Sales of accounts and invites to invite-only sites

[theymos]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:
- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or,
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or,
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories.

[1714169145]

1714169145

[1714169145]

1714169145

[shep]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:
- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or,

Any sales of credentials for service accounts where a right to property does not exist for the user IS illegal (misuse of access). Access to an account without the express permission of the site owner is constituted as illegal access and any services used is theft of service. There is no major difference between providing credentials or access codes to authorize service on an internet modem, a cable box, or satellite dish than there is providing credentials to a website to gain access to services. Re-selling services when not explicitly authorized is illegal access.

There is an exception pertaining to transferability of accounts (or the goods within those accounts) when the account contains physical property of the account holder (such as a lock box containing personal possessions) or your own bitcoin wallet. Transferability of games purchased by the account holder of a steam account qualifies (backed by EU case precedent), as do transferability of funds (assets) in a bank account, stock trade accounts (assets), and transferability of goods in amazon accounts (that hold music, movies, or ebooks purchased or owned by an account holder). There is legal argument and precedent to potentially apply this towards transferability of music purchased through online accounts like itunes (it hasn't been tested yet in some jurisdictions, but it should hold in the eu). These are specific instances where the account holder holds a right to property within an account.

But the vast majority of accounts are only granted on provisional access, such as service accounts or user accounts like newegg, ebay, or other accounts which allow you the ability to facilitate direct purchases or use database services, but don't allow you to hold or retain any physical property in an account. The user does not own the database for which they use, they are provided provisional access to services, which may subsequently produce an intangible good as a byproduct of use.

Torrent accounts and nzb accounts are service accounts granted on provisional access. Invites are access codes and can not be sold without authorization of such sales by the site owner or it becomes illegal access and theft of service. The user does not hold a right to property, they are granted provisional access to use a database service, therefore they have no right to sale. This is considered a service; database and bandwidth services are utilized, an account may generate an nzb (user may claim some ownership of the generated nzb at that point as an intangible good), but they do not own the account used to generate it. This is no different than using my provisioned bitcointalk.org account to make posts to a database (a service), and then using the print function via my web browser to make a copy of a thread or post (a tangible good created by a service).

A similar argument would apply to the sale of bitcointalk.org accounts.  I do not own your server or database (property), nor do I own the bandwidth (hosting services) that you pay for.  I do not have a right to resell your services should anyone choose to want to buy accounts from me if I registered them or acquired them by other *wink* means.  Doing so would constitute theft of service unless you explicitly authorized such transactions for your own website.

Putting legalities aside, how do you expect someone to acquire accounts in bulk unless they are hacking or automating site registrations en mass (site abuse)?   How would you expect a member to sell more than one set of credentials (account) unless they're acquiring accounts in illegal or very shady means?  Bulk sales should throw a red flag and warrant thread lock or user ban no matter who sells them and it shouldn't matter if they are sales of credentials for a forum, a business account, or any other type of account that has a login mechanism.

- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts.

I think you missed the point of the existing thread, hacked/compromised account trades are illegal, as are unauthorized trades of credentials.   Access is provided to an authorized user.  That user may invite another user, but the user is not permitted to sell their accounts or invites.  Doing so constitutes a breach of ToS and is considered misuse of devices per the Council of Europe Treaty - Convention on Cybercrime CETS No.: 185. Any attempt to gain access to a system as a result of such sales constitutes illegal access.  Torrentinvites.org can operate, but they are not reputable, nor are their activities of trading ("making availability of") credentials legal by the Convention of Cybercrime signed and ratified by a majority of EU nation member states and non-member states like the US.

I would think sales of accounts would be considered an illegal activity, which we're not supposed to post here on BitCoinTalk.

No, that's ridiculous. I should be able to sell *my* accounts, but there should be forum rules prohibiting selling other accounts.

I honestly feel that the only reason this forum allows it is because of the donations.

Bitcointalk.org domain is registered in Toronto, Canada.
However, this forum is hosted in the US and is subject to US laws and regulations.

Bitcointalk.org
IP Location Results for 50.97.137.52
==============

City:        
Zip Code:    
Region Code:  
Region Name:  
Country Code: US
Country Name: United States
Latitude:     38
Longitude:    -97
GMT Offset:  
DST Offset:


Now, I'm sure some of you are asking, "what if the forum was hosted in Europe?"
The Council of Europe proposed a treaty covering cybercrime in 2001. A majority of
member states and non-member states have either signed the treaty or ratified
the treaty by accession over the past 11 years.

What is the definition of accession with respect to Treaties?

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml#accession

3. Accession

"Accession" is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. It has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession usually occurs after the treaty has entered into force. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his function as depositary, has also accepted accessions to some conventions before their entry into force. The conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the provisions of the treaty. A treaty might provide for the accession of all other states or for a limited and defined number of states. In the absence of such a provision, accession can only occur where the negotiating states were agreed or subsequently agree on it in the case of the state in question.

[Arts.2 (1) (b) and 15, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

In simple terms, there are laws covering sales of hacked/compromised and or
unauthorized transfers of accounts.


Council of Europe Treaty - Convention on Cybercrime CETS No.: 185

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=185&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG


Chart of ratifications and signatures by member states and non-member states

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=185&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG


Full Text with relevant passage(s) cited.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Article 6 – Misuse of devices

1    Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

a     the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:

i    a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5;

ii    a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed,

with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5; and

b     the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs a.i or ii above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.

2    This article shall not be interpreted as imposing criminal liability where the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available or possession referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is not for the purpose of committing an offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5 of this Convention, such as for the authorised testing or protection of a computer system.

3    Each Party may reserve the right not to apply paragraph 1 of this article, provided that the reservation does not concern the sale, distribution or otherwise making available of the items referred to in paragraph 1 a.ii of this article.

Or,
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories.

Being vouched does not eliminate illegality of these sales.

[Maged]

Putting legalities aside, how do you expect someone to acquire accounts in bulk unless they are hacking or automating site registrations en mass (site abuse)?

I think you just answered your own question: we would allow people to sell accounts that were registered through automation. Whether or not we ban that is a completely different debate.

[shep]

Putting legalities aside, how do you expect someone to acquire accounts in bulk unless they are hacking or automating site registrations en mass (site abuse)?

I think you just answered your own question: we would allow people to sell accounts that were registered through automation. Whether or not we ban that is a completely different debate.

I think you're missing the point.  Mass registrations aren't illegal (unless it's brute force, or DDoS), but the sales of those accounts are illegal if it's a service account where the registered user is granted provisional access.  Selling such service accounts when the user is not authorized to do so (and holds no right to property) constitutes a breach of ToS and is considered misuse of access (illegal).  Any user which gains access to the service account is doing so illegally, which is considered illegal access with theft of service.

It's not like selling your bitcoin wallet which you actually own a right to property and therefore you have the right to sell.  

You're trying to rationalize illegal sales and theft of service by only recognizing the highly illegal sales of hacked/compromised credentials while turning a blind eye to illegal sales of access codes (invites) and credentials of service accounts, which will then be used for theft of service.

[theymos]

In many countries, terms of service are not legally binding. Traders can figure out their own legal risks. The forum will not enforce terms of service.

[shep]

In many countries, terms of service are not legally binding. Traders can figure out their own legal risks. The forum will not enforce terms of service.

I think we've already established which nations signed on to the treaty, as you can see that covers most of europe and other nations like the United States.  Theft of service is theft of service no matter how you rationalize it.  You're using services which are not authorized for use and therefore it is considered illegal access.

Theymos I'll ask you this, if you tried to use a hacked cable modem (stolen, compromised, or access codes that were given to you which you were not authorized to use) would you be prosecuted for theft of service?  I guarantee you the answer is yes.  The same argument and logic applies to gaining access to a site with service account credentials that were not authorized to a specific user. Unauthorized consumption of bandwidth and resources of a server is theft of service.

If you support, rationalize, and approve of these transactions, you are approving illegal sales, which go against your own marketplace rules.

[John (John K.)]

Putting legalities aside, how do you expect someone to acquire accounts in bulk unless they are hacking or automating site registrations en mass (site abuse)?

I think you just answered your own question: we would allow people to sell accounts that were registered through automation. Whether or not we ban that is a completely different debate.

I think you're missing the point.  Mass registrations aren't illegal (unless it's brute force, or DDoS), but the sales of those accounts are illegal if it's a service account where the registered user is granted provisional access.  Selling such service accounts when the user is not authorized to do so (and holds no right to property) constitutes a breach of ToS and is considered misuse of access (illegal).  Any user which gains access to the service account is doing so illegally, which is considered illegal access with theft of service.

It's not like selling your bitcoin wallet which you actually own a right to property and therefore you have the right to sell.  

You're trying to rationalize illegal sales and theft of service by only recognizing the highly illegal sales of hacked/compromised credentials while turning a blind eye to illegal sales of access codes (invites) and credentials of service accounts, which will then be used for theft of service.

If we actually start to enforce separate TOS for every product advertised here, we would be better closing off the Marketplace entirely. I'm sure most items/digital accounts/ does not allow resale of their products.

[shep]

Putting legalities aside, how do you expect someone to acquire accounts in bulk unless they are hacking or automating site registrations en mass (site abuse)?

I think you just answered your own question: we would allow people to sell accounts that were registered through automation. Whether or not we ban that is a completely different debate.

I think you're missing the point.  Mass registrations aren't illegal (unless it's brute force, or DDoS), but the sales of those accounts are illegal if it's a service account where the registered user is granted provisional access.  Selling such service accounts when the user is not authorized to do so (and holds no right to property) constitutes a breach of ToS and is considered misuse of access (illegal).  Any user which gains access to the service account is doing so illegally, which is considered illegal access with theft of service.

It's not like selling your bitcoin wallet which you actually own a right to property and therefore you have the right to sell.  

You're trying to rationalize illegal sales and theft of service by only recognizing the highly illegal sales of hacked/compromised credentials while turning a blind eye to illegal sales of access codes (invites) and credentials of service accounts, which will then be used for theft of service.

If we actually start to enforce separate TOS for every product advertised here, we would be better closing off the Marketplace entirely. I'm sure most items/digital accounts/ does not allow resale of their products.

There's a difference between a good (property) and a service.  Goods can be traded per the rule of first-sale doctrine.  Services can not be resold without approval of the property owner (site owner).

All secondary sales of service accounts or invites which employ a database and bandwidth should be observed as illegal unless explicitly permitted by the site owner.  Failing to ban secondary sales of service accounts opens the site and staff to criminal and civil liability for facilitating illegal transactions. Secondary sales refers to sales in an underlying market, which is not the same as a primary market of first availability (site owner).

[vampire]

All secondary sales of service accounts or invites which employ a database and bandwidth should be observed as illegal unless explicitly permitted by the site owner.  Failing to ban secondary sales of service accounts opens the site and staff to criminal and civil liability for facilitating illegal transactions. Secondary sales refers to sales in an underlying market, which is not the same as a primary market of first availability (site owner).

But they aren't illegal, contract law is a civil matter. So far what you're doing could be "illegal", i.e. a threat.

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Could care less about ToS. It's a load of crap and won't hold in court.

