Gnutella Forums

Gnutella Forums (
-   LimeWire Beta Archives (
-   -   A Curious Thing Happened... (

chicagojohn October 31st, 2004 01:37 PM

A Curious Thing Happened...
First off a quick hey to everybody I have been gone for a while. I have noticed a curious phenomenom happening when I perform a search particularly for video files and I wondered if anyone else has noticed or experienced it. In keeping with the rules of the forum I will not mention specific names but just insert a title. Actually the older or more obscure title the better. Here is what happens:

1) I select VIDEO as the search parameter.
2) I enter a string with a wildcard (or without) such as:


3) Inevitably and with more frequency I will get a hit with the exact same string, case, misspelling, and the file size that will be returned is 106.7 kb and turns out to be an ad for a supposedly free personal music player.

4) On the surface it is an annoyance and I don't even bother with it. In the beginning I thought some clever person that wanted to advertise was just punching in popular titles as the names of the ads. But I find it sinister that now they come up with the variable string and spelling that I put in. I put a string in for a video that I highly doubted would get a hit because it is an obscure file and I tried it with and without a wildcard and changed some of the spelling a little.

5) I got two hits back including the misspellings. I find that kind of interesting.

Any ideas? It seems somehow somebody is able to monitor searches and return a hit to you using your string. For the record I am no conspiracy theorist and as Lord Of The Rings will tell you I regularly poke fun at these folks. I just wondered if anyone else has noticed this.


Lord of the Rings October 31st, 2004 02:43 PM

Welcome back! Your problem is not only for video searches. It seems to happen with almost all searches nowadays. Also replications of search criteria showing up in our results. iPod am I right? That gets back to adding jpg, exe & wmv to keyword filters. Even if only temporarily. If it's a wmv file you're after then you're stuck from what I can see.

I've been making suggestions in the New Feature Requests section for a means of combatting this. Such as a size filter: Xtra Search Function (see link)

My guess is the files are coming from T3 sources. And there's certainly been many suggestions that riaa or music co.'s are loading up corrupt files on networks to kill the enthusiasm of people to dwnld a particular file. Here's a recent thread about mp3 issues: Filtering out T3 Spammers

Of course there's a lot more on the topic on the forums.

et voilą October 31st, 2004 03:13 PM

Sberlin: to fight against those spammers, please include hostiles list of bearshare into the banned hosts just like other P2P do. This is the easiest way to fight against them. Ignoring T3 sources would be a mess and a big miss.


zetch November 16th, 2004 08:28 PM

I'm thinking that when you block a host, that it only blocks their ability to send you chat messages....I think I read that in a tip of the day. So please don't anyone be too reliant on that to filter out junk until you check it out for sure.

Not to mention the fact that I have tried blocking the 106.7 wmv carriers and actually kept track of their IP's to see if they came back up in the next search, after the block host, and they still did. I'm thinking there is a false sense of security with this feature and that limewire really should do a block host that actually blocks them from participating in your search.

ukbobboy01 November 17th, 2004 05:46 AM

106.7KB Files
Dear LW users

I too, like everyone else, suffer from these 106.7kb files that will continually pop-up in whatever search you perform.

Like LOTR, I believe a "size filter", rather than the current IP blocker, would be more than adequate in combatting the rogue organisation that is maintaining these files. In addition, the obvious benefits that would flow from such a facility would more than make up for the effort in incorporating it within LW.

Is there any (valid) reason why this facility is not scheduled to be in the next release of LW?

UK Bob

ursula November 17th, 2004 06:01 AM

In the meantime, it might be a rather good idea to remember that you are never going to get a particularly satifactory video or song file that is the size of these Dialler apps !!!

"Automatic" filtering can only go so far and then the brain needs to take over, hmmm ?


arne_bab November 17th, 2004 06:38 AM

You could also include a user definable filter like the one in Phex, which means: being able to ban hosts or ranges with bad content, so you don't see their ads again.

trap_jaw4 November 17th, 2004 08:38 AM


Originally posted by arne_bab
You could also include a user definable filter like the one in Phex, which means: being able to ban hosts or ranges with bad content, so you don't see their ads again.
LimeWire has had that filter for a long time. It supports single ips and ips with subnet mask.

verdyp November 20th, 2004 10:16 AM

Filtering out some of those "echo everything" malicious sources.

It's quite simple to do manually: enter your search keywords, and then add one long random keyword that is not likely to be found on the network.
Then you can ignore any query hit that show your lang random keyword in their "results".

One problem however: you'll get less results, because your random keyword will try to be matched in addition to the keywords you search. To paliate this problem, add not only 1 random long keyword but also a significant good keyword for the results you want.

Now RIAA financed networks that pollute P2P networks with these auto-responder robots are smarter: they send you results with accurate titles and artist names.

You can effectively download from them, but you'll get a file that will start with a small fragment of the music you search, followed by a message against illegal file trading.

But if the RIAA financed network wants to identify senders of files too much present on the network, they will send you a copy of the title you want, you can look at it and iyou can't see that the file is specially marked with the IP of the first downloader of this file. If that user reshares this file on the P2P network, and that copy is found again on the network, then they know that this user is sharing illegal material.

They have hidden digital signatures within those files, and they don't need to download ALL the file to determine if a shared file contains the digital rights signature (they know exactly, where precisely in these copies, the signatures are present, and will only download that very small fragment from anyone that shares a suspect file that matches some DRM-protection associated keywords).

They won't send you an alert immediately. Instead they will try to identify you precisely with your ISP, then they will try to look which kind of content you trade on the network. They create a more and more precise profile of your download habits, and which files you share, and they collect some proofs, until they are convinced that you are the good one to send to courts. With all these proofs (digital signatures found in files are legally recognized proofs in most countries today) they create lists of people against which action is needed.

They get the collaboration of their ISP, and all their Internet activity is then monitored by some police or judiciary departments, that will then call the police to your home to get the final proofs they need directly on your hard disk, and on all your storage medias.

Finally they count all the medias for which you have no proof of purchase, and they will multiply that by a very expensive fee per title (MUCH more than if they had bought it regularly, because you have not only downloaded it, but because you have distributed it illegally), after getting confirmation by the copyright owners that the titles are protected.

You go to some court and you may have to pay for the rest of your life if the police has found enough materials at your home! (Some young people have been required to sell their home, car, and have their work incomes fined for many years, because they don't have that much money...).

All this procedure is expensive even for copyright holders, so they will first prosecute those that SHARE illegal content, before those that DOWNLOAD content, because they can't claim for the same damages face to a court. They want efficiency and minimize the costs of such actions, and this means economical efficiency of such procedures... They can increase the impact of these actions by communicating about those that have been caught and condemned...

Those that are caught can have their fees much reduced after negociation, if they accept to communicate publicly about what they did and how they must indemnify the copyright owners (in that case they may not go face to a court, but will sign a contract where they plaid guilty and accept to pay).

However this negociation is not possible in all countries (some governments may still prosecute people to create "examples", or because there may be other plaintiffs which have not been indemnified or bound to the terms of the private contract.

ursula November 20th, 2004 11:07 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.