify the fact that this activity could violate wiretap and privacy laws."


there are many hacker toolkits like this out there too
I have used 4 in the past 7 years relating to my job

honestly, I don't see anything to worry about yet with this.

if they were selling it then there would be an issue

FuturePilot
November 25th, 2007, 06:24 AM
No, that's MPAA webmaster suckage. Their webserver is getting mimetypes wrong. If you want to download the ISO you have to right click and choose "Save Target As.."

Yeah, it wanted to download it in the browser. Never thought an iso could look so interesting. :lolflag:
Looks like the pot got caught calling the kettle black.:evil:
Where's the Contact Us link? I want to ask them for the source code.
Looks like they stripped the X out of Xubuntu. From what I can tell, it's Xubuntu without the GUI. So therefore it is modified but they are still using the Xubuntu name and logo. And no source code. :evil:

DeadSuperHero
November 25th, 2007, 06:36 AM
Eh, just sue them.
Open Source needs more money from lawsuits anyway...

Colro
November 25th, 2007, 06:47 AM
Someone should seriously bring this to the attention of Canonical. I doubt any lawsuits will follow, though.



First, this looks like Ubuntu (Xubuntu, if you really care) Feisty Fawn, or 7.04.


root@ubuntu:~# uname -a
Linux ubuntu 2.6.20-15-generic #2 SMP Sun Apr 15 07:36:31 UTC 2007
i686 GNU/Linux

Source: http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/

They didn't even attempt to hide it. If Canonical were to file a lawsuit, they would win without much effort.

cornflake_pirate
November 25th, 2007, 11:48 AM
The GNU GPL requires any modifications to a software program to be distributed with the source code or easy to access to the source code. If nothing is modified from standard Xubuntu, they are in the clear but somehow I highly doubt this.

Not true. The GPL requires all binary distributions to be accompanied by source code, whether modified or not.


Even without this, Xubuntu is a trademark and you cant distribute products on the Xubuntu name which are clearly not Xubuntu.

Possibly true. This is up to Canonical to enforce.



if they were selling it then there would be an issue

Why would selling it be a legal issue?

KhaaL
November 25th, 2007, 01:09 PM
I really hope something will be done about this. Some companies thinks that GPL isn't to be taken seriously, time to prove them wrong! What I worry about though is that the time and money taking this to court could take away focus from developing ubuntu.

mellowd
November 25th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Have Canonical been informed yet?

This whole thing stinks.

Bagster
November 25th, 2007, 01:27 PM
Anyone reported this yet? and if not, anyone know how to go about it?

bash
November 25th, 2007, 02:39 PM
Just wanted to ask as well if anyone has informed Canonical yet.

I found this page with some email addresses on: http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/contactus

Anyone know if this is the right way to contact them? Or anyone just going to send an email?

bobbocanfly
November 25th, 2007, 03:33 PM
Yet another Copyright Infringement by the MPAA. Shocking. Thank god this time they cant just be "testing" it as they released it on the internet so we can properly rip them legally.

Dont forget to report them:

http://www.mpaa.org/ReportPiracy/ReportPiracy.aspx

Edit:

Vot for this for Slashdot at http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=394749

samwyse
November 25th, 2007, 05:03 PM
The website looks warezy, because there's no contact information.

Slashdot has discussed the Toolkit, but not about GPL infringment, though you can find some discussion on it in the comments: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/23/150232

markusf21
November 25th, 2007, 05:59 PM
I reported them to themselves lets see what happens

FuturePilot
November 25th, 2007, 06:20 PM
I find this funny yet infuriating at the same time.:evil:

atlfalcons866
November 25th, 2007, 06:33 PM
where does it say its xubuntu?

n3tfury
November 25th, 2007, 06:42 PM
it's a basicly a Sniffer with a web interface,
They are using NTop and Snort, both open source and in the Ubunutu distros....


burn that iso, check it out, and give us all a full report on what it really is.....

here is a review of it
http://mytakeonsecurity.blogspot.com/

http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/

"Technically, there's not much to worry about here -- at least not yet. I do worry about putting monitoring tools in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing and seeing them act on misconceptions. It's also important to identify the fact that this activity could violate wiretap and privacy laws."


there are many hacker toolkits like this out there too
I have used 4 in the past 7 years relating to my job

honestly, I don't see anything to worry about yet with this.

if they were selling it then there would be an issue

excellent links, thank you

n3tfury
November 25th, 2007, 06:42 PM
where does it say its xubuntu?

check the links i just quoted.

killerdragon
November 25th, 2007, 06:53 PM
I don't know it seems kinda fishy to me...

The MPAA sues for thousands of dollars, but yet all the can afford is a 14 year old web designer to make a page for them?
Also they can't spell their name on the page, "MPA". Should be "MPAA"
Though the whois does jive with their real information.

happysmileman
November 25th, 2007, 06:53 PM
I reported them to themselves lets see what happens

Me too

PriceChild
November 25th, 2007, 06:57 PM
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

trademarks@ubuntu.com

FuturePilot
November 25th, 2007, 07:08 PM
http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy



Wow. Looks like they break a number of things


If you are producing a new product which is based on Ubuntu but which has more substantial changes than those described above as a Remix, you are allowed to state (and we would encourage you to do so) that your product is "derived from Ubuntu", "based on Ubuntu", or "a derivative of Ubuntu" but you may not use the Trademarks to refer to your product. In some cases you may be allowed to use the Trademarks, but we'll need to discuss that. In that event, these products will need a trademark license, and such a license can be revoked if the nature of your divergence from Ubuntu changes. Products which include very invasive changes, such as a new kernel, the inclusion of packages which are not part of the Ubuntu repositories, or anything else that significantly impacts the technical quality or user experience would fall into this category are unlikely to be approved. (Note that if you are including packages which are not part of the Ubuntu repositories, we encourage you to work within the community processes to submit and maintain those packages within the repositories in order to minimise this issue.)

happysmileman
November 25th, 2007, 07:13 PM
They even say it's based on Ubuntu in the administrators guide, so they aren't hiding it, they just aren't bothered to provide access to the source-code. Someone contacted Canonical? If not do it now, I have to go now but if no-ones reported it to them by the time I get back I could always send an email

mellowd
November 25th, 2007, 07:39 PM
I've sent a couple of email so lets see.