You need to prove two things at the same time, that the website was hacked AND it was used for a dishonest intent. The ball lies in your court,

Here is a definition of dishonesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonesty

[grue]

how come this guy gets to sell accounts?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134044.0

- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or, nope, account created a week ago
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or, none that was mentioned
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories. nope

[21after2]

how come this guy gets to sell accounts?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134044.0

- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or, nope, account created a week ago
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or, none that was mentioned
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories. nope

Title says he's selling invites, which are allowed.

[grue]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

[21after2]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

My bad. Must have read through too quickly and misread it. Maybe the mods haven't noticed him yet? This is a very new ruling.

[shep]

All secondary sales of service accounts or invites which employ a database and bandwidth should be observed as illegal unless explicitly permitted by the site owner.  Failing to ban secondary sales of service accounts opens the site and staff to criminal and civil liability for facilitating illegal transactions. Secondary sales refers to sales in an underlying market, which is not the same as a primary market of first availability (site owner).

But they aren't illegal, contract law is a civil matter. So far what you're doing could be "illegal", i.e. a threat.

I have not threatened anyone.  I have however bought to light the criminal and civil liability that exists from ignoring transactions of illegal sales, which so far appears to be what the staff here is advocating for.

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Could care less about ToS. It's a load of crap and won't hold in court.

You need to prove two things at the same time, that the website was hacked AND it was used for a dishonest intent. The ball lies in your court,

Here is a definition of dishonesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dishonesty

Actually prosecutions of computer fraud, access fraud, and theft of service does routinely hold up in court.  Unauthorized distribution or sales of access codes do result in jail time.  I already posted proof the previous thread and you'll find that most first world nations and even third world nations contain laws covering this activity.  Invites are access codes which if shared in an unauthorized manner are considered illegal access.  It's no different then providing login credentials.  If you want to believe something else, you're free to do so, but laws in most nations state otherwise.

[paraipan]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

Why is that?

[shep]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement and acquisition methods.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

[lolwut]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement methods and acquisitions.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

It seems like you joined the forum just to start shit about this......  What makes your words so valuable? Are you a lawyer? Law enforcement?

[shep]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

Why is that?

I answered that in the 2nd post, but if you would prefer an abridged version I posted in this other thread.

Hey shep , first of all i will sell what i want  and 2nd my accounts or invites are not hacked or compromised in conclusion you can erase your message coz i don`t care about it .

Your accounts may not be hacked, but you are selling accounts in an unauthorized secondary market which is misuse of access.  Your account is a service account provided with provisional access to database services.  You do not own your account or the invites (access codes) you possess.  You were provided provisional access to services.   Access codes are also provided on provisional grounds that they are not sold. Attempting to sell or otherwise "making availability of" access codes that do not comply with the sites ToS is "misuse of access".   Any access by a buyer which results from an illegal sale, such as this constitutes illegal access and theft of service.


I see that you're Romanian. You realize that it's illegal for you to engage in these types of sales?

[shep]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement methods and acquisitions.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

It seems like you joined the forum just to start shit about this......  What makes your words so valuable? Are you a lawyer? Law enforcement?

Nope I'm not law enforcement.   However, I do object to illegal sales and distribution of login credentials and access codes, no matter what website or forum they are used for.  Most website or database admin you would ask would tell you the same thing.  I'm sorry if you disagree with that opinion.  Don't kill the messenger because you can't agree with the message.  This is a real issue that shouldn't be ignored; the longer this topic remains unaddressed without real change, the probability increases that something will be sold on this site that may have real legal consequences.

[lolwut]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement methods and acquisitions.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

It seems like you joined the forum just to start shit about this......  What makes your words so valuable? Are you a lawyer? Law enforcement?

Nope I'm not law enforcement.   However, I do object to illegal sales and distribution of login credentials and access codes, no matter what website or forum they are used for.  Most website or database admin you would ask would tell you the same thing.  I'm sorry if you disagree with that opinion.  Don't kill the messenger because you can't agree with the message.

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

[shep]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement methods and acquisitions.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

It seems like you joined the forum just to start shit about this......  What makes your words so valuable? Are you a lawyer? Law enforcement?

Nope I'm not law enforcement.   However, I do object to illegal sales and distribution of login credentials and access codes, no matter what website or forum they are used for.  Most website or database admin you would ask would tell you the same thing.  I'm sorry if you disagree with that opinion.  Don't kill the messenger because you can't agree with the message.

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

So it bothers you that I'm trying to improve the forum by getting Admin to recognize criminal activity taking place here that may harm the reputation of bitcoin and the website?  Well that's pretty sad actually.

[lolwut]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement methods and acquisitions.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

It seems like you joined the forum just to start shit about this......  What makes your words so valuable? Are you a lawyer? Law enforcement?

Nope I'm not law enforcement.   However, I do object to illegal sales and distribution of login credentials and access codes, no matter what website or forum they are used for.  Most website or database admin you would ask would tell you the same thing.  I'm sorry if you disagree with that opinion.  Don't kill the messenger because you can't agree with the message.

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

So it bothers you that I'm trying to improve the forum by getting Admin to recognize criminal activity taking place here that may harm the reputation of bitcoin and the website?  Well that's pretty sad actually.

Sad is the fact that you think this forum has anything to do with the way bitcoin is seen by the world.

[grue]

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

so we're supposed to allow illegal activities to be conducted on this forum? aren't we supposed to make bitcoin mainstream and not tied to illegal transactions?

[shep]

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

So it bothers you that I'm trying to improve the forum by getting Admin to recognize criminal activity taking place here that may harm the reputation of bitcoin and the website?  Well that's pretty sad actually.

Sad is the fact that you think this forum has anything to do with the way bitcoin is seen by the world.

I actually engaged in a discussion about this topic with someone else, he might read this thread (if so hello ).   While it's true that a currency can gain momentum and ultimately in time not be impacted by minor incidents or small blips of abuse, there is a critical mass phase with build up, similar to escape velocity needed to break atmosphere.  In the early lifecycle of a new currency like bitcoin it is imperative that the reputation of the currency not be constrained or otherwise hampered by impropriety or it may never be well received.  This is the way of the world, and it honestly applies to other areas beyond financial methods of exchange.

[lolwut]

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

so we're supposed to allow illegal activities to be conducted on this forum? aren't we supposed to make bitcoin mainstream and not tied to illegal transactions?

So we blame the currency for how its being used, thats a fair assessment.....NOT

[shep]

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

so we're supposed to allow illegal activities to be conducted on this forum? aren't we supposed to make bitcoin mainstream and not tied to illegal transactions?

So we blame the currency for how its being used, thats a fair assessment.....NOT

I addressed this question in my last post.  The currency is associated with the people and transactions that primarily use it.  If a new currency is primarily or even remotely used for criminal activities it can harm the reception and spread of the currency as whole.  It's much the same as child nutrition, failing to feed a child healthy nutrients may result in stunted growth and development, which can not be fixed later in life.

[21after2]

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

so we're supposed to allow illegal activities to be conducted on this forum? aren't we supposed to make bitcoin mainstream and not tied to illegal transactions?

So we blame the currency for how its being used, thats a fair assessment.....NOT

I just addressed this question in my last post.  The currency is associated with the people and transactions that primarily use it.  If a new currency is primarily used or even remotely used for criminal activities it can harm the reception and spread of the currency as whole.  It's much the same as child nutrition, failing to feed a child healthy nutrients may result in stunted growth and development, which can not be fixed later in life.

Kinda what I was about to say. Yes, people shouldn't blame a currency for how it's being used, but people will do that anyways. There are a few US politicians that are calling for action against BitCoin, and you can bet they'll be willing to pull any shady looking thing from an unofficial BitCoin forum as proof that BitCoins are the tools of drug addicted terrorists selling WoW accounts to each other. They'll take anything they can twist to make BitCoin seem dangerous, illegal, or childish.

[vampire]

I have not threatened anyone.  I have however bought to light the criminal and civil liability that exists from ignoring transactions of illegal sales, which so far appears to be what the staff here is advocating for.

You aren't a lawyer, so what may seems illegal to you may not to me. Like the threatening part, especially when you promote illegal websites.

Actually prosecutions of computer fraud, access fraud, and theft of service does routinely hold up in court.  Unauthorized distribution or sales of access codes do result in jail time.  I already posted proof the previous thread and you'll find that most first world nations and even third world nations contain laws covering this activity.  Invites are access codes which if shared in an unauthorized manner are considered illegal access.  It's no different then providing login credentials.  If you want to believe something else, you're free to do so, but laws in most nations state otherwise.

I already said once:

Prove me dishonesty. So far you have failed to do so.
Prove me that the website was hacked.

Now the additional factor. All these nzbs websites are illegal in nature. ToS of an illegal website is worthless.

The door is that way ===================>

[shep]

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

so we're supposed to allow illegal activities to be conducted on this forum? aren't we supposed to make bitcoin mainstream and not tied to illegal transactions?

So we blame the currency for how its being used, thats a fair assessment.....NOT

I just addressed this question in my last post.  The currency is associated with the people and transactions that primarily use it.  If a new currency is primarily used or even remotely used for criminal activities it can harm the reception and spread of the currency as whole.  It's much the same as child nutrition, failing to feed a child healthy nutrients may result in stunted growth and development, which can not be fixed later in life.

Kinda what I was about to say. Yes, people shouldn't blame a currency for how it's being used, but people will do that anyways. There are a few US politicians that are calling for action against BitCoin, and you can bet they'll be willing to pull any shady looking thing from an unofficial BitCoin forum as proof that BitCoins are the tools of drug addicted terrorists selling WoW accounts to each other. They'll take anything they can twist to make BitCoin seem dangerous, illegal, or childish.

We're kind of getting off-topic, this is mostly redundant, but those politicians are having strings pulled by financial institutions that view a currency like bitcoin as competition.  The arguments about why it needs to go away are mostly irrelevant, but the end goal is what is important to those individuals and institutions.

[greyhawk]

Selling invites is allowed, but there are some restrictions in order to prevent people from selling accounts and invites obtained through hacking. In order to sell invites or accounts to invite-only sites, you must:

selling invites doesn't make a difference.

It seems like the admin here is finding new and creative ways to rationalize existing behavior and transactions without changing much of anything other than banning the low hanging fruit that dare to be bold enough to admit to their procurement methods and acquisitions.

Nothing has really changed.  As long as the seller admits nothing publicly it's business as usual and the rules that Theymos has drafted clearly reflect that.

It seems like you joined the forum just to start shit about this......  What makes your words so valuable? Are you a lawyer? Law enforcement?

Nope I'm not law enforcement.   However, I do object to illegal sales and distribution of login credentials and access codes, no matter what website or forum they are used for.  Most website or database admin you would ask would tell you the same thing.  I'm sorry if you disagree with that opinion.  Don't kill the messenger because you can't agree with the message.

It bothers me to see someone like you trying to police this forum. You have said your piece more than a couple times here. If you don't like whats going on here, then just get off of the forum, please. Save your breath and save us all from having to read your legalese.

It bothers me to see you supporting obvious scammers. Why is it that you do that? Are you preparing for/operating a scam yourself? And if so why? Did your mother not teach you right from wrong? Is that what you wanted to be as a child, a scammer?

