Talk:Lphant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:37, 2 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lphant article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lphant4 claims

The page needs to be improved, but the claims made about Lphant4 here have a third-party confirmation: see http://filesharefreak.com/2009/03/05/discordia-takes-over-lphant-p2p-domain-now-owns-4-including-shareaza-bearshare-imesh/ Zigoman (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)zigoman[reply]

Working on it... mfg Old Death (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The filesharefreak article does not site any sources. If the page was somehow "stolen", "taken over", if there were "threats", etc. - there should be a confiramtion from a credible source, such as Juanjo. for now, all we have is a press release by iMesh and Merlin stating that this was an acquistion. I doubt Merlin will lie about something like this. Note that Merlin does not represent the major labels, but rather Independent artists and labels. Also, there is no room for conspiracy theories in Wikipedia. Artciles should be written from a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.188.161.99 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read FileShareFreak's article again, it *does* cite several sources and neither "stolen", nor "threats" are present on the page (just did a local search). But it's true that there's no source to prove that it was a hostile takeover. Merlin also confirms FileShareFreak's assertion about Lphant and iMesh being clones. Excerpts from TorrentFreak which also published an article covering this issue: "In a statement, Merlin CEO Charles Caldas said, “ We are pleased that iMesh inherently recognized the value of the Merlin repertoire in expanding their footprint to the global market, and are happy to be involved in working with them to license and legitimize the Lphant P2P network(...)”" (emphasis added). So even if you doubt Merlin will lie about something like this, the facts are the following:

- Merlin and iMesh have common interests, as "Merlin’s member labels music - which they claim represent some 9% of the total US music business - will be available across all of the Discordia-linked applications including iMesh, Bearshare and both the fake Shareaza and Lphant clients." (TorrentFreak again).

- Discordia Ltd, which is linked to iMesh, already attemted a hostile takeover on Shareaza and now holds Lphant dot com.

- The domain transfers of Lphant and Shareaza happened in a very similar manner: the site changed with no warning, a clone of iMesh which doesn't connect to the networks of the original client was presented as an update, and the automatic update feature of the original client was used to push the iMesh clone as an update. The former webmasters of the two sites became suddenly silent and refused to comment(although it's now known that Shareaza's former domain holder was threatened with a lawsuit) -- all of this can be verified and there are references.

- Despite that, it's true that we can't affirm with certainty that Lphant was victim of a hostile takeover, so the current "Domain Transfer" is, IMHO, OK. Zigoman (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a formal press release that discusses acquisition, people named in this press release including Charlie Lexton (CEO of Merlin) referring to it as an acquisition and not a single credible source that calls it a take over or domain purchase (which would imply that only the domain was taken). So why call it anything but an acquisition? duras2000 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article vandalism by Discordia related (?) people...

There have been several attempts by unregistered IPs as well as an attempt by a newly registered user to remove all important information of this article and turn it into an advertisement for Discordias scam client in order to trap more unaware users into upgrading. The latest of these attempts has been done by AChigurh (contribs) (Have a look at the article history.) Be aware that this sort of vandalism when editing the article and check the latest changes using the history page before committing any new changes. This article hijacking cannot be allowed and will be reverted at every new attempt. Old Death (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Companies have the right to sell their assets without this becoming part of a conspiracy theory. However, I don't see this getting resolved here amicably so I will ask for the 3rd party support. Duras2000(talk) 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what has been added to the Active disagreements page:

Talk:Lphant#Article vandalism by Discordia related (?) people.... Disagreement concerning Lphant acquisition by Discordia / Conspiracy theory 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Note for all readers: The user who added the above complaint is probably related to the company spamming this article, since most of his edits were in articles related to the subject where he normally removed information (even sourced information) that was either a) in favour of the filesharing community or b) bad for the image of the Discoridia / iMesh company. Old Death (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing this article for deletion. It serves no purpose, other than a stage for people affiliated with the Panther Project. No [[User:Old Death}Old Death]]'s contributions. Mosat revolve around Shareaza and the concept that software should be free. Many people that develop content for a living (Software, Music, etc.) disagree. The Irony is that many of the people that think music should be free are software developers who would never agree to work for free... Duras2000 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The adding of the template is an other piece of circumstantial evidence for what I wrote before. I may be affiliated with Shareaza but this is not going to be discussed here, since it doesn't add something significant to the discussion. Also, your actions show relatively clearly that you don't have a neutral point of view either. On the other Hand, Thumperward, a far more experienced Wikipedian than me stated that the article was written "describ[ing] the issue without attempting to unduly influence the reader" and he stated the article as being good. Also, it is well enough sourced.