Nekiruhs
November 25th, 2007, 07:40 PM
Blogged (http://unexcerpted.blogspot.com/2007/11/mpaa-is-infringing-copyright.html)
Dugg (http://digg.com/tech_news/MPAA_is_infringing_copyright)

:lolflag:

LookTJ
November 25th, 2007, 09:07 PM
hmm I can't find Canonical's email to report this, nor Xubuntu's contact page.

spamzilla
November 25th, 2007, 09:23 PM
hmm I can't find Canonical's email to report this, nor Xubuntu's contact page.


http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

trademarks@ubuntu.com

:D

angryfirelord
November 25th, 2007, 09:29 PM
I sent my e-mail to: trademarks@ubuntu.com

LookTJ
November 25th, 2007, 09:49 PM
Thanks for the help my fellow community friends. :), Next time, maybe I should read the whole topic.

Nekiruhs
November 25th, 2007, 10:01 PM
Headline:

MPAA catches another copyright infringer; sues MPAA.
The MPAA has caught yet another group of copyright infringers today. The MPAA has made the decision to take its victim, the MPAA, to court over the case.

Dr. C
November 26th, 2007, 04:04 AM
IANAL

I will preface my post by saying that it is quite possible to pirate Free Libre Open Source Software, and this is especially true of strong copyleft licenses such as the GPL v 2 and 3. In fact when it comes to software piracy it really makes little difference if the software is Free or propriety. If the software is used and / or distributed in contravention of the software license and applicable copyright law then its use and / or distribution is software piracy. The one significant difference is that with propriety software there is typically only one copyright holder, while with Free Libre software there can be hundreds or thousands of copyright holders for a particular software distribution. If one pirates Windows Vista the piracy can be cured by settling with Microsoft but if one pirates Xubuntu settling with Canonical is only a very small step, since there are many many more copyright holders involved. It is possible that trademark infringement can accompany software piracy as has been mentioned here but they are two very different issues.

Did the MPAA pirate Xubuntu or parts thereof? This is a question that I suspect may have to be resolved by a court of law; however I do believe it is appropriate to make the copyright holders aware of the situation. I do suspect that in this case there are hundreds if not thousands of copyright holders involved, for example starting with but not limited to the FSF (GNU) and each individual contributor to the Linux kernel..

I have already contacted the FSF by email. They have a page to report possible violations (possible piracy of GNU software) at

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html

I also contacted the BSA through their Canadian site

http://www.caast.org/

(IBM is a member of the BSA and they contribute to the Linux Kernel); however one cannot file a possible software piracy report on line from Canada since IBM Canada is not listed as a member of CAAST. I sent them and advice over their feedback form so it may be appropriate for a US based member of the community to file a possible software piracy report with the BSA at

http://www.bsa.org

I must say that this is only a start since there are many many more copyright holders involved here than Canonical the FSF and IBM.

ubuntu27
November 26th, 2007, 04:57 AM
Canonical's website. (http://canonical.com/)

Dr. C
November 26th, 2007, 05:21 AM
Canonical's website. (http://canonical.com/)

Yes if the MPAA has chosen to pay for the "application packaging services" provided by Canonical they could have avoided what may turn out to be a nasty legal and public relations mess.

Penny wise and pound foolish dare I say?

aktiwers
November 26th, 2007, 07:36 AM
I really hope they get sued all the way to hell for this!
Tables turned bitches... muhahah

PriceChild
November 26th, 2007, 01:22 PM
http://cody.zapto.org/?p=6 is a great read... I suggest you all take a look at that point of view.

PrimoTurbo
November 26th, 2007, 02:28 PM
The site looks really doggy, it says "MPA University Toolkit", what is MPA? MPAA..

There is not a single copyright on the site, besides the pixelated logo of MPAA in the pdf files, furthermore there are no links to any sites.



Registrant:
THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION

15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: UNIVERSITYTOOLKIT.COM
Created on: 02-Apr-07
Expires on: 02-Apr-08
Last Updated on:

Administrative Contact:
ASSOCIATION, THE MOTION PICTURE pegge@mpaa.org
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
United States
(818) 995-6600

Technical Contact:
ASSOCIATION, THE MOTION PICTURE pegge@mpaa.org
15503 Ventura Blvd.
Encino, California 91436
United States
(818) 995-6600

Domain servers in listed order:
NS39.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS40.DOMAINCONTROL.COM


Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited


However the Registry info seems to match mpaa.org

Domain ID:D1360927-LROR
Domain Name:MPAA.ORG
Created On:22-Aug-1995 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:22-Oct-2004 22:20:59 UTC
Expiration Date:21-Aug-2010 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:20352836-NSI
Registrant Name:THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION
Registrant Organization:THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION
Registrant Street1:15503 Ventura Boulevard
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Encino
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:91436
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.8189956600
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.8183821795
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant ***********@MPAA.ORG
Admin ID:16051198-NSI
Admin Name:MPAA
Admin Organization:MPAA
Admin Street1:15503 VENTURA BLVD
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:ENCINO
Admin State/Province:CA
Admin Postal Code:91436-3103
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.8189956600
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin ***********@MPAA.ORG
Tech ID:16051198-NSI
Tech Name:MPAA
Tech Organization:MPAA
Tech Street1:15503 VENTURA BLVD
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:ENCINO
Tech State/Province:CA
Tech Postal Code:91436-3103
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.8189956600
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech ***********@MPAA.ORG
Name Server:NS2.WARE.NET
Name Server:NS1.WARE.NET
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:

angryfirelord
November 26th, 2007, 03:10 PM
http://cody.zapto.org/?p=6 is a great read... I suggest you all take a look at that point of view.
I see his point, but if we should promote OSS, then it should be done through legal and clean means. The last thing Canonical needs is to be associated with malware.

atlfalcons866
November 26th, 2007, 04:12 PM
lets sue them

Vadi
November 26th, 2007, 04:20 PM
This is like the eeePC. Linux is getting owned here.

ubuntu27
November 26th, 2007, 06:50 PM
Quote from Ubuntu Trademark Policy
(http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy)

Derived works. The ability to customise Ubuntu to meet your specific needs is one of the great strengths of free software in general, and Ubuntu in particular. While we encourage customisation and derivation of Ubuntu, we must balance that freedom with the integrity of the Trademarks and the quality which they represent. To help reach that balance, we have established the following guidelines and definitions.
We recognise and encourage the concept of a “remix.” Remixes are derived versions of Ubuntu, and it is intended that any software and hardware certifications will apply to a Remix. Therefore the changes from official Ubuntu product must be minimal to be permitted to use the Trademarks. These changes can include configuration changes through the existing Ubuntu configuration management tools, changes to artwork and graphical themes and some variance in package selection. In general, a Remix can have applications from the Ubuntu archives added, or default applications removed, but removing or changing any infrastructure components (e.g., shared libraries or desktop components) will result in changes too large for the resulting product to be called by a Trademark. Note that if the nature of the product's divergence from Ubuntu changes, the Remix naming and Trademark use may no longer apply.
Therefore, if you are creating a derivative of Ubuntu, you may use the Trademarks in association with the software product provided:
the changes are minimal and unsubstantial, as described above
there is no commercial intent associated with the new product
the Trademark is used in a way that makes it clear that your project is a development effort related to the Ubuntu source, but that the software you are working upon is not in fact Ubuntu as distributed by the Ubuntu project. The approved naming scheme to facilitate this is through designation “Remix”. For instance, a new ISO image which has been packaged special tools for software developers could be called “Ubuntu, Developers Remix”, or an image was has been created with Thai language packs could be called "Ubuntu Thai Remix". Words such as "Edition" and "Version" should be avoided, as they have specific meaning within the Ubuntu project. Prefixes, such as “ThaiBuntu” should also be avoided. Any other naming scheme will require explicit permission.
there is no suggestion (through words or appearance) that your project is approved, sponsored, or affiliated with Ubuntu or its related projects unless it has been approved by and is governed by the Ubuntu Community Council.

I'll be back later...

FuturePilot
November 26th, 2007, 06:51 PM
This is like the eeePC.

Violating the GPL seems to have become a popular trend these days:shock:

Vadi
November 26th, 2007, 07:04 PM
I know man.

Take stuff for $0, sell for >$0 = profit. Who cares about some license o.O

(actually nobody will if they don't enforce it. I very much hope they clear this out / enforce it if no)

inversekinetix
November 27th, 2007, 01:11 AM
just looking up and found

NOTICE AND TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our WHOIS database through the use of high-volume, automated, electronic processes or for the purpose or purposes of using the data in any manner that violates these terms of use. The Data in Network Solutions' WHOIS database is provided by Network Solutions for information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information about or related to a domain name registration record. Network Solutions does not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a WHOIS query, you agree to abide by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via direct mail, e-mail, telephone, or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that apply to Network Solutions (or its computer systems). The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Network Solutions. You agree not to use high-volume, automated, electronic processes to access or query the WHOIS database. Network Solutions reserves all rights and remedies it now has or may have in the future, including, but not limited to, the right to terminate your access to the WHOIS database in its sole discretion, for any violations by you of these terms of use, including without limitation, for excessive querying of the WHOIS database or for failure to otherwise abide by these terms of use. Network Solutions reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.


is posting the registration information on this forum in breach of the bold section?

Dr. C
November 27th, 2007, 03:48 AM
IANAL

I do not think posting one or two whois entries in the context of a discussion of possible copyright and / or trade mark infringement by the domain registrant is a violation of Network Solutions' terms of use. The section is related to someone downloading the entire database including millions of whois records and then distributing it.

By the way the identification of copyright and / or trademark infringement has been one of the strongest arguments for public whois information.

ilh
November 27th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Might want to take a look at this people:

http://eeepc.asus.com/en/news11272007.htm
and
ftp://ftp.asus.com/pub/ASUS/EeePC/701/

A lot happened today it seems.

LauraSakura
November 27th, 2007, 03:54 PM
honestly, I don't see anything to worry about yet with this.

As a university student, it does make me worry. it bothers me to see software being promoted for the sole intent of spying on students such as me. I know the intent is for it to be used to stop piracy, however, IMO it makes me a bit uncomfortable. I guess I'm still bothered by the "big brother" idea. even though it seems more and more unavoidable as time goes by..

nocturn
November 27th, 2007, 04:45 PM
But if it's released, so does the source code, right?

Also, it just might be something similar to Ubuntu Ultimate... in other words, just Xubuntu with some different applications pre-installed. I'm not sure if that's illegal though.