[shep]

I have not threatened anyone.  I have however bought to light the criminal and civil liability that exists from ignoring transactions of illegal sales, which so far appears to be what the staff here is advocating for.

You aren't a lawyer, so what may seems illegal to you may not to me. Like the threatening part, especially when you promote illegal websites.

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

Actually prosecutions of computer fraud, access fraud, and theft of service does routinely hold up in court.  Unauthorized distribution or sales of access codes do result in jail time.  I already posted proof the previous thread and you'll find that most first world nations and even third world nations contain laws covering this activity.  Invites are access codes which if shared in an unauthorized manner are considered illegal access.  It's no different then providing login credentials.  If you want to believe something else, you're free to do so, but laws in most nations state otherwise.

I already said once:

Prove me dishonesty. So far you have failed to do so.
Prove me that the website was hacked.

Now the additional factor. All these nzbs websites are illegal in nature. ToS of an illegal website is worthless.

The door is that way ===================>

I have nothing to prove.I have however pointed out the distribution and or sales of credentials and access codes which have not been explicitly authorized by a site owner or institution that they belong to is in fact illegal and can be prosecuted.   Sellers and facilitators can face criminal and civil liability.  Again, I'm sorry if you and some others can't accept that, but that is the way that most legal systems operate.  Theft of service is recognized by most first world and third world nations.

Regarding your other statement.  I think you do some research you will find that most NZB websites are legal in many nations depending on where they are hosted, they operate under safe harbor, and reference posts made to newsgroups.  The sites themselves can not host any infringing material and if they do receive a complaint and fail to act, they can be shutdown or face criminal and civil liability.

If you wish to engage in civil discussion, I'm fair game, but if your only intent is trying to silence me and make demands that I leave, you'll be ignored. I might ask how exactly are you improving discussion in this thread? You aren't addressing the topic of the forum policy, nor are you moving this discussion forward.

[John (John K.)]

how come this guy gets to sell accounts?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134044.0

- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or, nope, account created a week ago
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or, none that was mentioned
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories. nope

He proved the second point to theymos already.

Shep, although I'm not that knowledgeable about the rules concerning this issue, a cursory review on sites trading invites/accounts for usenet/torrenting sites tells me that most of them are either registered at USA and/or hosted at USA.  It's those usenet /torrent sites that are having problems with DMCA and the like for pirating issues, not those account/invite trading sites.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I like how shep is against selling torrent invites legitimately acquired but doesn't touch in the issue that torrent sites are practically used for piracy which is illegal.

Also, what about my signature space? Should I be banned for selling it? I haven't got permission from any of the site moderators to sell it!!!!!!

[vampire]

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

Really? They aren't illegal? Wow. I checked your comments history and pulled the ToS of the website in question.

https://www.gingadaddy.com/rules.php

We promote the use of scene releases since they will get you what you want (home made's can be something else than you expect, and there's often no NFO included to do proper research or comparison before downloading).

Thus, when you upload a Scene Release, use the proper Scene Release name. This includes the dots between the names and the release group at the end. If you don't know what the Scene Release title is, start out by looking in the post names, either in the file list of the nzb after being posted, or by searching usenet with a site like www.binsearch.info or www.newzleech.com. There are also lots of NFO resources such as www.vcdquality.com or www.nfoogle.com

for example, the correct formatting for a dvdr movie would be:
The.Matrix.Reloaded.NTSC.DVDR-Replica
and for music:
Led_Zeppelin-Latter_Days-2000-EGO
etc.

That sounds as highly illegal to me. A website owner lists copyrighted files for the download....

Also you should read this part:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials

Linking also raises legal issues in connection with the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to traffic in technology that enables others to circumvent technological measures put in place by copyright holders to control access to or uses of their copyright work.

I have nothing to prove.I have however pointed out the distribution and or sales of credentials and access codes which have not been explicitly authorized by a site owner or institution that they belong to is in fact illegal and can be prosecuted.   Sellers and facilitators can face criminal and civil liability.  Again, I'm sorry if you and some others can't accept that, but that is the way that most legal systems operate.  Theft of service is recognized by most first world and third world nations.

Regarding your other statement.  I think you do some research you will find that most NZB websites are in fact not illegal depending on where they are hosted, they operate under safe harbor, and reference posts made to newsgroups.  The sites themselves can not host any infringing material and if they do receive a complaint and fail to act, they can be shutdown or face criminal and civil liability.

If you wish to engage in civil discussion, I'm fair game, but if your only intent is trying to silence me and make demands that I leave, you'll be ignored. I might ask how exactly are you improving discussion in this thread? You aren't addressing the topic of the forum policy, nor are you moving this discussion forward.

The burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove according to law that you had referenced here then there is nothing to talk about civilly here.

[shep]

how come this guy gets to sell accounts?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134044.0

- Have some history here, with more history being required for trades of invites/accounts in bulk. Or, nope, account created a week ago
- Have substantial history on reputable invite trading forums such as torrentinvites.org which prohibit selling hacked accounts. Or, none that was mentioned
- Be vouched for by someone from one of the above two categories. nope

He proved the second point to theymos already.

Shep, although I'm not that knowledgeable about the rules concerning this issue, a cursory review on sites trading invites/accounts for usenet/torrenting sites tells me that most of them are either registered at USA and/or hosted at USA.  It's those usenet /torrent sites that are having problems with DMCA and the like for pirating issues, not those account/invite trading sites.

Sales of access codes or credentials are illegal. Whether or not anyone has chosen to pursue credentials on those sites is a completely different debate, but the act of sales and distribution in a secondary market is in itself illegal without authorization by a site owner or institution that granted them based on provisional access.

[greyhawk]

supernatural confirming he is selling unauthorized access breaking TOS

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134747.msg1436889#msg1436889

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

@shep:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134946.0

[shep]

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

Really? They aren't illegal? Wow. I checked your comments history and pulled the ToS of the website in question.

https://www.gingadaddy.com/rules.php

We promote the use of scene releases since they will get you what you want (home made's can be something else than you expect, and there's often no NFO included to do proper research or comparison before downloading).

Thus, when you upload a Scene Release, use the proper Scene Release name. This includes the dots between the names and the release group at the end. If you don't know what the Scene Release title is, start out by looking in the post names, either in the file list of the nzb after being posted, or by searching usenet with a site like www.binsearch.info or www.newzleech.com. There are also lots of NFO resources such as www.vcdquality.com or www.nfoogle.com

for example, the correct formatting for a dvdr movie would be:
The.Matrix.Reloaded.NTSC.DVDR-Replica
and for music:
Led_Zeppelin-Latter_Days-2000-EGO
etc.

That sounds as highly illegal to me. A website owner lists copyrighted files for the download....

Also you should read this part:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials

Linking also raises legal issues in connection with the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to traffic in technology that enables others to circumvent technological measures put in place by copyright holders to control access to or uses of their copyright work.

I have nothing to prove.I have however pointed out the distribution and or sales of credentials and access codes which have not been explicitly authorized by a site owner or institution that they belong to is in fact illegal and can be prosecuted.   Sellers and facilitators can face criminal and civil liability.  Again, I'm sorry if you and some others can't accept that, but that is the way that most legal systems operate.  Theft of service is recognized by most first world and third world nations.

Regarding your other statement.  I think you do some research you will find that most NZB websites are in fact not illegal depending on where they are hosted, they operate under safe harbor, and reference posts made to newsgroups.  The sites themselves can not host any infringing material and if they do receive a complaint and fail to act, they can be shutdown or face criminal and civil liability.

If you wish to engage in civil discussion, I'm fair game, but if your only intent is trying to silence me and make demands that I leave, you'll be ignored. I might ask how exactly are you improving discussion in this thread? You aren't addressing the topic of the forum policy, nor are you moving this discussion forward.

The burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove according to law that you had referenced here then there is nothing to talk about civilly here.

I don't represent gingadaddy, nor am I affiliated with them.  If you believe there is a legal issue with that site I suggest you send them a DMCA takedown notification.  Also I think that you're ignoring your own arguments.  If those sites are illegal, then why is this forum allowing transactions of access codes and credentials for those sites?  If anything you're supporting my argument that sales of access codes and credentials for those sites should not be allowed on this forum.

[vampire]

I don't represent gingadaddy, nor am I affiliated with them.  If you believe there is a legal issue with that site I suggest you send them a DMCA takedown notification.  Also I think that you're ignoring your own arguments.  If those sites are illegal, then why is this forum allowing transactions of access codes and credentials for those sites?  If anything you're supporting my argument that sales of access codes and credentials for those sites should not be allowed on this forum.

If these websites are illegal then their contracts are illegal.

or

Even if these sites are legal, you still need to prove dishonesty.

In both cases bitcointalk.org shouldn't care. You're welcome to send a legal takedown notice to bitcointalk. Follow your own advice.

[drakahn]

if a dmca notice is enough for those sites, they should submit a dmca takedown notice to bitcointalk about the invites

[shep]

I don't represent gingadaddy, nor am I affiliated with them.  If you believe there is a legal issue with that site I suggest you send them a DMCA takedown notification.  Also I think that you're ignoring your own arguments.  If those sites are illegal, then why is this forum allowing transactions of access codes and credentials for those sites?  If anything you're supporting my argument that sales of access codes and credentials for those sites should not be allowed on this forum.

If these websites are illegal then their contracts are illegal.

You'll still find that access fraud, computer fraud, misuse of access, illegal access, and theft of service apply regardless.  Access occurred without authorization, services were used.

or

Even if these sites are legal, you still need to prove dishonesty.

In both cases bitcointalk.org shouldn't care. You're welcome to send a legal takedown notice to bitcointalk. Follow your own advice.

If the sites are legal dishonesty does not need to be proven.  Access fraud, computer fraud, misuse of access, illegal access, and theft of service can apply regardless if the access codes were obtained through malicious intent or through passive means.  Don't believe it, look up cable theft prosecutions

[shep]

if a dmca notice is enough for those sites, they should submit a dmca takedown notice to bitcointalk about the invites

I think you missed the point about not having the currency and site associated with illegal activity.  It is illegal to distribute access codes or login credentials for accounts without express permission of the site owner or institution that granted them on provisional access. It doesn't matter if it's a credit card, bank account, stock trading account, amazon, newegg, ebay, torrent, nzb, defense contractor, or any other type of credential that is used for verification and authorization to provide services.  You can run around the issue in circles, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

[drakahn]

if a dmca notice is enough for those sites, they should submit a dmca takedown notice to bitcointalk about the invites

I think you missed the point about having the currency and site associated with illegal activity.  It is illegal to distribute access codes or login credentials for accounts without express permission of the site owner or institution that granted them on provisional access.  You can run around the issue in circles, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

And you missed the point that if those sites can ignore the law until they get a notice, so can this site

[shep]

if a dmca notice is enough for those sites, they should submit a dmca takedown notice to bitcointalk about the invites

I think you missed the point about having the currency and site associated with illegal activity.  It is illegal to distribute access codes or login credentials for accounts without express permission of the site owner or institution that granted them on provisional access.  You can run around the issue in circles, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

And you missed the point that if those sites can ignore the law until they get a notice, so can this site

Not really.  The forum is monitored and the admin and staff are aware of the issue, hence the previous thread on the sale of hacked/compromised and unauthorized sales of invites and account credentials.  The admin and staff created this thread trying to set rules for secondary sales of credentials which they had already been informed are illegal. Safe harbor only applies when not monitoring and you'll still find that forums can face criminal and civil liability for not removing material on their own accord when they are aware of it existing (already informed).

