Anyone Else Have This Happen To Them?

Has anyone else had anything like happen to them.
I received an email from my ISP telling me that my service will be shut-off at the request of symantec because i was caught sharing norton firewall 2003. here's most of the original message from symantec to my isp:

BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I am writing on behalf of Symantec Corporation. Symantec owns the trademarks and holds the copyrights for numerous computer software products, including but not limited to a suite of computer utility and antivirus software products under the U.S. registered trademarks NORTON SYSTEMWORKS® and NORTON ANTIVIRUS®, and other software bearing the "Norton" or "Symantec" brand names. Symantec also holds the registered trademark in the U.S. and other countries for its name, SYMANTEC®. Symantec's rights are evidenced by, among other things, registrations of its trademarks and copyrights with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office.

As you know, unauthorized use of Symantec's trademarks, and unauthorized copying and/or distribution of Symantec's copyrighted works, is a violation of federal and state laws. It is illegal to produce, sell or distribute such unauthorized works.

Symantec has been notified that "*** communications" provides Internet access for the IP address listed below. We have determined that unauthorized copying and distribution of one or more of our products (Please see evidence below), is taking place from that address. Such distribution is not authorized by Symantec, its agents or the law and thus constitutes infringement.

Based on the above, the deliberate and clear infringement of Symantec's protected copyright and trademark rights, and the harm to Symantec's business and goodwill from the infringing use, Symantec demands that you immediately investigate and take action to stop this infringing activity, and inform us of the results of your actions. Symantec believes that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. Accordingly, we appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.

The information contained in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act on behalf of Symantec with respect to this matter.

Please be advised that this letter is not and is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law as they may pertain to this matter or to Symantec's positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.

Thank you very much for your immediate assistance regarding this matter, and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Quote:

---

Originally posted by slplsnphx@6 November 2003 - 20:35
As you know

---

interesting word choice...

Gud Choice 4 your first post...

how ever i think this is Scar mongering....


I think slplsnphx works 4 Symantec


I never beleive any thing like this, especially when it’s sum 1n’s first post

I know someone who got a letter from them guys last year cos he had norton in his shared folder

didnt bother him tho and he just carried on :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MetroStars@6 November 2003 - 22:31
Gud Choice 4 your first post...

how ever i think this is Scar mongering....


I think slplsnphx works 4 Symantec


I never beleive any thing like this, especially when it’s sum 1n’s first post

---

i thing u need a dickshunary.l

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MetroStars@6 November 2003 - 22:31
Gud Choice 4 your first post...

how ever i think this is Scar mongering....


I think slplsnphx works 4 Symantec


I never beleive any thing like this, especially when it’s sum 1n’s first post

---

And I think you're an idiot!! I don't work for symantec.
Here's the entire email I got from my isp last night:

Dear Customer,

We are writing on behalf of ****** Communications to advise you that we have received a notification that you are using your ****** High Speed Internet service to post or transmit material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant's members. We have included a copy of the complaint letter. Pursuant to the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512, upon receiving such notification, ****** is required to "act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to" the infringing material in order to avoid liability for any alleged copyright infringement. Accordingly, ****** will suspend your account and disable your connection to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this email if the offending material is not removed.

Please be aware that the DMCA also provides procedures by which a subscriber accused of copyright violation can respond to the allegations of infringement and, under certain circumstances, cause his or her account to be reinstated. To do so, however, the response must meet certain criteria. Pursuant to section (g) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)), you have the right to submit to ****** a counter-notification which, to be effective, must include the following elements:

(a) a physical or electronic signature of the subscriber;
(b) identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or disabled;
© a statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
(d) the subscriberÂ's name, address, and telephone number and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.

In the event that you submit to ****** a counter-notification that includes these elements, ****** will forward your counter notification to the complainant and advise them that ****** will cease disabling access to the allegedly infringing material in ten (10) business days. Unless the complainant notifies us that it has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain you from engaging in the allegedly infringing activity prior to the expiration of those ten (10) business days, ****** will reactivate your account.

Sincerely,

The ****** Abuse Team

--- Original Message ---
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: abuse@******.net
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 22:15:56 -0800
Subject: SYMC Product Download/P2P Notice to ISP : [Notice ID: *******], Case
ID: <<CaseID>>

[Part 0 (plain text)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I am writing on behalf of Symantec Corporation. Symantec owns the trademarks and holds the copyrights for numerous computer software products, including but not limited to a suite of computer utility and antivirus software products under the U.S. registered trademarks NORTON SYSTEMWORKS® and NORTON ANTIVIRUS®, and other software bearing the "Norton" or "Symantec" brand names. Symantec also holds the registered trademark in the U.S. and other countries for its name, SYMANTEC®. Symantec&#39;s rights are evidenced by, among other things, registrations of its trademarks and copyrights with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office.