They are violating the GPL for not offering full source code (and remember, failing to comply terminates the license) AND canonicals trademarks by using the logos and Xubuntu name.

nocturn
November 27th, 2007, 04:50 PM
I sent my e-mail to: trademarks@ubuntu.com

Don't all send mails to Canonical! They will be flooded. One person would do it, a couple is OK, but more isn't fun for them.

nocturn
November 27th, 2007, 04:55 PM
http://cody.zapto.org/?p=6 is a great read... I suggest you all take a look at that point of view.

The MPAA and RIA are pushing for copyright laws that border on the insane (if you follow the letter of those laws, you are commiting copyright violations in the millions of dollars each day by listening to the radio, humming a song and reading E-mail).

Yet, even these overfunded gorillas cannot get themselves to adhere to those same laws when they are not stacked in their favor but expect ordinary consumers to follow them?

This is a clear GPL violation, just like the Sony rootkit and because of their attitude, they should be punished all the sooner and all the harder.

bobbocanfly
November 27th, 2007, 05:23 PM
The MPAA and RIA are pushing for copyright laws that border on the insane (if you follow the letter of those laws, you are commiting copyright violations in the millions of dollars each day by listening to the radio, humming a song and reading E-mail).

Yet, even these overfunded gorillas cannot get themselves to adhere to those same laws when they are not stacked in their favor but expect ordinary consumers to follow them?

This is a clear GPL violation, just like the Sony rootkit and because of their attitude, they should be punished all the sooner and all the harder.

Brilliant post.

Is there any official word from either side (MPAA or Canonical) yet?

Lord_Dicranius
November 27th, 2007, 06:17 PM
ntop data (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inurl%3AsortDataIP.html&btnG=Search) anyone? :D

bobbocanfly
November 27th, 2007, 06:38 PM
ntop data (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inurl%3AsortDataIP.html&btnG=Search) anyone? :D

What is that? I can see its a list how much data is being sent/received and that it looks seriously bad but where are the stats coming from?

Lord_Dicranius
November 27th, 2007, 06:43 PM
What is that? I can see its a list how much data is being sent/received and that it looks seriously bad but where are the stats coming from?

From SecurityFix blog (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/11/mpaa_university_toolkit_opens_1.html):

In the letter, the group said it "has developed the University Toolkit, an application which can produce a report that is strictly internal and therefore confidential to illustrate the level of file sharing on [your school's] network.
ntop is used by the University Toolkit to create its logs. Those Google results posted above, are the logs. IPs, MACs, etc etc. So much for internal and confidential...

mellowd
November 27th, 2007, 07:03 PM
From SecurityFix blog (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/11/mpaa_university_toolkit_opens_1.html):

ntop is used by the University Toolkit to create its logs. Those Google results posted above, are the logs. IPs, MACs, etc etc. So much for internal and confidential...

You'll be suprised at how much confidential information you can find through google. The problem is people put information in public accessible folders on the internet. Google will eventually find it.

Lord_Dicranius
November 27th, 2007, 07:12 PM
As soon as the universities start using the toolkit and Google starts indexing, checkout these results:

site:edu inurl:8180:/peerwatch/advanced.jsp (http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=site%3Aedu+inurl%3A8180%3A%2Fpeerwatch%2Fadvance d.jsp&btnG=Google+Search)

forrestcupp
November 27th, 2007, 07:24 PM
Just so everyone knows, there is nothing in the GPL that says that you can't sell GPL'ed software. If you could find someone dumb enough to buy it, you could legally sell Ubuntu for $1000.

However, the fact that they don't make the source available is an issue. And also logos and trademarks are not GPL and they cannot be violated.

I understand the viewpoint that this could be an opportunity to spread the vision, but considering the circumstance, I don't think this is the ideal venue. The MPAA has bullied people around and expected everyone else to live by the letter of the law. I'm of the opinion of Matthew 7:2, "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."

So lets give them what they give others.

KiwiNZ
November 27th, 2007, 07:42 PM
One should resist the urge to jump to conclusions as many have done in this thread.

The commercial arrangements between Canonical and the MPAA are not known

plun
November 27th, 2007, 11:49 PM
One should resist the urge to jump to conclusions as many have done in this thread.

The commercial arrangements between Canonical and the MPAA are not known

Well maybe I "jump to conlusion".....:confused:

Can you please clarify if there is any commercial arrangement
between MPAA and Canonical ?

If there is, its time for a rm -rf.......:(

thegnuguru
November 27th, 2007, 11:49 PM
Are you suggesting that Canonical would lend Ubuntu tradenarks to something like this I don't think sabfl would do that

PriceChild
November 27th, 2007, 11:53 PM
If there is, its time for a rm -rf.......:(
For crying out loud...

sloggerkhan
November 27th, 2007, 11:56 PM
One should resist the urge to jump to conclusions as many have done in this thread.

The commercial arrangements between Canonical and the MPAA are not known

If the MPAA and canonical are cooperating, I agree with


If there is, its time for a rm -rf.......


Of course, I consider it exceedingly unlikely.

plun
November 28th, 2007, 12:00 AM
For crying out loud...

MS, RIAA, MPAA, Canonical ? .... Vista, DRM, Blu-ray, patents....Protect old-fashioned business.... just disgusting.
Terrible...

thegnuguru
November 28th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Or we could rm -rf the mpaa better yet lets have RMS and his FSF goons sue em out if the sky when you consider that 60% of the software in a typical linux install is GPL and 1 violation per package * number of isos downloaded. Under US law thats gotta be at least a billion or two. Oh my whats this you can't pay well ya should've though o that before you willfully engaged in piracy :lolflag:

plun
November 28th, 2007, 12:20 AM
Oh my whats this you can't pay well ya should've though o that before you willfully engaged in piracy :lolflag:

Well, I must state that I don't like piracy, but without MS, MPAA and RIAA
ruling the world we for sure had a modern industry with other ways
doing business.