[vampire]

If the sites are legal dishonesty does not need to be proven.  Access fraud, computer fraud, misuse of access, illegal access, and theft of service can apply regardless if the access codes were obtained through malicious intent or through passive means.  Don't believe it, look up cable theft prosecutions

Read the law (not even a law, it's a treaty)

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=185&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Article 3 – Illegal interception

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the interception without right, made by technical means, of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system, including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data. A Party may require that the offence be committed with dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

I think we're done here until your prove the dishonesty.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I think for the good of bitcointalk this thread needs to be locked.

[shep]

If the sites are legal dishonesty does not need to be proven.  Access fraud, computer fraud, misuse of access, illegal access, and theft of service can apply regardless if the access codes were obtained through malicious intent or through passive means.  Don't believe it, look up cable theft prosecutions

Read the law (not even a law, it's a treaty)

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=185&CM=8&DF=&CL=ENG

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Article 3 – Illegal interception

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the interception without right, made by technical means, of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system, including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data. A Party may require that the offence be committed with dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

I think we're done here until your prove the dishonesty.

I read the treaty (which requires nations that ratified and ascended follow these terms) , clearly you didn't. Article VI requires only one qualification be satisfied under Article II - V.   By accessing a system you are connecting one computer system to another (networked activity) which is a defacto qualification.  In addition, users are consuming services (resources and transferring data), which is intent to obtain computer data.
You're running around in circles trying to find a "gotcha" stipulation that can allow illegal transactions to take place on this forum.  You're not serving the site or yourself by continuing to defend illegal and immoral sales.

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Article 6 – Misuse of devices

1    Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

a     the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:

i    a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5;

ii    a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed,

with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5; and

b     the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs a.i or ii above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.

2    This article shall not be interpreted as imposing criminal liability where the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available or possession referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is not for the purpose of committing an offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5 of this Convention, such as for the authorised testing or protection of a computer system.

3    Each Party may reserve the right not to apply paragraph 1 of this article, provided that the reservation does not concern the sale, distribution or otherwise making available of the items referred to in paragraph 1 a.ii of this article.

[vampire]

I read the treaty (which requires nations that ratified and ascended follow these terms) , clearly you didn't. Article VI requires that only qualification.   By accessing a system you are connecting one computer system to another (networked activity) which is a defacto qualification.  In addition, users are consuming services (resources and transferring data), which is intent to obtain computer data.
You're running around in circles trying to find a "gotcha" stipulation that can allow illegal transactions to take place on this forum.  You're not serving the site or yourself by continuing to defend illegal and immoral sales.

So when it's say "or other dishonest intent", it does imply that the first part is dishonest also? I haven't seen the dishonesty, I didn't even see the infringing of security.

As far as I understood you're supporting the pirating of the copyrighted materials.

[shep]

I think for the good of bitcointalk this thread needs to be locked.

Honestly, locking the thread would be worse, because it solidifies intent of the admin to support illegal activity.

[vampire]

I'll give you an example.. World of warcraft accounts trading was going for ages.. Its exactly what's going here.

It isn't illegal. So IMO selling invites or legal accounts isn't also.

[shep]

I read the treaty (which requires nations that ratified and ascended follow these terms) , clearly you didn't. Article VI requires that only qualification.   By accessing a system you are connecting one computer system to another (networked activity) which is a defacto qualification.  In addition, users are consuming services (resources and transferring data), which is intent to obtain computer data.
You're running around in circles trying to find a "gotcha" stipulation that can allow illegal transactions to take place on this forum.  You're not serving the site or yourself by continuing to defend illegal and immoral sales.

So when it's say "or other dishonest intent", it does imply that the first part is dishonest also? I haven't seen the dishonesty, I even didn't seen the infringing of security.

As far as I understood you're supporting the pirating of the copyrighted materials.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response.  At this point you're just trolling this thread and are adding nothing of value to the discussion of the original topic of the thread.

[shep]

I'll give you an example.. World of warcraft accounts trading was going for ages.. Its exactly what's going here.

It isn't illegal. So IMO selling invites or legal accounts isn't also.

Sales, distribution, or otherwise making available of access codes or credentials for accounts is illegal if the site owner or institution has not authorized such transfers. Doing so constitutes illegal access and theft of service.  It's illegal period, you can shout otherwise until you're blue in the face, but as previously conveyed most first world and third world nations have statutes covering access fraud, computer fraud, and theft of service.  

[vampire]

I'm not going to dignify this with a response.  At this point you're just trolling this thread and are adding nothing of value to the discussion of the original topic of the thread.

You're making wild accusations right now without any proof. Also you said that NZB indexers / Torrent trackers aren't illegal. Here is a quote for you if you forgot:

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

I assume you know what happened to most of them?

[vampire]

Sales, distribution, or otherwise making available of access codes or credentials for accounts is illegal if the site owner or institution has not authorized such transfers. Doing so constitutes illegal access and theft of service.  It's illegal period, you can shout otherwise until you're blue in the face, but as previously conveyed most first world and third world nations have statutes covering access fraud, computer fraud, and theft of service.  Hell even sweden prosecuted theft of service complaint for prostitutes (i'm not joking).

You can keep repeating this over and over again. It doesn't make that right.

Since the accounts were created with a username and a password, they are the property of the creator. The creator can sell or trade them.

[21after2]

Sales, distribution, or otherwise making available of access codes or credentials for accounts is illegal if the site owner or institution has not authorized such transfers. Doing so constitutes illegal access and theft of service.  It's illegal period, you can shout otherwise until you're blue in the face, but as previously conveyed most first world and third world nations have statutes covering access fraud, computer fraud, and theft of service.  Hell even sweden prosecuted theft of service complaint for prostitutes (i'm not joking).

You can keep repeating this over and over again. It doesn't make that right.

Since the accounts were created with a username and a password, they are the property of the creator. The creator can sell or trade them.

A lot of websites put special clauses in their Terms of Service for those very reasons. You can sell or trade them, and they can sue you for it.

[shep]

I'm not going to dignify this with a response.  At this point you're just trolling this thread and are adding nothing of value to the discussion of the original topic of the thread.

You're making wild accusations right now without any proof. Also you said that NZB indexers / Torrent trackers aren't illegal. Here is a quote for you if you forgot:

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

I assume you know what happened to most of them?

The proof of your trolling is that the thread topic pertains to a forum policy advocated by admin and staff that pertains to unauthorized and/or secondary sales of access codes ("invites") and account credentials.  You continue to target your focus away from that topic.   You can focus specifically on Torrent Trackers or NZB indexers, it makes no difference when any website with a login mechanism is included in this discussion.  It does not matter if it is amazon.com, newegg.com, ebay.com, stocktrade.com, fbi.gov (hopefully you wouldn't be stupid enough to buy or sell credentials for this), or any other website.  The argument is the same.

Additionally if you choose to focus on NZB indexers and torrents sites and if you want to claim that they are illegal, that only supports an argument that their sales should not be allowed on this forum as it could harm the reputation of the currency and the forum.

[vampire]

A lot of websites put special clauses in their Terms of Service for those very reasons. You can sell or trade them, and they can sue you for it.

We aren't arguing if they can sue or not. The question: is this illegal.

[shep]

Sales, distribution, or otherwise making available of access codes or credentials for accounts is illegal if the site owner or institution has not authorized such transfers. Doing so constitutes illegal access and theft of service.  It's illegal period, you can shout otherwise until you're blue in the face, but as previously conveyed most first world and third world nations have statutes covering access fraud, computer fraud, and theft of service.  Hell even sweden prosecuted theft of service complaint for prostitutes (i'm not joking).

You can keep repeating this over and over again. It doesn't make that right.

Since the accounts were created with a username and a password, they are the property of the creator. The creator can sell or trade them.

You're welcome to believe this, but I can guarantee you that can be prosecuted for selling access codes or your credentials.  If you're a cia analyst you can't just go ahead an sell your credentials, they're authorized on a provisional basis.  Same goes for any other site using a database.  It doesn't matter if you're an investment banker, an insurance agent, your local parts store clerk, or simply a low end user.

[21after2]

A lot of websites put special clauses in their Terms of Service for those very reasons. You can sell or trade them, and they can sue you for it.

We aren't arguing if they can sue or not. The question: is this illegal.

Well, you would be going against a legally binding contract. I think that's enough to try and dissuade people from doing it.

[vampire]

I'm not going to dignify this with a response.  At this point you're just trolling this thread and are adding nothing of value to the discussion of the original topic of the thread.

You're making wild accusations right now without any proof. Also you said that NZB indexers / Torrent trackers aren't illegal. Here is a quote for you if you forgot:

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

I assume you know what happened to most of them?

The proof of your trolling is that the thread topic pertains to a forum policy advocated by admin and staff that pertains to unauthorized and/or secondary sales of access codes ("invites") and account credentials.  You continue to target your focus away from that topic.   You can focus specifically on Torrent Trackers or NZB indexers, it makes no difference when any website with a login mechanism is included in this discussion.  It does not matter if it is amazon.com, newegg.com, ebay.com, stocktrade.com, fbi.gov (hopefully you wouldn't be stupid enough to buy or sell credentials for this), or any other website.  The argument is the same.

Additionally if you choose to focus on NZB indexers and torrents sites and if you want to claim that they are illegal, that only supports an argument that their sales should not be allowed on this forum as it could harm the reputation of the currency and the forum.

We arguing if selling is illegal or not. Don't care about ToS (it's a contract law issue).

a) Person A has a legal access to the system.
b) Person A sells the access to the system to the person B
c) Person B access the system

Which of the steps is illegal, shep? If we take all the posts you made, that would be step C right?

[shep]

Sales, distribution, or otherwise making available of access codes or credentials for accounts is illegal if the site owner or institution has not authorized such transfers. Doing so constitutes illegal access and theft of service.  It's illegal period, you can shout otherwise until you're blue in the face, but as previously conveyed most first world and third world nations have statutes covering access fraud, computer fraud, and theft of service.  Hell even sweden prosecuted theft of service complaint for prostitutes (i'm not joking).

You can keep repeating this over and over again. It doesn't make that right.

Since the accounts were created with a username and a password, they are the property of the creator. The creator can sell or trade them.

A lot of websites put special clauses in their Terms of Service for those very reasons. You can sell or trade them, and they can sue you for it.

vampire is either clueless, trolling,  or financially vested in this topic.  Either way, he's not responding in any rational manner and is frequently going off-topic.  I'm ignoring his posts from now on at least until he tries to control himself.

[vampire]

A lot of websites put special clauses in their Terms of Service for those very reasons. You can sell or trade them, and they can sue you for it.

We aren't arguing if they can sue or not. The question: is this illegal.

Well, you would be going against a legally binding contract. I think that's enough to try and dissuade people from doing it.

Because it's the contract law, not the criminal law. Vastly two different thing.