As you know, unauthorized use of Symantec&#39;s trademarks, and unauthorized copying and/or distribution of Symantec&#39;s copyrighted works, is a violation of federal and state laws. It is illegal to produce, sell or distribute such unauthorized works.

Symantec has been notified that ****** Communications provides Internet access for the IP address listed below. We have determined that unauthorized copying and distribution of one or more of our products (Please see evidence below), is taking place from that address. Such distribution is not authorized by Symantec, its agents or the law and thus constitutes infringement.

Based on the above, the deliberate and clear infringement of Symantec&#39;s protected copyright and trademark rights, and the harm to Symantec&#39;s business and goodwill from the infringing use, Symantec demands that you immediately investigate and take action to stop this infringing activity, and inform us of the results of your actions. Symantec believes that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. Accordingly, we appreciate your efforts toward this common goal.

The information contained in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act on behalf of Symantec with respect to this matter.

Please be advised that this letter is not and is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law as they may pertain to this matter or to Symantec&#39;s positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved.

Thank you very much for your immediate assistance regarding this matter, and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Chansonette Connolly
Manager, Worldwide Brand Protection
Legal Department
Symantec Corporation
20330 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Email: [email protected]

*pgp public key is available on the key server at ldap://keyserver.pgp.com
Notice ID: ******







Notice ID: ******
Title:Norton Personal Firewall 2003
Infringement Source:FastTrack
Initial Infringement Timestamp:2 Nov 2003 09:10:08 GMT
Recent Infringement Timestamp:2 Nov 2003 09:10:08 GMT
Infringement Address: **.***.***.***
Infringement Site: **.***.***.***
Infringer Username:sixela58@KaZaA
Infringing Filename:Symantec_Norton_Personal_Firewall_2003_6.0-9RETAIL.exe
Infringing Filesize:24410834

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 8.0

iQA/AwUBP6nnHFLuN+AO4uatEQKftACeOIBCkQoW7Cj5kl6SdDvzzoGTffwAn0hZ
oLHg9Wk8k5Y8WyTvsbd0ysb6
=ZU7i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


As of yet my inernet is still up and running. But it&#39;s not 24 hours after i received the email either though. I guess I&#39;ll just wait and see.

wow that stinks. i&#39;m glad i&#39;m with a local internet company that not too many people know about. i&#39;ve been sharing for years and have never gotten a letter.

Well, My connection is still up and running.

As for the title of my original post:

Quote:

---

Has anyone else had anything like happen to them.

---

It seems not. I must be the unluckiest dumbass to ever use K-Lite or something. None of you guys have ever gotten, (or heard of anyone else getting) anything like I did for sharing a file on K-Lite??? <_< <_< Other than O&#39;neill of course. Maybe I should have posted the question as a poll&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;

I got the same message from my isp for norton antivirus 2004.

http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=79092&hl=

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thedirtyd@6 November 2003 - 19:56
wow that stinks. i&#39;m glad i&#39;m with a local internet company that not too many people know about. i&#39;ve been sharing for years and have never gotten a letter.

---

I don&#39;t think that would change your chances of getting one.

It&#39;s BS. 1st post TSIF&#33; :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zapjb@8 November 2003 - 06:28
It&#39;s BS. 1st post TSIF&#33; :angry:

---

Yes, because clearly it&#39;s a myth that the RIAA, MPAA, BSA etc don&#39;t like it when people download their stuff.

Yeah. Stick around, you&#39;ll see it. First post scare tactic & then disappear. Seen it here dozens of times.

thats so weird, ive never once ever ever got a threat or a notice from anyone of my isp&#39;s about using kazaa or k-lite. maybe before joining a certain isp you should read there user agreament, it probably sais *DONT USE KAZAA* :lol:

i never read the user agreement either. :blink:

Do the following thing and it will help you:

1.Get a firewal program
This will work if Symantec use batch scan program to scan your computer.
(Which I guess ICARUS is doing,is that so?)

Go to www.zonelabs.com and download ZoneAlarm Free version.
It&#39;s free,and it will block batch scan.

