Originally Posted by Yahwe

EDIT: Britain once executed a king.

Originally Posted by s|k

Wasn't a post driven through his body or something nasty? A Charles right?

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

1) Lowtax complains about eBaum taking images off of SA, adding their own watermark and using them on their site.
2) eBaum ignores emails asking them to remove this stolen content.
3) Lowtax posts a thread in SA forums explaining the situation and telling users to complain to eBaum about it.
4) SA users post threads on eBaum forums asking the stolen content to be removed.
5) eBaum ignores these threads and still does not remove the stolen content.
6) eBaum contacts our ISP claiming we are instructing our users to attack their site.
7) We specifically tell our users NOT to attack their site, even though our content is still not removed.
8) eBaum puts malicious javascript on their site to attack us.
9) Content still not removed.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Although the fact silversmoke now appears to run SA ran it a close second.

Originally Posted by sniborp

Why do you need to go to either?

Surely GD fulfils all your needs?

Originally Posted by SilverSmoke

i just happen to have an account on sa dude :(

Originally Posted by Silversmoke

6) eBaum contacts our ISP claiming we are instructing our users to attack their site.
7) We specifically tell our users NOT to attack their site, even though our content is still not removed.
8) eBaum puts malicious javascript on their site to attack us.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The best bit was when some faggot got his internet corps of faggots on a shit site to rally behind him in his quest for recognition for his shitty images on an even shitter site.

Originally Posted by Leshy

Especially when he is faced with a lot of complaints on the forums he responds with putting a JavaScript on his site which does several page requests to SomethingAwful, essentially meaning everyone visiting his site generates multiple requests to SomethingAwful, thereby forcing his users to participate in what is essentially a DDoS attack.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Gaming sites makes me think of greasy fifteen year old CS players who can't type properly.

Originally Posted by Ramihyn

However instead of moaning, i would just filter "referred" requests from his site and that would make the whole "attack" pretty useless.

Originally Posted by Nusselt

i have no idea what ebaum or who low tax is.!

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Hahaha intellectual property. Now dante will actively work towards your collective deaths as opposed to just wishing it :(

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I know nothing of anything recent, but based on other things I've read about similar incidents I'd bet heavily on it being a bunch of idiotic wankers thinking they are being terribly clever/hilarious while in actuality they stoop to now lows of puerile stupidity.

Their "shenanigans" will be funny to no-one except the moronic cheerleaders that occupy respective forums who have nothing better to do but maturbate (both literally and figuratively) over the idea of such hilarious japes as sending pictures of someone's house to them, or something like that. Ocassionally it might turn into something more serious but that does not but escalate the patheticness and banality of the whole affair.

If there was any justice at all they'll all die slow and agonising deaths.

But like I say, I have no real idea.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Dante actually explicitly supports the position of SA in all of this. He said that he opposed the selling of other peoples IP - he was fine with it when there was no personal gain involved, but not when it was for the purpose of making money.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If it is a DDOS type attack in response then it confirms my previous comments (although as I said, they were regarding previous incidents). Personally if someone was making money off my work then I'd be pleased that my meme had spread, rather than throwing my toys out of the cot about it, but hey that's just me.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

How misleading :(

Originally Posted by radium on SA's GBS

I ran to the grocery store and when I came back, the forums were down. Apparently eBaumsworld was using their own visitors to attack us using a couple lines of javascript.

So to review:
1) Lowtax complains about eBaum taking images off of SA, adding their own watermark and using them on their site.
2) eBaum ignores emails asking them to remove this stolen content.
3) Lowtax posts a thread in SA forums explaining the situation and telling users to complain to eBaum about it.
4) SA users post threads on eBaum forums asking the stolen content to be removed.
5) eBaum ignores these threads and still does not remove the stolen content.
6) eBaum contacts our ISP claiming we are instructing our users to attack their site.
7) We specifically tell our users NOT to attack their site, even though our content is still not removed.
8) eBaum puts malicious javascript on their site to attack us.
9) Content still not removed.

So what was this "attack"? Nothing interesting. It's pretty obvious what's happening when you see tons of referer headers flying around like this:

This is nothing new, and we've had it happen here before. ebaumsworld put this javascript in their pages, which causes your browser to make requests to our server when loading their page:

Luckily, everyone knows that's easy to fix with a mod_rewrite rule. It's such a cheap attack, it's really sad that a site that large would actually use it. Then again, I'm surprised a site this large runs on stolen content, so why not?

Using your visitors to DDOS another site after ripping off said site's content is pretty much the lowest of the low. I could never see myself posting malicious code on my employer's website exploiting our own visitors and still have the balls to cash my paycheck.

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Do these people that are upset on SA use the SA forums as a means to distribute or talk about distributing copyrighted media (mp3s etc) either in the music or porn form?

Originally Posted by Nusselt

The core of the complaint seems to be 'daddeh he gottaa rich offa meee' well the internet is indeed a bitch that eats its own children.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

SA has no filesharing forums, and even should they exist they wouldn't be used for direct profiteering.

Originally Posted by Black Dog

A lot of people who have posted negatively clearly don't read somethingawful. The forums are so much more than GBS and the slightly puerile sense of humour. The photoshops alone far surpass anything this forum has come up even with in the halcyon days of 2000.

The Games, Sports Argument and Film forums have far more informed and mature discussions than you'll find on any similar forum, with a very active user base. .

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Im willing to assume the people who created those pictures/files have on their computer harddrives copyrighted material which they did not purchase. They may not have profited from it, but they did steal it.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Morally of course taking credit for other people's work is disgusting, but that's another matter - insulting someone whose mum has just died is pretty shit too, but I don't think it should be illegal to do so, and you shouldn't be able to respond with violence (of the online or physical variety).

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No they didn't.

Originally Posted by acropolis

are you seriously claiming that none of the people who created any of the photoshops have any downloaded mp3s on their computers?