This article about Vista explains this "dirt" maybe.....

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

MPAA....:(

Vadi
November 28th, 2007, 02:17 AM
Uh, the GPL doesn't forbid anyone use their stuff.

Microsoft can even use it if they wanted to.

So as soon as MPAA settles the stuff with the source code & trademarks, they're OK.

Dr. C
November 28th, 2007, 05:57 AM
IANAL


Uh, the GPL doesn't forbid anyone use their stuff.

Provided you have not lost that right by violating the license. Under V 2 of the GPL if you violate the license you loose your rights under the license, until they are reinstated by the copyright holder.


Microsoft can even use it if they wanted to.

Microsoft does distribute software under the GPL, I know this because I have legally obtained GPL licensed software from Microsoft. I am not aware of Microsoft violating the GPL.


So as soon as MPAA settles the stuff with the source code & trademarks, they're OK.

If the MPAA has indeed violated the GPL v2 on Xubuntu they would have to be reinstated by each copyright holder. So for example if they make peace with the FSF they can use GNU but not Linux!. In order to use Linux they would have to make peace with each individual copyright holder for every contribution to the Linux kernel for example, or they could wait for the Hurd to come out. :eek:

By the way GPL V3 addresses this by allowing for automatic reinstatement by curing the violation within 30 days for a first violation but the Linux kernel is licensed under V2 of the GPL only.

This has the potential to get real ugly. All it takes is one copyright holder that wishes to "give the MPAA a dose of their own medicine" in the area of copyright enforcement or turn the "oppressive " copyright laws they have lobbied for against them.

nocturn
November 28th, 2007, 09:14 AM
One should resist the urge to jump to conclusions as many have done in this thread.

The commercial arrangements between Canonical and the MPAA are not known

True, but at the very least, it leaves GPL violations. Though I *really* doubt that canonical would work with these guys... and to be frank, if they did, I too would have to look for a new distro.

aktiwers
November 28th, 2007, 01:49 PM
True, but at the very least, it leaves GPL violations. Though I *really* doubt that canonical would work with these guys... and to be frank, if they did, I too would have to look for a new distro.
+1

Mithrilhall
November 28th, 2007, 01:59 PM
Could someone provide the link to the ISO?

Nevermind......I'm still half asleep.


http://universitytoolkit.org/

jaakan
November 28th, 2007, 03:50 PM
http://techdirt.com/articles/20071126/031729.shtml

Great, it phones home.


"However, after examining this "toolkit" some are noticing that it appears a lot more like a "rootkit" than a "toolkit." Depending on how a university's network is configured, it could actually reveal a lot of private info to the outside world. The software also phones home to the MPAA, despite promising not to report back any information."

plun
November 28th, 2007, 04:03 PM
More about this.... (read the URL...:))

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/11/mpaa_university_toolkit_opens_1.html

Craig Winter, the MPAA's deputy director for Internet enforcement, said the toolkit was in the "beta" phase. Winter said the MPAA and the developer of the software -- Fairfax, Va.-based Mantech International Corp. -- plan to release another version of the software within "a few weeks." http://www.mantech.com/

So then it must be Mantech which uses Xubuntu...:confused:

""The important thing about the Sony rootkit wasn't the details about what a rootkit was or why it ended up being put into those CDs, but rather what the intention was versus what the CDs really did," Worona said. "The MPAA appears to be asking university administrators to run something which could expose sensitive, private data and in the process leave the campus subject to privacy complaints by virtue of student data being exposed."

Lord_Dicranius
November 28th, 2007, 05:22 PM
http://techdirt.com/articles/20071126/031729.shtml

Great, it phones home.


"However, after examining this "toolkit" some are noticing that it appears a lot more like a "rootkit" than a "toolkit." Depending on how a university's network is configured, it could actually reveal a lot of private info to the outside world. The software also phones home to the MPAA, despite promising not to report back any information."

About the "phoning home", as far as we know the only thing it phones home for is to check the version. Not that them lying is OK, but yeah...

And regarding the "reveal a lot of private info to the outside world", check my previous posts for links.

Hibble
November 28th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Can anyone with authority on these forums confirm that this has been properly reported. Can we have a announcement made under the news section on the front page as to the Canonical has made any deal with the MPAA, RIAA etc.. if so what the details are of these deals? so we have a better understanding if a company may be violating the GPLv2.

IF NO DEAL EXISTS WHAT IS CANONICAL GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS WEBSITE? :mad:


ps Canonical are in bed in any way with MPAA/RIAA etc.. i will alter my suggestion to my boss of putting ubuntu on ~160 pc/servers and recommend a alternative. I recommend that anyone currently has ubuntu at work gets in contact with there sysadmin and asks them to get in contact with Canonical. (paying customers may get better responses than we will.)

Vadi
November 28th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I suspect Canonical just for a big headache from all of this, heh.

Red.Heron
November 29th, 2007, 05:40 AM
As not only a member of the Pirate Party, but also an administrator, I am actually interested by this. I am also particularly interested because although this does not violate copyright (mostly due to a technicality) it does technically violate the trademark use TOS and in addition it is not likely to be well-received by university IT departments, who are already overburdened, understaffed, underpaid, and essentially not really equipped to handle every complaint. Not to mention, most of them use protocol analyzers already, and this essentially tells them: "You don't know what you're doing, so we're going to do it for you."