Further, Wikipedia is a project dedicated for the users, and not for some corporate interests, and therefore information about what has happened has a right to stay here. I removed the template. (BTW, ARTICLE VANDALISM IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A REASON FOR AN ARTICLE DELETION.)

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC) (PS.: Pantheraproject never really existed. It is currently only a domain name and you know this very well.^^)[reply]

"No Old Death's contributions. Most revolve around Shareaza and the concept that software should be free. Many people that develop content for a living (Software, Music, etc.) disagree. The Irony is that many of the people that think music should be free are software developers who would never agree to work for free... ": and your point is? Most Wikipedians contribute to articles covering stuff that's important to them anyway and ad homined attacks seldom make sense. He's entitled to his opinions and you to yours, what we have to take into account here is the quality of the contributions. In my view there's no reason to delete this article as long as it is factual (and not written for advocacy as Chris Cunningham stated) and useful to Wikipedia users. Zigoman (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have once again made an attempt to make the article descriptive rather than laden with POV. Please, folks, I know some of you might be angry about this, but we can't use articles for advocacy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it is hard to stay neutral when everything you write is vandalized some minutes later... Thanks for your efford, Old Death (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully a week of semi-protection will discourage Discordia from further attempts at vandalism. As this article sits today, it is descriptive and contains enough information to help people protect themselves from the ongoing anti-P2P campaign by this well-known and aptly named Musiclab/RIAA front. Now that this company has been active for a while and has attempted to subvert several P2P applications [a fact now noted and well-documented in many news sites over the past few years] perhaps it is time for an article on this shadowy company and it's actions. ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take care not to lose information regarding the origins of Lphant and links to the original program. To do so would be revisionism, wouldn't it? ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking directly to a binary installer, especially one hosted on some random and apparently non-affiliated site, should be a huge no-no. This isn't an archiving service. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a link to chip.eu, which is a bit more trustable source than an unsigned server somewhere 'in the wild'. Feel free to replace the link if there is a better/more trusted source. Old Death (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather disinclined to include any direct download links. For a start, it's obvious advocacy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the link to chip.eu is a product info page instead of a direct download link. This should be more appropriate as it provides good third-pary proof that a real P2P version of Lphant still exists in current use and availability and provides an opportunity to examine the proof by downloading it. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is advocacy. We're just supposed to describe what others have said - we are not meant to offer our own proofs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could clarify your definition of advocacy as presented on this page then, as chip.eu is clearly a neutral and respectable site with nothing more than a neutral product description which happens to allow a download. I'm sure you are not trying to prevent knowledge of the original program from being in the article. The other version is prominently displayed and, in contrast to the chip.eu page, openly advocated on the new lphant.com web site. Would you prefer a new section on the controversy of the takeover and replacement of one application with a markedly different one? Links to the similar situation with Shareaza, iMesh and BearShare in order to clarify the difference between the two classes of software could easily be provided both within and without WikiPedia to explain the situation in detail, a situation which is in itself, notable enough for an article of it's own. ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps removing "Download" from that external link is all you really need. ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still rather we weren't sending people to a download link, but that's a bit better, yes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Old Death stated at the beginning of this section, vandalism, POV and advocacy on behalf of (or against) Discordia will not be allowed. All editors are reminded to keep the article neutral, balanced and encyclopedic. Several editors and administrators are now watching all of the Discordia-related articles for activity and all improper edits will be reverted or brought into balance with WikiPedia guidelines. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, NPOV is great. Please stick to it. We are all allowed to our opinion, but we should stick to the fact. It is FACTUAL that Discordia now owns Lphant and as such they can release a new version. If you don't like it, open a blog and write that it's bad. Not here. When Microsoft issues a new version of Word, we do not enter the list of older versions. If you wish, you may include a release history section. The current version of LPhant, which IS LPHANT, is not an eDonkey/BT client. If you disagree (and you clearly do :) ) - let's discuss this here on a factual basis reach a conclusion and edit the article accordingly. Old Death - please do not remove the P2P tag. We all know and there are plenty references that iMesh/Lpahnt are P2P. [[User:duras2000|duras20000}} 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is great, so leave it alone. Juanjo developed it, then Discordia came along with a completely different one which is actually a new version of iMesh, not Lphant. That it has the name of Lphant stuck to it doesn't erase the existence of the original, so both should be represented together. To erase one is POV and it is already clear that you are pushing the viewpoint of Discordia, a company widely known to be openly hostile to P2P. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a reasonable compromise to allow Juanjo and Discordia to exist together in the software infobox without conflict. The "author" is a natural fit for Juanjo, leaving Discordia in the "developer" spot by itself. That looks a lot better. ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRM in Lphant and related Discordia vending software.