In the first you can be sued for damages, in the second you go to jail.

[21after2]

A lot of websites put special clauses in their Terms of Service for those very reasons. You can sell or trade them, and they can sue you for it.

We aren't arguing if they can sue or not. The question: is this illegal.

Well, you would be going against a legally binding contract. I think that's enough to try and dissuade people from doing it.

Because it's the contract law, not the criminal law. Vastly two different thing.

In the first you can be sued for damages, in the second you go to jail.

That's true, but it's still breaking a form of law, which incurs a penalty. And I would say that makes it the kind of thing we shouldn't allow on the forum in the interest of not only helping promote a positive image for BitCoin as a currency, but also to just generally help people avoid legal issues.

[vampire]

That's true, but it's still breaking a form of law, which incurs a penalty. And I would say that makes it the kind of thing we shouldn't allow on the forum in the interest of not only helping promote a positive image for BitCoin as a currency, but also to just generally help people avoid legal issues.

Not breaking a law, it's breaking an agreement.

[vampire]

vampire is either clueless, trolling,  or financially vested in this topic.  Either way, he's not responding in any rational manner and is frequently going off-topic.  I'm ignoring his posts from now on at least until he tries to control himself.

Since now he accused me of being financially vested in this topic? I'd like know how a topic on bitcointalk can financially benefit me.

I am selling this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134779.0 50BTC

[MysteryMiner]

Stop being such moralfags! The seller must add that he is selling accounts he purchased or his own credit card numbers. It is perfectly legal to sell something you have purchased, right? The admin have no way to check is it true or not. If party wan arrives just restore backups or change hosting and proceed. The Pirate Bay would not made such a big deal if they were so concerned about legal/possibly illelgal/ legal but immoral issues. The history is made by people who fight not who obey!

[shep]

The proof of your trolling is that the thread topic pertains to a forum policy advocated by admin and staff that pertains to unauthorized and/or secondary sales of access codes ("invites") and account credentials.  You continue to target your focus away from that topic.   You can focus specifically on Torrent Trackers or NZB indexers, it makes no difference when any website with a login mechanism is included in this discussion.  It does not matter if it is amazon.com, newegg.com, ebay.com, stocktrade.com, fbi.gov (hopefully you wouldn't be stupid enough to buy or sell credentials for this), or any other website.  The argument is the same.

Additionally if you choose to focus on NZB indexers and torrents sites and if you want to claim that they are illegal, that only supports an argument that their sales should not be allowed on this forum as it could harm the reputation of the currency and the forum.

We arguing if selling is illegal or not. Don't care about ToS (it's a contract law issue).

a) Person A has a legal access to the system.
b) Person A sells the access to the system to the person B
c) Person B access the system

Which of the steps is illegal, shep? If we take all the posts you made, that would be step C right?

a) Person A --> granted provisional access to the system -> legal
b) Person A sells the access to the system to person B -> illegal, misuse of access by sale of credentials or access codes.  Can fall under access fraud. Also illegal if "making available of" (distributing) credentials without authorization of site owner per ToS (again provisional access requires that rules be followed hence why you don't see CIA analysts, investment bankers, or employees selling their access credentials.  If you do you face criminal and civil liability)
c) Person B accesses the system -> illegal, computer fraud, access fraud, and theft of service.

[21after2]

That's true, but it's still breaking a form of law, which incurs a penalty. And I would say that makes it the kind of thing we shouldn't allow on the forum in the interest of not only helping promote a positive image for BitCoin as a currency, but also to just generally help people avoid legal issues.

Not breaking a law, it's breaking an agreement.

Whether a law or legal agreement, my point still stands.

[vampire]

a) Person A --> granted provisional access to the system -> legal
b) Person A sells the access to the system to person B -> illegal, misuse of access by sale of credentials or access codes.  Can fall under access fraud. Also illegal if "making available of" (distributing) credentials without authorization of site owner per ToS (again provisional access requires that rules be followed)
c) Person B accesses the system -> illegal, computer fraud, access fraud, and theft of service.

I see it differently, since you're mixing in ToS. And that's contract law.

[shep]

a) Person A --> granted provisional access to the system -> legal
b) Person A sells the access to the system to person B -> illegal, misuse of access by sale of credentials or access codes.  Can fall under access fraud. Also illegal if "making available of" (distributing) credentials without authorization of site owner per ToS (again provisional access requires that rules be followed)
c) Person B accesses the system -> illegal, computer fraud, access fraud, and theft of service.

I see it differently, since you're mixing in ToS. And that's contract law.

Again provisional access requires that rules be followed hence why you don't see CIA analysts, investment bankers, or employees selling their access credentials.  If you do you face criminal and civil liability.  The law of most nations respects this and is codified as statutes under judicial law.  You can ignore it, that's fine by me, it doesn't mean you won't face criminal and civil penalties.

[vampire]

That's true, but it's still breaking a form of law, which incurs a penalty. And I would say that makes it the kind of thing we shouldn't allow on the forum in the interest of not only helping promote a positive image for BitCoin as a currency, but also to just generally help people avoid legal issues.

Not breaking a law, it's breaking an agreement.

Whether a law or legal agreement, my point still stands.

Then no one would ever talk here, that isn't a very good point. There are a lot of companies here, so you're proposing to ban them all?

[21after2]

That's true, but it's still breaking a form of law, which incurs a penalty. And I would say that makes it the kind of thing we shouldn't allow on the forum in the interest of not only helping promote a positive image for BitCoin as a currency, but also to just generally help people avoid legal issues.

Not breaking a law, it's breaking an agreement.

Whether a law or legal agreement, my point still stands.

Then no one would ever talk here, that isn't a very good point. There are a lot of companies here, so you're proposing to ban them all?

Why would we ban those companies? I thought this whole discussion rooted from the idea of stopping the sales of account information?

[shep]

That's true, but it's still breaking a form of law, which incurs a penalty. And I would say that makes it the kind of thing we shouldn't allow on the forum in the interest of not only helping promote a positive image for BitCoin as a currency, but also to just generally help people avoid legal issues.

Not breaking a law, it's breaking an agreement.

Whether a law or legal agreement, my point still stands.

Then no one would ever talk here, that isn't a very good point. There are a lot of companies here, so you're proposing to ban them all?

Why would we ban those companies? I thought this whole discussion rooted from the idea of stopping the sales of account information?

That is the topic of this thread.  vampire is trolling and going wildly off-topic.

[vampire]

Again provisional access requires that rules be followed hence why you don't see CIA analysts, investment bankers, or employees selling their access credentials.  If you do you face criminal and civil liability.  The law of most nations respects this and is codified as statutes under judicial law.  You can ignore it, that's fine by me, it doesn't meant you won't face criminal and civil penalties.

Let me give you a different example:

Is it illegal to share a Netflix account?

[vampire]

That is the topic of this thread.  vampire is trolling and going wildly off-topic.

You're trolling and making baseless accusations against this forum and against me personally.

Also you need to learn to quote properly.

[vampire]

And here is the answer, Shep is wrong for about 98%. Only one state forbids sale of username/passwords it's TN:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=233ad531-5543-4fdd-b50d-b6abc7d58f0b

[shep]

Again provisional access requires that rules be followed hence why you don't see CIA analysts, investment bankers, or employees selling their access credentials.  If you do you face criminal and civil liability.  The law of most nations respects this and is codified as statutes under judicial law.  You can ignore it, that's fine by me, it doesn't meant you won't face criminal and civil penalties.

Let me give you a different example:

Is it illegal to share a Netflix account?

It is illegal to share account credentials if Netflix's ToS do not permit it and it would be considered theft of service. They may allow for you to use access credentials across multiple devices and IP as long as your subscription account is used by the primary registered user that is the subscriber (account holder).

I do believe though if Netflix observes an account logging in from multiple in different regions that they will limit your logins,  restrict simultaneous connections from different regions, and suspend your account for abuse of service if those controls fail to remedy the site abuse.  No business wants to lose a legitimate paying customer to churn, if that customer is a good customer (again this is for a different discussion in another topic), but some customer that abuse services will see their account services terminated and may be prosecuted if the abuse is considered so extreme that it would harm the business.   A perfect example would be a company re-selling netflix services via proxy (assume a netflix account wasn't limited).

[drakahn]

has a websites ToS ever been used to sue a user?

if yes, did anyone ever use said site again?

--

edit: Also has a websites ToS ever been used to criminally convict a user that broke it?

[shep]

And here is the answer, Shep is wrong for about 98%. Only one state forbids sale of username/passwords it's TN:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=233ad531-5543-4fdd-b50d-b6abc7d58f0b

If you believe that you're highly mistaken. Anyone that believes you better get ready for some jail time..

It sure took all of 5 seconds to find and list a search hit covering this topic. I suppose I could search for more cases in EU nations.


United States Attorney, District of Massachusetts

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2012/June/MillerAndrewJames.html

Pennsylvania Man Charged with Computer Hacking and Password Trafficking
June 14, 2012

BOSTON - Charges were unsealed this morning against a Pennsylvania man, alleging that he hacked into computer networks in Massachusetts and around the country and then sold unauthorized access to those networks.

Andrew James Miller, 23, of Devon, Pa., was arrested this morning and charged in a four-count indictment with committing conspiracy, computer fraud and access device fraud.

According to the Indictment, between 2008-2011, Miller and others remotely hacked into computer networks belonging to Massachusetts company RNK Telecommunications, Inc., Colorado advertising agency Crispin Porter and Bogusky, Inc., the University of Massachusetts, the United States Department of Energy, and other institutions and companies. By hacking into these computer networks, Miller obtained other users’ access credentials to the compromised computers. It is alleged that he and his co-conspirators then offered to sell, and sold, access to these computer networks as well as other access credentials.

If convicted, Miller faces up to five years in prison for the conspiracy count and one of the computer fraud counts, and up to 10 years in prison on one of the computer fraud counts and the access device fraud count, to be followed by three years of supervised release, a $250,000 fine and restitution.

United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation - Boston Field in Boston made the announcement today. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Adam J. Bookbinder, of Ortiz’s Cybercrime Unit, and by Mona Sedky, a trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section.

The details contained in the Indictment are allegations. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[vampire]

And here is the answer, Shep is wrong for about 98%. Only one state forbids sale of username/passwords it's TN:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=233ad531-5543-4fdd-b50d-b6abc7d58f0b

If you believe that you're highly mistaken. Anyone that believes you better get ready for some jail time..

Of course making a silly statement again. We're talking about selling OWNED account, not STOLEN ones. Don't go offtopic.

No prove to us that sharing a netflix account is illegal in every state in USA.

[shep]

has a websites ToS ever been used to sue a user?

if yes, did anyone ever use said site again?

--

edit: Also has a websites ToS ever been used to criminally convict a user that broke it?

You're welcome to research those questions.  I'm not going on a 5 hour fishing expedition to satisfy your curiosity (although I'd be interested to read what you did find, assuming this post was made with genuine interest).

With that said, I'd love to stick around and post for another 4 hours, responding to other posters was fun, well mostly those users who weren't attempting to troll (not directing this at you, but in general).