The big concern, in this case, is that it overburdens educational institutions with a legal quandry. Either they violate students' privacy rights in order to please the MAFIAA (for those who don't know, this is a catch-all acronym that means "Music And Film Industry Associations of America"), or they protect privacy rights and uphold the earlier statement supported by Harvard Law School (among the 400 or so other law schools who supported them) that these organizations and Congress should "take a hike".

As the current administrator of the Pirate Party of Utah, who has recently adopted Ubuntu and submitted it for approval to be the official OS of the Pirate Party of Utah, I can say that Ubuntu's ease of use and ability to support new users is unsurpassed. It's an obvious choice for the MAFIAA to use, since they continue to make use of FOSS in order to reduce their own costs (and are rather compliant in most of these uses), and Ubuntu in particular has the support necessary to ensure that those who want to learn can continue using it.

However, the problem in this case is that the privacy of college students is at risk, and this once again does an end-run around the due process rights that students should enjoy, as well as sniffing through (and recording, blocking, and reporting) traffic that they don't approve of in the name of preventing infringing use... so the film "Steal This Film" (as one example which is perfectly legal to download via torrent) would be blocked and filtered by this package in the name of preventing the hundreds of others out there which aren't legal. There isn't a good chance that universities will like this package, but they might adopt using it just to get the added cost of the MAFIAA off their backs (and please remember that not all costs I'm referring to in this case are financial).

Compliance in this case is the burden of the "owners" of Ubuntu's rights (the ones in charge of maintaining the TOS and EULA, or whatever else secures the rights in this case). Because Ubuntu is given away for free, a copyright claim is likely to fail. However, a case for trademark infringement may be in order, particularly because it does have the appearance of altering the purpose of the OS to prevent legitimate uses of certain kinds of protocols and content. This is impedance of the freedom of speech and strikes at the core of democracy. This is why one user is suing Comcast (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxRiQSVfgK4sLbVRE_X4MOlM9q0AD8STRMH00) for interference with legitimate traffic.

Universities likewise must continue to provide unfettered access to their students or they are ultimately failing to teach the correct principles of research, responsible use, and lawful compliance. If you simply block them from using it, you don't teach them anything but circumvention, which is a corrupting influence and which (I'm sure) the MAFIAA wants to promote in order to make their position seem stronger. Unfortunately for them, such measures typically backfire and weaken their positions.

The main issue I'm looking at right now is the violation of the GPL, which is a private agreement between the end user and the provider that strengthens copyright and yet provides unfettered access to the original source. The GPL is the EULA in this case, and so I think it's going to be up to rms and GNU/FSF to enforce this. I, for one, will support this and even do what I can to promote it. The EULA has already been upheld to be binding, so this effectively pits the software industry against the entertainment industry (one set of the copyright regime against the other). In this case, it also serves to strengthen the argument for FOSS and makes it less of a useful tool for violating privacy rights. Well done, Mr. Glickman! For once you have given the Pirate Party what it needs to make a valid argument!

I'll be trying to contact rms and hoping I bypass his spam-o-matic (i.e., his mental "ignore" file). I'm kind of a pain in his @$$ when I talk to him, or at least that's my perspective. I would encourage those who have anything I haven't included here to do the same.

nocturn
November 29th, 2007, 08:21 AM
About the "phoning home", as far as we know the only thing it phones home for is to check the version. Not that them lying is OK, but yeah...


True, but by doing so, it reveals to the MPAA which universities are using the toolkit. If they aren't properly firewalled, they get access to the data too (after the update request, they have the IP address).

nocturn
November 29th, 2007, 08:24 AM
Can anyone with authority on these forums confirm that this has been properly reported. Can we have a announcement made under the news section on the front page as to the Canonical has made any deal with the MPAA, RIAA etc.. if so what the details are of these deals? so we have a better understanding if a company may be violating the GPLv2.

IF NO DEAL EXISTS WHAT IS CANONICAL GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS WEBSITE? :mad:


Wow, take it easy. I'm quite sure that canonical is not in bed with them, but give them a break.

Responding to this is tricky, they have to get their legal teams involved, coordinated with the gplviolations people etc. Give them some time at least to decide their course of action.

Making this public BTW is good enough, it is bad for the MPAA and RIAA to be caught 'stealing'. Maybe future victims of their tactics can even use it in court.

nocturn
November 29th, 2007, 08:29 AM
As not only a member of the Pirate Party, but also an administrator, I am actually interested by this. I am also particularly interested because although this does not violate copyright (mostly due to a technicality)

I think you are wrong here, it seems to violate the GPL by not including full sources. If so, the GPLv2 is quite clear: failure to comply effectively and immediately terminates the license, hence any further use of the software is illegal. You need a WRITTEN document from the copyright holders to allow you back into compliance.

This was never enforced against companies like Asus, Linksys etc because bringing them into compliance was the goal. The MPAA and RIAA could be treated differently if the copyright holders would so choose.

Red.Heron
November 29th, 2007, 08:49 AM
I think you are wrong here, it seems to violate the GPL by not including full sources. If so, the GPLv2 is quite clear: failure to comply effectively and immediately terminates the license, hence any further use of the software is illegal. You need a WRITTEN document from the copyright holders to allow you back into compliance.

The problem is the failure of enforcement of copyright in other commercial cases... it's the main argument I can see from the MPA's side of things, and why they might think it doesn't apply to their use. Sorry, that's the "technicality" that I was talking about, not a legal one, but a perception on the MPA's part. I wasn't clear about it, so... sorry!

And you're quite right about it being a legal copyright violation, as well as violating the verbiage of the GPL. Let's hope they can learn that the sword cuts both directions and they support a reduction in copyright laws.

I'm also wondering... would this be considered a commercial use of noncommercial software?