2.Hide behind a SOCK5 proxy
This will work if Symantec pops download copyrighted stuff from you and grab your IP.

If no SOCK5 proxy available,try use TCP2HTTP and you can hide behind a http proxy.

The two method I mentioned can give you *some* safty(Can&#39;t defend against package sniffing or good hackers.)

Phuck Symantec, im going to start sharing their programs now&#33;&#33;

i got a q. did u have firewall with the imported ips or peerguardian running?

slplsnphx,

How long have you been a &#39;lurker&#39; here?
(lurker = someone who visits but doesn&#39;t make posts.)

Ok, well my internet service is still up and running without anything esle from my ISP on the subject. So nothing to worry about. I guess??

Quote:

---

Gud Choice 4 your first post...

how ever i think this is Scar mongering....


I think slplsnphx works 4 Symantec


I never beleive any thing like this, especially when it’s sum 1n’s first post

---

Quote:

---

It&#39;s BS. 1st post TSIF&#33;&nbsp;

---

Quote:

---

Yeah. Stick around, you&#39;ll see it. First post scare tactic & then disappear. Seen it here dozens of times.

---

You guys really are a bunch of idiots&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Just because I have better things to do than browse/post in the forums 24/7 doesn&#39;t make me a liar, or an employee of Symantec, Metro&#33;&#33;
I thought I&#39;d post here and find out if anyone else had gotten something like this, and if not, let people know that this kind of shit IS happening. But obviously some of people here are to ignorant to be worth it.

Quote:

---

slplsnphx,

How long have you been a &#39;lurker&#39; here?

---

Well I think you can figure how long I&#39;ve been "registered" with the forum in my profile. As for being a "lurker": I have rarely visited these forums since i registered because, at about the same time, I found a much better way to share files: Bittorrent. I was tired of downloading 700Mb only to find out that it was bullshit. Not to mention all the fucking viruses. Then I got this letter from ISP&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; I&#39;m done with Kazaa(lite) and this forum&#33;&#33;

Oh yeah, abu_, I&#39;m not sure what you mean by

Quote:

---

with the imported ips or peerguardian running?

---

But if you were asking if I had a firewall up and running? Yes I did. I was and still am running the firewall that I got the email for: Symantec_Norton_Personal_Firewall_2003_6.0-9RETAIL.exe

Quote:

---

Dear Customer,

The material in question here is the file; Personal Firewall 2003. We request you to remove all movies, games, MP3&#39;s you may have downloaded from the shared folder and disable file sharing on your peer to peer client to avoid future complaints. If you have already removed the material in question then consider this issue resolved. Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Regards
***** Abuse Team

---

I just got that email from my ISP, so it seems; nothing to worry about. Maybe&#33;???
I&#39;ll save you all the effort and say in advance, "you&#39;re welcome" for this good to know info.

Bye :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zapjb@8 November 2003 - 23:25
Bye :)

---

Bye&#33;&#33; Asshole&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zapjb@9 November 2003 - 06:25
Bye :)

---

You guys are idiots, you know that?

im sure pigs fly aswell :lol: :P

yes bye...

we will miss u :lol:

I am In Florida and i got one of these from my cable company brighthouse. I called them and told them, this is bull i told the guy i was talking to this was only done because i was sharing files. the big companys are getting heat from the riaa so your cable company tries to scare you. but just told the guy i&#39;d get their costumers to file a joint law suite aganist them. Haven&#39;t heard anymore lately

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DasScoot+9 November 2003 - 09:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DasScoot @ 9 November 2003 - 09:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-zapjb@9 November 2003 - 06:25
Bye :)

---

You guys are idiots, you know that?

[/b][/quote]
Ahmen. And because of attitudes like that, the brand new member posting after you thinks that&#39;s the cool way to be(unless he is one of the several who post a few thousand times only to re-incarnate under a new name to start yet again).

It&#39;s amazing the kind of reputation that spreads about this forum due to some of the people like them. Too bad really.

TD

slplsnphx there&#39;s not much point trying to warn people on here about what&#39;s going on.

Some just wish to bury their heads and say ner ner ner ner to anyone who has been warned (I also posted that I had been warned a while back, I got the usual abuse and my post deleted, without any explanation).


Usually the first email will be just a warning asking you to stop, they may monitor you for a while and then if you are caught again you&#39;ll probably be kicked off your ISP.

Some people on here just assume it never happens, it does. And Peer Guardian and all the IP blocking stuff and Kazaas hide your lists do not work properly.