[shep]

And here is the answer, Shep is wrong for about 98%. Only one state forbids sale of username/passwords it's TN:

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=233ad531-5543-4fdd-b50d-b6abc7d58f0b

If you believe that you're highly mistaken. Anyone that believes you better get ready for some jail time..

Of course making a silly statement again. We're talking about selling OWNED account, not STOLEN ones. Don't go offtopic.

No prove to us that sharing a netflix account is illegal in every state in USA.

The account is not "owned" it is provisioned.  And yes selling your account credentials qualifies as theft of service unless Netflix allows it. Sharing your account credentials for a paid subscription service (meaning you have paid your bill) without any monetary compensation may not be illegal in the US depending on your state law, but in spirit of existing law it does qualify in some form as passive theft of service. End of discussion, the end. I'm out

[vampire]

The account is not "owned" it is provisioned.  And yes sharing your account qualifies as theft of service unless Netflix allows it. End of discussion, the end. I'm out

I have provided the proof that shep's claims are baseless. Only one states in USA forbids sale of accounts, it's TN.

We can lock the thread now.

[shep]

The account is not "owned" it is provisioned.  And yes sharing your account qualifies as theft of service unless Netflix allows it. End of discussion, the end. I'm out

I have provided the proof that shep's claims are baseless. Only one states in USA forbids sale of accounts, it's TN.

We can lock the thread now.

Clearly you are not a very bright troll so let me clarify this again for you.  Your Netflix account is a provisioned subscription account, you do not own your account, nor do you own a right to resell services.  The netflix law concerned free account sharing of paid accounts (like with a relative or friend), which is technically theft of service with illegal access because an account holder is sharing services only intended to be provided to the account holder.  This however has been proven many times to constitute access fraud. You can't freely share your investment bank account credentials with a guy off the street. You can't freely share your DoD access with a civilian.  You can't freely share your credentials to a medical database with unauthorized users (again criminal penalties apply). The list goes on.

The main reason Netflix and most other subscription based businesses won't prosecute minor violations of abuse is because it could create high customer turnover if customers feared they were going to be prosecuted (it doesn not mean the act itself of sharing service is not illegal).  However, if you were reselling Netflix services under a proxy (financial gain), you would face criminal and civil prosecution for theft of service. Netflix pushed for specific clarification into law, but this doesn't mean they could not have users prosecuted under existing law.

Sales of account credentials or access codes are illegal and will earn you jail time.  It is irrelevant if it is Netflix, amazon, itunes, or any other service provider, the sale of access codes or credentials itself is access fraud (misuse of access), and anyone who uses those credentials or access codes is also engaging in access fraud (illegal access) with theft of service.

[vampire]

Clearly you are not a very bright troll so let me clarify this again for you.  Your Netflix account is a provisioned subscription account, you do not own your account, nor do you own a right to resell services.  The netflix law concerned free account sharing of paid accounts (like with a relative or friend), which is technically theft of service with illegal access because an account holder is sharing services only intended to be provided to the account holder.  This however has been proven many times to constitute access fraud. You can't freely share your investment bank account credentials with a guy off the street. You can't freely share your DoD access with a civilian.  You can't freely share your credentials to a medical database with unauthorized users (again criminal penalties apply). The list goes on.

The main reason Netflix and most other subscription based businesses won't prosecute minor violations of abuse is because it could create high customer turnover if customers feared they were going to be prosecuted (it doesn not mean the act itself of sharing service is not illegal).  However, if you were reselling Netflix services under a proxy (financial gain), you would face criminal and civil prosecution for theft of service. Netflix pushed for specific clarification into law, but this doesn't mean they could not have users prosecuted under existing law.

Sales of account credentials or access codes are illegal and will earn you jail time.  It is irrelevant if it is Netflix, amazon, itunes, or any other service provider, the sale of access codes or credentials itself is access fraud (misuse of access), and anyone who uses those credentials or access codes is also engaging in access fraud (illegal access) with theft of service.

LOL ad hominem now. Clearly you are loosing the arguments

Let's repeat:

a) The treaty isn't law, it doesn't even matter what the treaty says. The people only need to care about local laws.
b) The current laws in USA do not forbid of sale of legal accounts. The are two laws in USA that we should be concern with: Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act.
c) Only one state in USA passed in law that prevents account sharing - TN.
d) It is legal to share your account except in one state - TN. Netflix of course can ban you.

You are welcome to use facts, as I did.

[malevolent]

I think Shep is an owner/admin/mod on one of the websites whose invintes/accounts are sold here. Hence his perseverance and why most of his posts are related to this ''issue''. Looking at his date of registration I think he only came here to take those offers down.

[paraipan]

I think Shep is an owner/admin/mod on one of the websites whose invintes/accounts are sold here. Hence his perseverance and why most of his posts are related to this ''issue''. Looking at his date of registration I think he only came here to take those offers down.

+1 If I were him I would leave it be for now, no need to push the envelope, btw, "sheepleader" is not selling accounts anymore, so...

[shep]

I think Shep is an owner/admin/mod on one of the websites whose invintes/accounts are sold here. Hence his perseverance and why most of his posts are related to this ''issue''. Looking at his date of registration I think he only came here to take those offers down.

+1 If I were him I would leave it be for now, no need to push the envelope, btw, "sheepleader" is not selling accounts anymore, so...

http://www.troll.me/images/victory-baby/mission-accomplished.jpg

It was and is not my intent to troll this site. I am trying to improve this site, even though admin are ignoring an issue that has real consequences for various parties. As stated previously, I am unaffiliated with any sites brought up in this or prior threads, none of the admin of the sites mentioned knew or had prior contact with me prior to bringing this topic to light here on bitcointalk.org.  I could have chosen a different thread or poster regarding unauthorized sales of access codes or credentials (whether they be hacked/compromised, or unauthorized sales).  I specifically chose to create a thread regarding this topic and also respond to the sales and other actions (hacking, brute forcing, reselling services via proxy) of Gabriel Seletchi ("torac") because his actions were the most egregious violations of laws of various nations.   Sales of access codes and credentials are illegal.  Associating these illegal transactions with Bitcoin reduce the reputation of the currency and place the site and its staff in a position where they can face criminal and civil liability. This is a serious issue. Trolls, users, and staff can ignore the issue, but sooner or later there can and may very well be legal action taken by some party who finds their access codes or credentials sold on this website. This is not a threat, it is a observation regarding the liability that the site faces by not banning unauthorized sales of credentials by resellers that hold no ownership of provisioned credentials that are in fact owned by site owners or institutions.

[vampire]

Is was and is not my intent to troll this site. I am trying to improve this site, even though admin are ignoring an issue that has real consequences for various parties. As stated previously, I am unaffiliated with any sites brought up in this or prior threads, none of the admin of the sites mentioned knew or had prior contact with me prior to bringing this topic to light here on bitcointalk.org.  I could have chosen a different thread or poster regarding the unauthorized sale of access codes or credentials.  I specifically chose to create a thread and respond to the sales and other actions (hacking, brute forcing, reselling services via proxy) of Gabriel Seletchi ("torac") because his actions were the most egregious violations of laws of various nations.   Sales of access codes and credentials are illegal.  Associating these illegal transactions with Bitcoin reduce the reputation of the currency and place the site and its staff in a position where they can face criminal and civil liability. This is a serious issue. Trolls and staff can ignore the issue, but sooner or later there can and may very well be legal action taken by some party who finds their access codes or credentials sold on this website. This is not a threat, it is a observation regarding the liability that the site faces by not banning unauthorized sales of credentials by resellers that hold no ownership of provisioned credentials that are in fact owned by site owners or institutions.

Until you prove it's illegal, you can just get lost. You jumped directly to these threads after signup. You're familiar with these sites and you defend them.

As far as I am concern you're a thief.

[shep]

Is was and is not my intent to troll this site. I am trying to improve this site, even though admin are ignoring an issue that has real consequences for various parties. As stated previously, I am unaffiliated with any sites brought up in this or prior threads, none of the admin of the sites mentioned knew or had prior contact with me prior to bringing this topic to light here on bitcointalk.org.  I could have chosen a different thread or poster regarding the unauthorized sale of access codes or credentials.  I specifically chose to create a thread and respond to the sales and other actions (hacking, brute forcing, reselling services via proxy) of Gabriel Seletchi ("torac") because his actions were the most egregious violations of laws of various nations.   Sales of access codes and credentials are illegal.  Associating these illegal transactions with Bitcoin reduce the reputation of the currency and place the site and its staff in a position where they can face criminal and civil liability. This is a serious issue. Trolls and staff can ignore the issue, but sooner or later there can and may very well be legal action taken by some party who finds their access codes or credentials sold on this website. This is not a threat, it is a observation regarding the liability that the site faces by not banning unauthorized sales of credentials by resellers that hold no ownership of provisioned credentials that are in fact owned by site owners or institutions.

Until you prove it's illegal, you can just get lost. You jumped directly to these threads after signup. You're familiar with these sites and you defend them.

As far as I am concern you're a thief.

I proved unauthorized sales of access codes and credentials are illegal, you have even supported my argument on multiple occasions even though you ignore your own supporting arguments.  I'm familiar with many types of sites notwithstanding auction sites, commerce, discussion forums, and other various sites. I commented on those sites because they were relevant to the existing thread topic and Gabriel Seletchi and also in responding to your frequent posts.  You can continue trolling, but consider yourself ignored. You have been openly hostile, you throw insults, and have engaged in childlike tantrums since your initial post in this thread.

You are either clueless, trolling, or vested (financially, or for personal gain) in the outcome of this topic as you continue to rationalize illegal sales transactions of access codes or credentials. You continue to run around in circles to try and find a "gotcha" stipulation that can allow illegal transactions to take place on this forum.  

You are not responding in any rational manner and frequently go off-topic. You are not serving the site or yourself by continuing to defend illegal sales. You are not going to bait me into a shouting match, or devolve this topic into such an endless foray. I'm ignoring your posts from now on.

[shep]

Mods there appears to be suspicious association between the user "MariusTi" and user "supernatural".  Unlike Gabriel Seletchi ("torac") who I have a wealth of information on, I can not guarantee that "MariusTi" and "supernatural" are the same user.  It is possible they could be two different users in the same region.  Please investigate old IP logs.  "supernatural" may be using Romanian ISP, RCS & RDS SA.