This was never enforced against companies like Asus, Linksys etc because bringing them into compliance was the goal. The MPAA and RIAA could be treated differently if the copyright holders would so choose.

This non-enforcement of copyright is what may make a legal claim a little weaker (not "weak," but instead: "less strong"). The courts established quite a while ago that if you don't enforce copyrights, they're not enforcible. However, this fact does appear to be completely ignored by many judges in RIAA cases, so it may be different now, and being that I'm not a lawyer I don't know.

Mostly, I'm trying to play "devil's advocate" here, get into the MAFIAA's head and see what chinks in the armor I can find because then it's a better preparation. I'm also quite sure that the legal team has it well in hand, but throwing out ideas is how an autodidact like me learns best. :-)

Thanks, and sorry if I upset you... I was mostly going for feedback anyway. Thanks!

-Red

nocturn
November 29th, 2007, 09:09 AM
The problem is the failure of enforcement of copyright in other commercial cases... it's the main argument I can see from the MPA's side of things, and why they might think it doesn't apply to their use. Sorry, that's the "technicality" that I was talking about, not a legal one, but a perception on the MPA's part. I wasn't clear about it, so... sorry!


Quite right, that does weaken any potential case. Maybe there's a loophole for this too. Each copyright holder can take action, that means that if they include for example a GPL'd program I wrote, I can independently take action against them. Now, if I never had a GPL violation before, there is no prior 'failure of enforcement'...



I'm also wondering... would this be considered a commercial use of noncommercial software?
Thanks, and sorry if I upset you... I was mostly going for feedback anyway. Thanks!


The commercial use would not be a problem, the GPL explicitly allows this, as long as it is released under the GPL again. It makes not restrictions on usage.

Don't worry, you did not upset me. We need to do this kind of mental exercises, maybe it exposes a weak spot on thier side that could change this copyright madness...

Hibble
November 29th, 2007, 09:48 AM
ok perhaps i was a bit quick to judge but how long dose it take to prepare a press statement saying that Canonical are looking in to the issue?

My concern is that i have recommended Ubuntu to people and now find out it may have approved or made business deals with DRM abusing organizations (in regard to trademark). will ubuntu be phoning home in the future as part of such deals etc..?

GPLv2 has been violated as no source code is given. This may be a issue for the FeeSoftwareFoundation.
http://www.fsf.org/

but the gplv2 code abused is Canonicals so under us law will they(potentially) lose the right to protect there code by not prosecuting.

ps. There is no problem in the mpaa using gpl'd code just that it is abusing the terms and conditions of the rights holders just what they accuse others off.

plun
November 29th, 2007, 10:05 AM
ok perhaps i was a bit quick to judge but how long dose it take to prepare a press statement saying that Canonical are looking in to the issue?
.

Well, Canonical must comment this....

Within Diggs thread about this issue there is a mail from Jane SIlber
about Ubuntu Ultimate.

http://digg.com/linux_unix/MPAA_violating_copyright_and_trademarks_in_Xubuntu _Linux


Heres the Letter that was sent to Ubuntu Ultimate the same should also aplly to the MPAA and its software vendor .
"Hi,

I'm Jane Silber, COO of Canonical. I wrote to you several months ago
about the use of the Ubuntu trademarks in your product and website but didn't get a reply.
I thought I'd send another message in the event
that for some reason you never received the first one.

While we greatly appreciate your enthusiasm for Ubuntu, and appreciatethe time and effort you
devote to the project, I'm afraid there are trademark related issues with your project.
We've tried to define a reasonable trademark policy that allows people to customise Ubuntu,
and use the marks to promote the project, while at the same preserving the integrity of the marks
. In case you haven't seen it, that policy is at

http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy

There are several distinct but related issues with the Ubuntu Ultimate
Edition and ubuntusoftware.info. Specifically,

- Ubuntu Ultimate Edition includes software which fundamentally is not Ubuntu, and calling
it such confuses people and damages the Ubuntu project. People should know what they're
getting when they install something called Ubuntu. We certainly encourage people to make
custom versions of Ubuntu, and we have established the "remix" concept and terminology
to allow use of the trademark if the changes are minimal or include only
software from the Ubuntu repositories. But we can't let
something which is significantly different from Ubuntu
(which your product is) to be called Ubuntu. Hosting your own repositories also
means that people aren't using Ubuntu software. It is of course fine to host
repositories and distribute the software - the issue is that you
are attaching the brand, quality and assurance messages of the Ubuntu
marks to something which is not Ubuntu.

- the website itself is also misleading. We allow people to use the
word Ubuntu in domains that are non-profit, community advocacy sites.
But your site is a promotional site for a different product (not Ubuntu, as
explained above). Additionally, it is designed and written in a way
which easily confuses people into thinking that it actually is from the
Ubuntu project. The use of the Ubuntu logo, the design, the domain
itself, the repositories all mislead people into thinking they are
using Ubuntu.

I'm happy to talk about this on the phone if you prefer. I can call
you, or I can be reached at (Phone Number Removed). Again, I'd like to stress that we appreciate
your enthusiasm for Ubuntu, and that the basic activities
of what you are doing is fine - it's one of the freedoms and powers
provided by open source software. But I'm afraid that using the Ubuntu
name and logo (in product name, on website, etc) to refer to your own
product/project (i.e, not Ubuntu) simply doesn't work and needs to be changed.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Jane"

http://forumubuntusoftware.info/viewtopic.php?f=11 ...

Red.Heron
November 29th, 2007, 10:17 AM
ok perhaps i was a bit quick to judge but how long dose it take to prepare a press statement saying that Canonical are looking in to the issue?