I think a lot of people have had to use KaNat and personally I think that&#39;s how they are now tracking more sharers.

Not everyone thinks you&#39;re an ass for being concerned.

Ok, first let me mention Norton Antivirus Professional 2003 is the only Antivirus Software that works fine with my Win98 :)

But what Symantec makes here seems to me as completely "Bullshit", sorry
to mention that, but you can get all Symantec Products also on Symantec Sites,
so it does not matter if you get Symantec Products on Kazaa or on Symantec
Sites. I think what they did is really useless, if they still offer their products
to download on their site...

I think also have had Norton in my shared folder some time and never received
any warning... so... and if you got Symantec on on their Site you only need a serial... which you can get everythere... ´so I do not know their logic behind that...
...probably a guy is angry and did that cause he do not know what to do...
poor homan ... sad... I would be more useful to invest this time into support,
would be better for new clients...

thanks anyway, david.

~nice dreams...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DazFlynn@10 November 2003 - 05:23
Some people on here just assume it never happens, it does. And Peer Guardian and all the IP blocking stuff and Kazaas hide your lists do not work properly.

I think a lot of people have had to use KaNat and personally I think that&#39;s how they are now tracking more sharers.

---

Peer Guardian may have its problems in various versions, but KL++&#39;s ip blocker does reduce the risk of being caught... at least slightly. However, there&#39;s innocent people being accused/sued that aren&#39;t even running file-sharing programs&#33; It&#39;s embarassing to the RIAA, but their methods aren&#39;t 100% reliable either.

Whether you&#39;re using KaNAT or not, THEY can get your real ip address.

Thank you DazFlynn I would llike to know when anything tlike this happens, and when people do it only makes them more prepared. (They can get a firewall, peer guardian ect. )and when more peope have fireswalls ect. we probably all have fewer fake files and less attention. People should know what they are gettign into anyway.
besides i beleive him/her the frist time i came here it was becase of a simular problem (the bad music files), and if the fisrt thing i said elicited so much criticism i would probably leave too

Get used to the criticism here. After seeing a bunch of "how do i download" questions, I posted a guide to downloading with and configuiring KL, a method which works great for me. Sure enough the flaming starting, "what people need a guide to downloading now, lmao" this from a high level poster who always complains about "stupid" newbie questions. This is the kind of remark you get on this forum. I have a suggestion to all the flamed newbies. Take all your shared files off the fastrack network and use something else, try bittorrent or emule. There are many much better clients out there. And the forums are sooooo much better.

hmm...

Im a first time post, too and don&#39;t work for symantec. I just picked up someone uploading Norton with an address [DONT[[[FUCK]]][AROUND].@kazaa somethingorother. Scared the crap outof me

what&#39;s with all the hate?

like the user who posted take all your files off of Fasttrack and take it elsewhere...hell, it&#39;s attitudes like that that will destroy filesharing...i say to those who use something other than Fasttrack to stop posting HERE&#33;&#33;&#33; my limited understanding is that K-lite uses Fasttrack...hmmmmm

idiot, instead of removing files from filesharing networks, we should be making an effort to spread "good" files on the networks...idiot who said to remove is an RIAA sympatizer (RIAA bitch) :angry:

guess i know what all the hate is about...as filesharing continues it&#39;s the haters that will destroy it (like the original warez, now just abunch of porn pop ups, Hotline, gone cause of constant leachers and haters, the list goes on)

the RIAA are a bunch of bitches and the music industry is gonna pay, the industry needs to learn to conform to the shopper, not the shopper conforming to the market. do you RIAA supporters out there know that 75% of music CD customers were filesharers????

apple, micro&#036;oft, napster, and all these other online d/l music sites are gonna change the face of the market...so RIAA bitches cry now, cause in 5 years your gonna have no jobs...bitch.

oh yeah, firewall&#39;s, proxy and all that junk won&#39;t help hide your ip address...i don&#39;t know if micro&#036;oft has changed this but winXP allows applications permission to root level uhhhhh damn can&#39;t get technical right now...(just joined the haters :angry: ) but the jist is that XP users can get spoofed or send out false packet information (thanks micro&#036;oft, great security, other OS&#39;s don&#39;t allow root level changes)

:( sorry just had to rant...damn didn&#39;t know i was a "lurker" hehehe "lurker" think i&#39;m gonna go "lurk" in the corner :lol:

I just ment that if he/she has left it could easily be the flaming and not nessicarily becase he was lying.