#  "MariusTi"
#  -> suspected dummy account - "supernatural"
#  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=44947
#
#  "supernatural"
#  -> suspected dummy account for "MariusTi"
#  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=76583
#
#  **INFO**
#  - location   >>  Bucharest, Romania
#                   + info suggests near this area
#                   + (may be inaccurate, I have another location)
#  - Handles    >>  "benzinladen" , "trabzon" , "Smart222" , "soacrata" ??
#  - Email      >>  nicaragua122@gmail.com
#                   thebig_Boss59@yahoo.com
#                   SOACRATASTORE@YAHOO.COM
#                   SOACRATASTORE@GMAIL.COM
#                   SOACRATASTORE@HOTMAIL.COM
#                   ICQ : 636648119
#                   SKYPE : SOACRATA.STORE
#
#
#  **INFO**
#  "Marius" is Romanian and has sold under the handles "benzinladen" , "trabzon" , "Smart222"
#  http://forum.computergames.ro/108-mmo-trades-personaje-items-resurse-conturi-prepaid-cards/904796-vand-invitatii-pe-cele-mai-cautate-trackere-din-lume.html
#  http://www.peforum.ro/invitatii-trackere/44707-am-invitatii-pe-foarte-multe-trackere.html
#  http://www.peforum.ro/invitatii-trackere/58180-vand-invitatii-pe-cele-mai-bune-trackere-din-lume.html
#  http://www.iphoneforum.ro/topic/14772-vand-invitatii-pe-brokenstones/
#
#
#  "supernatural" is also Romanian
#  http://www.invitescene.com/index.php?/topic/12883-hello/
#
#  "supernatural" admitted that he is selling access codes, which
#  is illegal in his home country of Romania.
#  -  [WTS] | Gingadaddy invite | ( usenet invite )
#  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134747.0
#
#
#  "supernatural" uses the same bump message as "MariusTi"
#  "up..............."
#
#  "supernatural" sells the same unique trackers as "MariusTi"
#  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131889.0
#  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134044.0
#
#  BANNED user Marius from "reputable" site torrentinvites.org
#  Relying on another site to validate and check users may not be so reliable.
#  http://torrentinvites.org/members/marius/?tab=aboutme#aboutme
#
#  "supernatural" aka "soacrata" bumps thread of user Marius (since banned). whoops
#  If this is not a dummy account, there appears to be an association.
#  http://www.invitescene.com/index.php?/topic/16243-cheap-invites-to-ftnbitmebitmetvbtnwhatcdwafflesscc-and-many-more/#entry102248
#
#  "supernatural" aka "soacrata"
#  actively posts on forum owned by Romanian hacker Gabriel Seletchi ("torac" aka "wootspace")
#  http://torrentinvitez.com/showthread.php?p=18217
#
#


#####################################
# SIMILAR SALES AS "supernatural"
#####################################

-  "selling E-learning trackers"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131965.0

-  "Cheapest tracker invites(Fuxor,scenehd,ptp, tt,waffles,bitme,bitmetv,tl,scc,gft)"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131889.0

-  "Sceneaccess.eu accounts for sell only 5 euro"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133123.0

-  "NZB.to - 15$ - GingaDaddy.com - 20$"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=133288.0


#####################################
# SIMILAR SALES AS "MariusTi"
#####################################

-  "Nzb.to-account | Nzbs.org-account | Gingadaddy-invite | For sell"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134004.0

-  "Cheap Tracker invites : Fuxor,scenehd,ptp,tt,waffles,bitme,bitmetv,tl,scc,gft."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134044.0

-  "Torrentleech 6 euro invite ! ! ! !"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134194.0

-  "want to sell : e-book and e-learning trackers"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134223.0

[John (John K.)]

Having multiple accounts is not an offense here. In fact, many users have well-known alternate accounts.

[shep]

Having multiple accounts is not an offense here. In fact, many users have well-known alternate accounts.

We've already established that unauthorized sales of access codes (invites) and credentials are illegal in most nations. Let's try and overlook that these sales are illegal.

I thought the point of this thread was not allowing for "banned" users from torrentinvites.org to sell here. Marius is banned on torrentinvites.org.  He is also banned on invitescene.com

If your vouching system relies on another forum to check its users for AE, and they fail to verify their users, then the policy here doesn't do much to stop hackers, scammers, or disreputable sellers does it?

[John (John K.)]

That's why MariusTi's threads are locked. Supernatural has proved to theymos that he's selling his own farmed accounts, and not hacked accounts. You'll have to prove to theymos otherwise in this issue.

May I ask which torrenting/usenet sites you're affiliated with? You have been actively pushing this agenda against the sale of invites since the early days of your account. Are you picketing at invite trading sites too?

[shep]

That's why MariusTi's threads are locked. Supernatural has proved to theymos that he's selling his own farmed accounts, and not hacked accounts. You'll have to prove to theymos otherwise in this issue.

May I ask which torrenting/usenet sites you're affiliated with? You have been actively pushing this agenda against the sale of invites since the early days of your account. Are you picketing at invite trading sites too?

I've already answered that question, I'll repost the answer.

It was and is not my intent to troll this site. I am trying to improve this site, even though admin are ignoring an issue that has real consequences for various parties. As stated previously, I am unaffiliated with any sites brought up in this or prior threads, none of the admin of the sites mentioned knew or had prior contact with me prior to bringing this topic to light here on bitcointalk.org.  I could have chosen a different thread or poster regarding unauthorized sales of access codes or credentials (whether they be hacked/compromised, or unauthorized sales).  I specifically chose to create a thread regarding this topic and also respond to the sales and other actions (hacking, brute forcing, reselling services via proxy) of Gabriel Seletchi ("torac") because his actions were the most egregious violations of laws of various nations.   Sales of access codes and credentials are illegal.  Associating these illegal transactions with Bitcoin reduce the reputation of the currency and place the site and its staff in a position where they can face criminal and civil liability. This is a serious issue. Trolls, users, and staff can ignore the issue, but sooner or later there can and may very well be legal action taken by some party who finds their access codes or credentials sold on this website. This is not a threat, it is a observation regarding the liability that the site faces by not banning unauthorized sales of credentials by resellers that hold no ownership of provisioned credentials that are in fact owned by site owners or institutions.

Also these posts were relevant to me bringing this issue of illegal sales of unauthorized access codes and credentials to light.

I actually engaged in a discussion about this topic with someone else, he might read this thread (if so hello ).   While it's true that a currency can gain momentum and ultimately in time not be impacted by minor incidents or small blips of abuse, there is a critical mass phase with build up, similar to escape velocity needed to break atmosphere.  In the early lifecycle of a new currency like bitcoin it is imperative that the reputation of the currency not be constrained or otherwise hampered by impropriety or it may never be well received.  This is the way of the world, and it honestly applies to other areas beyond financial methods of exchange.

I addressed this question in my last post.  The currency is associated with the people and transactions that primarily use it.  If a new currency is primarily or even remotely used for criminal activities it can harm the reception and spread of the currency as whole.  It's much the same as child nutrition, failing to feed a child healthy nutrients may result in stunted growth and development, which can not be fixed later in life.

[vampire]

I proved unauthorized sales of access codes and credentials are illegal, you have even supported my argument on multiple occasions even though you ignore your own supporting arguments.  I'm familiar with many types of sites notwithstanding auction sites, commerce, discussion forums, and other various sites. I commented on those sites because they were relevant to the existing thread topic and Gabriel Seletchi and also in responding to your frequent posts.  You can continue trolling, but consider yourself ignored. You have been openly hostile, you throw insults, and have engaged in childlike tantrums since your initial post in this thread.

No, I didn't support anything. What I said that if you're involved in these nzb/torrent trackers then you're a thief.

You are either clueless, trolling, or vested (financially, or for personal gain) in the outcome of this topic as you continue to rationalize illegal sales transactions of access codes or credentials. You continue to run around in circles to try and find a "gotcha" stipulation that can allow illegal transactions to take place on this forum.  

You are not responding in any rational manner and frequently go off-topic. You are not serving the site or yourself by continuing to defend illegal sales. You are not going to bait me into a shouting match, or devolve this topic into such an endless foray. I'm ignoring your posts from now on.

Prove that I am financially vested.

You accuse a lot of people, either you should prove your accusations or you should stop making these baseless accusations.

I vote to ban your ass from these forums for baseless accusations (i.e. a troll).

 

[shep]

I proved unauthorized sales of access codes and credentials are illegal, you have even supported my argument on multiple occasions even though you ignore your own supporting arguments.  I'm familiar with many types of sites notwithstanding auction sites, commerce, discussion forums, and other various sites. I commented on those sites because they were relevant to the existing thread topic and Gabriel Seletchi and also in responding to your frequent posts.  You can continue trolling, but consider yourself ignored. You have been openly hostile, you throw insults, and have engaged in childlike tantrums since your initial post in this thread.

No, I didn't support anything. What I said that if you're involved in these nzb/torrent trackers then you're a thief.

So you're claiming that I'm a thief without any proof. I'm confused, isn't that why you're claiming I should be banned?
You seem to throw out a lot of insults, vulgarities, and show open hostility.  You don't appear capable of engaging in civil discussion.

You have previously stated and claimed that torrent and nzb sites are illegal, you even went so far as to point to information which may be posted on gingadaddy that supported your argument.  If the site in question which you posted to does contain illegal information and is not DMCA compliant then that supports a position for not allowing sales of credentials or invites. Associating Bitcoin and this website with illegal sales of unauthorized credentials and access codes or other activity only harms the reputation of the site and the currency. Those sales may occur elsewhere, but they shouldn't occur here on the semi-official forum of bitcoin.

You seem to ignore your own supporting argument.  Here let me remind you since you seem to have a very short memory.

I am not promoting any websites.  I have however commented on several, none of which I am affiliated with.  I also find it interesting that you seem to believe that these websites are illegal (most are not), yet you somehow take no issue with sales of credentials or access codes, which are illegal (yes if they were procured or distributed in an unauthorized manner it does fall under access fraud, misuse of access, computer fraud, illegal access, and/or theft of service).

Really? They aren't illegal? Wow. I checked your comments history and pulled the ToS of the website in question.

https://www.gingadaddy.com/rules.php

We promote the use of scene releases since they will get you what you want (home made's can be something else than you expect, and there's often no NFO included to do proper research or comparison before downloading).

Thus, when you upload a Scene Release, use the proper Scene Release name. This includes the dots between the names and the release group at the end. If you don't know what the Scene Release title is, start out by looking in the post names, either in the file list of the nzb after being posted, or by searching usenet with a site like www.binsearch.info or www.newzleech.com. There are also lots of NFO resources such as www.vcdquality.com or www.nfoogle.com

for example, the correct formatting for a dvdr movie would be:
The.Matrix.Reloaded.NTSC.DVDR-Replica
and for music:
Led_Zeppelin-Latter_Days-2000-EGO
etc.

That sounds as highly illegal to me. A website owner lists copyrighted files for the download....

Also you should read this part:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials

Linking also raises legal issues in connection with the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to traffic in technology that enables others to circumvent technological measures put in place by copyright holders to control access to or uses of their copyright work.

I have nothing to prove.I have however pointed out the distribution and or sales of credentials and access codes which have not been explicitly authorized by a site owner or institution that they belong to is in fact illegal and can be prosecuted.   Sellers and facilitators can face criminal and civil liability.  Again, I'm sorry if you and some others can't accept that, but that is the way that most legal systems operate.  Theft of service is recognized by most first world and third world nations.

Regarding your other statement.  I think you do some research you will find that most NZB websites are in fact not illegal depending on where they are hosted, they operate under safe harbor, and reference posts made to newsgroups.  The sites themselves can not host any infringing material and if they do receive a complaint and fail to act, they can be shutdown or face criminal and civil liability.

If you wish to engage in civil discussion, I'm fair game, but if your only intent is trying to silence me and make demands that I leave, you'll be ignored. I might ask how exactly are you improving discussion in this thread? You aren't addressing the topic of the forum policy, nor are you moving this discussion forward.

The burden of proof is on you. If you can't prove according to law that you had referenced here then there is nothing to talk about civilly here.