In my experience, from 24 hours to 14 days, depending upon how complex the issue is. And, judging from what I've read, this is relatively complex from a legal standpoint. Even claiming that they're looking into it (if they're aware of it) can have consequences if it's not timed right. Press releases aren't the "simple" thing that you might think they are. And I can say this because I've written quite a few since the beginning of my stint as a political party administrator, even if it is only at the state level.


My concern is that i have recommended Ubuntu to people and now find out it may have approved or made business deals with DRM abusing organizations (in regard to trademark). will ubuntu be phoning home in the future as part of such deals etc..?

Why would you think that could be a possibility?


GPLv2 has been violated as no source code is given. This may be a issue for the FeeSoftwareFoundation.
http://www.fsf.org/

Is "fee" intentional or a typo?


but the gplv2 code abused is Canonicals so under us law will they(potentially) lose the right to protect there code by not prosecuting.

Well, not "lose the right to protect" but "weakens the case for protecting". They have to gauge how strong of a case they think they have. Then they have to gauge the politics involved. Then they have to gauge risks. Then they have to weigh those risks. Seriously, this is kind of a first, and so extra care needs to be taken as jumping into action before you're ready can lead to disaster... it's actually worse than failing to act.

But the other idea is that in the past they've at least mentioned the violation and attempted to bring those others into compliance, which may give them just enough clout to be able to push forward with a case. It's something the legal team is probably going to have to research and determine for themselves.


ps. There is no problem in the mpaa using gpl'd code just that it is abusing the terms and conditions of the rights holders just what they accuse others off.

Right, and it's also an opportunity to wake them up. The only question is one of "how" this should be accomplished, because if it's done wrong, all it will serve to do is to further entrench the copyright regime and make everyones' lives more difficult.

nocturn
November 29th, 2007, 10:59 AM
ok perhaps i was a bit quick to judge but how long dose it take to prepare a press statement saying that Canonical are looking in to the issue?

My concern is that i have recommended Ubuntu to people and now find out it may have approved or made business deals with DRM abusing organizations (in regard to trademark). will ubuntu be phoning home in the future as part of such deals etc..?


We owe much to Mark and Canonical. So I'm going to assume that they are still the good guys and that there is no such deal with the MPAA until someone has a clear indication that there is.

Please do not start FUD before there is any reason to distrust a valued community member.

Regarding the GPL violations, it is not Canonicals code (mostly), but off all GPL license holders for components of the distro (which includes the FSF).

Hibble
November 29th, 2007, 12:35 PM
ok to clear things up i did not mean to imply that there is any kind of deal.

Howether this website has in its documentation(not including any documentation/images in the distribution itself)

1 x screenshot of xbuntu boot up (so xbuntu logo) with no reference to rights received or trademark ownership.

7 x the word ubuntu in there documentation(i believe they actually mean xbuntu but it is still a trademark)

There software even seems to use the ubuntu repository's for updates and distribution upgrades. This last point is fine in itself(i think) but they do not make it clear that this distribution is based off a Canonical distribution as is required by http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/trademarkpolicy .

count to this point is 8 trademark violations.

Finally the greatest infringement of the lot is that this distribution is intended for a commercial purpose. e.g to increase there sales through limitation of legal bit torrent sale services like vuze http://www.vuze.com and illegal ones.

To sum up the opinion one will come to is that this rootkit like software is connected to Canonical. How else could they use the Xbuntu logo or talk about how ubuntu will find the correct driver for the admin's hardware ect.. This this would not be alowed under trademarkpolicy.

"Use in a way which implies an endorsement where that doesn't exist, or which attempts to unfairly or confusingly capitalise on the goodwill or brand of the project."


I believe this distribution dose not classify as a 'remix' as it significantly relies upon there own processes/packages and difers in intent from Ubuntu's e.g limit freedom apposed to encouraging it.

It also hinders the legal bittorrent distribution of Ubuntu iso's in any university that adopts this software. The software also hinders FTP transfers which are also used to distribute Canonical software.

Vadi
November 29th, 2007, 01:58 PM
"However, a case for trademark infringement may be in order, particularly because it does have the appearance of altering the purpose of the OS to prevent legitimate uses of certain kinds of protocols and content."

Ouch. Lets hope that appearance doesn't get far...

saulgoode
November 29th, 2007, 03:31 PM
The problem is the failure of enforcement of copyright in other commercial cases... it's the main argument I can see from the MPA's side of things, and why they might think it doesn't apply to their use. Sorry, that's the "technicality" that I was talking about, not a legal one, but a perception on the MPA's part. I wasn't clear about it, so... sorry!

I disagree, though I am no expert. Copyright holders certainly may choose to selectively enforce their copyrights without sacrificing those rights (this is not true for trademarks, though).

You might find that courts are reluctant to recognize a change in enforcement over time for a particular violator. For example, if I knowingly permitted you to violate my copyrights for years and then finally decide to enforce it -- but even then I suspect that would only affect the penalty assessed, you would still be expected to fall into compliance. Also, whether I permitted another person to violate my copyrights should have no effect on your case of infringement.

I realize that you a playing the Devil's Advocate but if you have some precedent for your position that selective enforcement results in loss of rights, I would be interested in reviewing the case(s). Selective enforcement occurs all the time (the recent SCO lawsuits were certainly selective).

Hibble
November 29th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I disagree, though I am no expert. Copyright holders certainly may choose to selectively enforce their copyrights without sacrificing those rights (this is not true for trademarks, though).


sorry i was referring to the trademarks.

KiwiNZ
November 29th, 2007, 08:13 PM
This thread is full of conclusion jumping , FUD and borderline defamatory statements.

Thread closed for review