About removing all of your files: i don&#39;t think the peopel on this board represent everone on fastrack, and the flames don&#39;t represent everyone on the board.

sorry for the harshness of my previous post :blink:

flaming a thread, people should just get use to it...if they have never visited a forum before...well they never visited a forum before :P

:D i don&#39;t think one users opinion represents the whole...i like the wit and sarcasm found on this board, keeps me coming back for more :lol: :D

as an old hotline server runner, i&#39;ll always keep sharing, if i have to burn files onto CD, i&#39;ll put them into a folder first, just in case someone msg&#39;s me asking for something else in my share folder (just pop in the CD and add the CD folder to your share list...worked only once on Fasttrack...). in fact i keep k-lite runnin in the background and i haven&#39;t d/l anything for over a month (not even porn :rolleyes: but my u/l continues on...over 800megs daily..info courtesy of bandwidth meter)

i&#39;m a firm believer of pooling files and spreading em over different networks, more for me, is more for you. the concept of isolating files to one network has me exhausted....doesn&#39;t that contradict filesharing??? Greed, Envy, and Jealousy rules Big brother, they shouldn&#39;t rule filesharer&#39;s. :ph34r:
i&#39;m sorry for coming out and sounding like a freakin zeolot, it&#39;s just that the filesharing community mean&#39;s alot to me...both the "legal" and "illegal" sides...come on, sharing has been a basic bond of humanity since uhm humanity.
:P last zealot statement...i just think the RIAA, the Music companies they represent, and big bro should sit back, toke and take a lesson from the Grateful Dead. here&#39;s a band who never really had huge record sales but they stayed around for how long? who&#39;s following instead of dwindling each year grew stronger each year? how&#39;s that, well they worked their butts&#39; off , touring constantly...plus did they scorn the millions of followers who recorded shows and shared or traded those rips??? no because of those traders the Dead grew more popular (personal experience, i was introduced to the Dead not from a store bought album, but from a cassette a buddy got from a show...in fact, i still haven&#39;t listened to a store bought album yet)

:P sorry been holding in some rants for way too long...think i&#39;m gonna go play some Disc golf (come on out you Flamers :lol: )

I said stop sharing the files cos I was pissed off with one poster (whos post mysteriously vanished from this thread), s/he never has anything good to share. Im not an riaa bitch unless that means having a massive shared folder used by 4 clients running at the same time :D :D

Look,I think the point other&#39;s were making when they said the original poster was possibly just someone trying to sow seeds of paranoia amongst kazaa users is definitly valid.I mean who using kazaa beleives that downloading norton firewall 2003 or adobe&#39;s photoshop is legal?So why would anyone NEED to be reminded of that fact? I mean why would anyone be shocked to receive a letter or what have you from the legal department of some company saying "We gotcha&#33;" The point was,(I think),yes some people may get busted for sharing,but posting that in here,a kazaa lite forum,and then innocently asking,"Oh,by the way,have YOU got one of these letters yet?" is just too suspect from someone who just started posting.If people DON&#39;T expect scare tactics to be used in the war against p2p file sharing well,that&#39;s just laughably naive.

When you get a warning letter:

Remove &#39;those&#39; files from your hard drive. (burn to CDR or CDRW disk, ugh)

Update your IP Blocking proggies. Do NOT depend on firewall alone (They have ALL &#39;leaked&#39; in my tests).

Always use the built in IP Blocker in the proggie like Kl++ 2.4.3.

Always &#39;reply&#39; to the email as such:

Dear sirs, or To Whom it may concern: A thorough search has been done and there are no such named files on this computer.


Thats it. NEVER put your personal info like the complaint letter sometimes says to do in order to keep your ip access. The above is all you need to write after hitting reply&#33;&#33;&#33; You send your real name, address, etc., back in the reply then the complainent (riaa etc.) will THEN have a copy. Your ISP &#39;forwards&#39; the complaint. Long as you do NOT provide any more info than that, that is all the complainent will ever know about you, your ip address, and nothing else. Your ISP is NOT required to give out your personal info, and none do that I know of.
Your ISP will send a reply back to the complainent that the files have been removed or are no longer being shared, etc., as your response, or a copy of your response, sans your email address (unless you were dumb enough to give it in your reply&#33;&#33;&#33; Don&#39;t&#33;&#33;&#33;)

This is how I have handled them. So far, no problems.

imho
isepiq B)