I don't represent gingadaddy, nor am I affiliated with them.  If you believe there is a legal issue with that site I suggest you send them a DMCA takedown notification.  Also I think that you're ignoring your own arguments.  If those sites are illegal, then why is this forum allowing transactions of access codes and credentials for those sites?  If anything you're supporting my argument that sales of access codes and credentials for those sites should not be allowed on this forum.

You are either clueless, trolling, or vested (financially, or for personal gain) in the outcome of this topic as you continue to rationalize illegal sales transactions of access codes or credentials. You continue to run around in circles to try and find a "gotcha" stipulation that can allow illegal transactions to take place on this forum.  

You are not responding in any rational manner and frequently go off-topic. You are not serving the site or yourself by continuing to defend illegal sales. You are not going to bait me into a shouting match, or devolve this topic into such an endless foray. I'm ignoring your posts from now on.

Prove that I am financially vested.

You accuse a lot of people, either you should prove your accusations or you should stop making these baseless accusations.

I vote to ban your ass from these forums for baseless accusations (i.e. a troll).

I don't have to prove you are financially vested.  I did however observe that your actions are irrational and indicate that you are clueless, trolling, or vested (financially or for person gain) in the outcome of this topic.  The people I have brought to light in this topic and in the previous topic are engaged in illegal sales. The claims aren't baseless.  Sellers here are engaged in illegal secondary sales of unauthorized access codes and credentials which they gained through provisional access to database services.  You seem to want to ignore that.   Your actions indicate that you would prefer I go away because you want these sales to continue.

[vampire]

I don't have to prove you are financially vested.  I did however observe that your actions are irrational and indicate that you are clueless, trolling, or vested (financially or for person gain) in the outcome of this topic.  The people I have brought to light in this topic and in the previous topic are engaged in illegal sales. The claims aren't baseless.  Sellers here are engaged in illegal secondary sales of unauthorized access codes and credentials which they gained through provisional access to database services.  You seem to want to ignore that.   Your actions indicate that you would prefer I go away because you want these sales to continue.

Yes, you have to provide proof of such accusations. A treaty isn't law, so get lost. Even the treaty doesn't say it's illegal.

You're involved in illegal activities, you did acknowledge that you're involved in NZB sites. NZB sites are illegal, since they contain links to illegal software or media files.

Example: http://www.binsearch.net/?server=0&max=250&g=alt.binaries.music&a=Shep%40shep.nl+(Shep)

[shep]

I don't have to prove you are financially vested.  I did however observe that your actions are irrational and indicate that you are clueless, trolling, or vested (financially or for person gain) in the outcome of this topic.  The people I have brought to light in this topic and in the previous topic are engaged in illegal sales. The claims aren't baseless.  Sellers here are engaged in illegal secondary sales of unauthorized access codes and credentials which they gained through provisional access to database services.  You seem to want to ignore that.   Your actions indicate that you would prefer I go away because you want these sales to continue.

Yes, you have to provide proof of such accusations. A treaty isn't law, so get lost. Even the treaty doesn't say it's illegal.

You're involved in illegal activities, you did acknowledge that you're involved in NZB sites. NZB sites are illegal, since they contain links to illegal software or media files.

Example: http://www.binsearch.net/?server=0&max=250&g=alt.binaries.music&a=Shep%40shep.nl+(Shep)

As stated before I am unaffiliated with nzb sites. The treaty does indicate that unauthorized transfers of credentials or access codes are in fact illegal without explicit permission of the site owner or institution that granted provisional access for those credentials. That proof was given here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134779.msg1435482#msg1435482


Nice trick there with the database query, but anyone with half a brain and knowledge of database administration is not going to believe you. Now you have openly engaged in defamation (libel) in an attempt to discredit me by falsifying information.  Your true colors are revealed now. You are not going to fool anyone with your schemes. If you attempt to escalate and make a post to newsgroups it will reflect that your post occurred at this time and date and will be reflected as fraud. Your post is being reported to a moderator.

Anyone can try this gimmick

Example: http://www.binsearch.net/?server=0&max=250&g=alt.binaries.music&a=vampire%40vampire.nl+(Vampire)

[vampire]

Nice trick there with the database query, but anyone with half a brain and knowledge of database administration is not going to believe you. Now you have openly engaged in defamation (libel) in an attempt to discredit me by falsifying information.  Your true colors are revealed now. You are not going to fool anyone with your schemes. If you attempt to escalate and make a post to newsgroups it will reflect that your post occurred at this time and date and will be reflected as fraud. Your post is being reported to a moderator.

Anyone can try this gimmick

Example: http://www.binsearch.net/?server=0&max=250&g=alt.binaries.music&a=vampire%40vampire.nl+(Vampire)

Libel? LOL. You already did that a bunch of posts ago.

And why do you need to do database administration? I googled "shep and nzb".

Oh that is your actual email address. I simply showed it as an example... LOL.

Now you did two accusations against me:

a) I got paid by someone to argue with you.
b) I hacked some random website to put your email address in...

Keep these coming, they're comical

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

I don't have to prove you are financially vested.  I did however observe that your actions are irrational and indicate that you are clueless, trolling, or vested (financially or for person gain) in the outcome of this topic.  The people I have brought to light in this topic and in the previous topic are engaged in illegal sales. The claims aren't baseless.  Sellers here are engaged in illegal secondary sales of unauthorized access codes and credentials which they gained through provisional access to database services.  You seem to want to ignore that.   Your actions indicate that you would prefer I go away because you want these sales to continue.

Yes, you have to provide proof of such accusations. A treaty isn't law, so get lost. Even the treaty doesn't say it's illegal.

You're involved in illegal activities, you did acknowledge that you're involved in NZB sites. NZB sites are illegal, since they contain links to illegal software or media files.

Example: http://www.binsearch.net/?server=0&max=250&g=alt.binaries.music&a=Shep%40shep.nl+(Shep)

As stated before I am unaffiliated with nzb sites. The treaty does indicate that unauthorized transfers of credentials or access codes are in fact illegal without explicit permission of the site owner or institution that granted provisional access for those credentials. That proof was given here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134779.msg1435482#msg1435482


Nice trick there with the database query, but anyone with half a brain and knowledge of database administration is not going to believe you. Now you have openly engaged in defamation (libel) in an attempt to discredit me by falsifying information.  Your true colors are revealed now. You are not going to fool anyone with your schemes. If you attempt to escalate and make a post to newsgroups it will reflect that your post occurred at this time and date and will be reflected as fraud. Your post is being reported to a moderator.

Anyone can try this gimmick

Example: http://www.binsearch.net/?server=0&max=250&g=alt.binaries.music&a=vampire%40vampire.nl+(Vampire)

two questions:

1) Are you a lawyer?
2) Are you being compensated in any tangible way for your activities on Bitcointalk.org?

[shep]

Admin and staff were first approached December 21, 2012 regarding the topic of illegal sales of hacked/compromised accounts and illegal secondary sales of unauthorized transfers of accounts based on provisional access to database services.  Over the past 18 days individual staff have been approached top to bottom including developers.  Nobody wants to challenge Theymos on this issue which he would prefer to ignore, nor does anyone want to clean up this mess before it spirals out of control and harms the reputation of the currency and this forum. I've provided enough evidence publicly and privately to indicate an issue persists. I'm not going to stick around and continue to defend the best interests of the currency or the forum in this thread if none of the staff or development team want any real change to occur. It's pointless to do so. I'm also not going to stick around while mods ignore continued defamation. I only hope that enemies of the currency don't use this unresolved issue as ammunition, I would be deeply saddened if that happened.

I'm done with this thread.

[vampire]

Admin and staff were first approached December 21, 2012 regarding the topic of illegal sales of hacked/compromised accounts and illegal secondary sales of unauthorized transfers of accounts based on provisional access to database services.  Over the past 18 days individual staff have been approached top to bottom including developers.  Nobody wants to challenge Theymos on this issue which he would prefer to ignore, nor does anyone want to clean up this mess before it spirals out of control and harms the reputation of the currency and this forum. I've provided enough evidence publicly and privately to indicate an issue persists. I'm not going to stick around and continue to defend the best interests of the currency or the forum in this thread if none of the staff or development team want any real change to occur. It's pointless to do so. I'm also not going to stick around while mods ignore continued defamation. I only hope that enemies of the currency don't use this unresolved issue as ammunition, I would be deeply saddened if that happened.

I'm done with this thread.

Shep, you're a liar. As of right now in USA breaking TOS isn't illegal.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in limiting reach of the CFAA, said that violations of employee contract agreements and websites’ terms of service were better left to civil lawsuits.

This was a harassment by a operator (or a closely related person) of one of these illegal websites.

Which also makes TN banking of sharing netflix illegal questionable now.

[farlack]

Admin and staff were first approached December 21, 2012 regarding the topic of illegal sales of hacked/compromised accounts and illegal secondary sales of unauthorized transfers of accounts based on provisional access to database services.  Over the past 18 days individual staff have been approached top to bottom including developers.  Nobody wants to challenge Theymos on this issue which he would prefer to ignore, nor does anyone want to clean up this mess before it spirals out of control and harms the reputation of the currency and this forum. I've provided enough evidence publicly and privately to indicate an issue persists. I'm not going to stick around and continue to defend the best interests of the currency or the forum in this thread if none of the staff or development team want any real change to occur. It's pointless to do so. I'm also not going to stick around while mods ignore continued defamation. I only hope that enemies of the currency don't use this unresolved issue as ammunition, I would be deeply saddened if that happened.

I'm done with this thread.

Lol you cant judge a currency based off what its spent on, that's like saying you wont ever use the $1 USD because most of them have been inside strippers thongs and tits (which I'm sure some have STD's), used to snort cocaine, and various pills.

[21after2]

Admin and staff were first approached December 21, 2012 regarding the topic of illegal sales of hacked/compromised accounts and illegal secondary sales of unauthorized transfers of accounts based on provisional access to database services.  Over the past 18 days individual staff have been approached top to bottom including developers.  Nobody wants to challenge Theymos on this issue which he would prefer to ignore, nor does anyone want to clean up this mess before it spirals out of control and harms the reputation of the currency and this forum. I've provided enough evidence publicly and privately to indicate an issue persists. I'm not going to stick around and continue to defend the best interests of the currency or the forum in this thread if none of the staff or development team want any real change to occur. It's pointless to do so. I'm also not going to stick around while mods ignore continued defamation. I only hope that enemies of the currency don't use this unresolved issue as ammunition, I would be deeply saddened if that happened.

I'm done with this thread.

Lol you cant judge a currency based off what its spent on, that's like saying you wont ever use the $1 USD because most of them have been inside strippers thongs and tits (which I'm sure some have STD's), used to snort cocaine, and various pills.

It's not that you can't judge a currency based off what it's spent on, but that you shouldn't. The problem is that people will do just that when they're looking for any reason to try and take Bitcoin out before it grows bigger. It could also scare off any new users who don't want to get mixed up in anything that seems shady.

It's already an uphill battle, so why make it harder?

[nebulus]

What's worse than a troll is a vampire....

[da2ce7]

signing a treaty doesn't mean shit, until it is enacted into local law.

edit: I'm not a lawyer, so what I say means shit also.