Perhaps this should be put on SourceForge so change requests and bug reports can be submitted? <just kidding>

–TurboGeek

I am reminded of a comment made a few times too often by a certain nephew of mine. He would frequently insist that Law enforcement can’t do this or can’t do that - it’s a violation of constitutional rights. While it might be true that they are not technically allowed to violate your rights, it certainly doesn’t keep them from doing it; and when the time comes to explain why or on what premise the person’s rights were violated, it’s amazing how often they are able to produce credible “probable cause” — and make it stick in a court of law.

To suggest that OM won’t shut down those sites is a bit naive. If they even suspect they’ve been duped, you can bet next year’s salary that they’ll close down the site faster than you can sneeze. So, later, you sue them for failing to perform due diligence in their research. I have a feeling that by the time the matter could come to trial, they will have easily covered their bases.

I am not disparaging the use of DirIndexFinder — au contraire! I love it. I am merely suggesting that anyone planning to use it should do so fully aware of what the repercussions might be.

Here in America, they can’t get away with violating a person’s constitutional rights, and they certainly can’t get permission to do so from a federal court that meets in total privacy. They can’t take away your right to unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, and they can’t deny you the right to confront your accusers and to know what evidence is being used against you.

Guess again:

Inside America’s Secret Court: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court — http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/fiscshort.html

If you don’t know about the FISA, you are in for one helluva surprise.

You would have to asume they come from different (random) IPs

- User Agent strings?

If they are smart they would probaby try to hide their identity, so they would be advertising as eather IE or even Firefox

- Do they obey Robots.txt?

If they want to find something probably no

- What source information are they working from?

If by that you mean what they are looking for - probably list of artist names, titles of songs and albums…

“What are we actually trying to do here? Poison MP3 web Searches in the same way as the RIAA tried to poison P2P searches? Is that productive?”

This could poison the system, but if you look at 3rd answer its clear what to do. Put this script in a place where robots wouldn’t go (robots.txt) and mp3s in a non-hidden robots-visible folder

But as I said in a comment to previous story - if your busines is web-hosting stay clear!!! It’s hard to make a living if your source of income is taken away as evidence… even if there is no actual evidence, you have to wait for a long time before you get to court…

Absolutely bloody brilliant!

Next step: one for the Gnutella, G2, and ED2K networks that won’t confuse real filesharing software.

Sue the crap out of them Steve!!

It seems like you really want to keep users and search engines away from the dirindexfaker page but then how will the RIAA find it?

Perhaps a better approach would be to add entries in your main .htaccess to redirect the RIAA and *only* the RIAA to this page and then to get really aggressive about tar pitting and disabling them, perhaps combining it with some long lived and rapid fire requests back at their source websites.

Feels like this whole plan needs a bit more planning. What are we actually trying to do here? Poison MP3 web Searches in the same way as the RIAA tried to poison P2P searches? Is that productive?

The more the merrier in this case. Consumes computer cpu, bandwidth, and time. Something they have no compuntions about doing for the average user. Returning the favor in spades would be such a welcome present from average Joe.

Thanks, Smitty

The fake files are actually the source code for the script, right?

If the source code is copyrighted by Steve, and someone (RIAA) tries to download the fake file, have they just infringed Steve’s copyright?

People who actually run the script have received a licence from Steve to run the script, but people who download the script through a(n accidentally) misnamed file DO NOT have the rights to the source code, hence they infringe Steve’s copyright.