Excerpted from the EULA within the software:

The Subscription Service is free during the introductory period. Upon expiration of the introductory period, we'll ask you to reach for your credit/debit card and pay. If you decide not to make the payment at the end of the introductory period, we will still offer you a lot of free content but the Lphant premium ("Lphant Premium") content, which you may recognize in the Lphant application, will no longer be playable. If you decide to subscribe to the Subscription Service, thereby gaining access to all the Lphant Premium content, you will be charged on a recurring basis for your continued Subscription Service membership at Lphant's standard rates. As a subscriber, you may download an unlimited number of Songs while your Subscription Service is current. If Discordia does not receive the payment of your Subscription Service fee on a timely basis for any given month, your Subscription Service will be suspended, your downloaded Songs through the Subscription Service will be inaccessible for as long as your Subscription Service is suspended. The content you downloaded for free (non Premium content) will remain accessible while your Subscription Service is suspended.

USE OF SERVICE

Once you have downloaded a Song via the Subscription Service, you may save that Song to the hard drives of up to 3 of your personal computers and play back at any time and as many times as you want. You may not share downloaded Songs with anyone else. Any security technology that is provided with a Song is an inseparable part of the Song. Please don't try to separate them. They really like each other.

If you have purchased/permanently downloaded Songs, it is your responsibility not to lose, destroy or damage them. Discordia shall have no liability to you in the event of any such loss, destruction, or damage of Songs. You may burn each playlist of Permanent Downloads to a CD up to seven times as part of any particular playlist of songs. A "playlist" is a discrete group of Permanent Downloads that are arranged together in a particular order. You may copy each Permanent Download to up to five personal computers. You may transfer a Permanent Download an unlimited number of times to compatible portable devices that adhere to the Usage Rules and security requirements. Once you have transferred a Permanent Download to a compatible portable device, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer it from that device to any other media or device. You may burn a single Permanent Download to a CD or a device an unlimited number of times. Once you have burned a Permanent Download to a CD, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer the track from that CD to any other media or device. If you have transferred a Song to a compatible portable device as per the Download Service, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer it from that device to any other media or device. The burning or transfer capabilities provided for herein shall not operate to waive or limit any rights of the copyright owners in the Songs or any works embodied in them. Don't cheat.

While you are logged on to the Service, you may download and play as many Songs directly from the Service as you like while your subscription is current. You may not attempt (or encourage others) to capture, copy, or download a Song played directly from the Service. Lphant will count the number of times that you play each downloaded Song for royalty accounting and analysis purposes. Lphant automatically renews your rights to all of your downloaded Songs at the beginning of each subscription month so long as your subscription remains current. This means that in order to play any downloaded (but not purchased) Song after the end of a subscription month, you must log on to the Service so that Lphant can renew your rights for those Songs. You will have access to Songs purchased via the Download Service for as long as you retain the files.

For a current list of portable devices that are compatible with the Service, please see: http://www.Lphant.com/devices.shtml. Discordia's ability to offer portable device compatibility is subject to change at any time with respect to any content.

If you are using the version of the Service that is accessible from Microsoft Corporation's Windows Media Player Series, you will only be able to burn or transfer Songs using the Windows Media Player. In addition, if you are using the version of the Service that runs on Microsoft Corporation's Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, certain features that are available in the Service will not be available in the "distance viewing" experience.

Loss of Rights by Discordia/Change in Service. Discordia may at any time lose the right to make certain Songs available to you. In such event, you will no longer be able to access/obtain these Songs via the Subscription Service. In addition, in the event that MusicNet, Discordia or any of their licensors changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service (or any part thereof), which MusicNet, Discordia or their licensors may do at their election, you may no longer be able to use Content to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, Neither MusicNet nor Discordia shall have any liability to you in such case. Availability of any Content is subject to change at any time. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Discordia, MusicNet, and their licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any products, Content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service or Site at any time without notice. In no event will such parties be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such products, Content or materials under this Agreement. MusicNet and Discordia and their licensors may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability. Sorry.

Delivery of Songs. On occasion, technical problems may delay or prevent delivery of Songs to you. Your sole remedy with respect to Songs purchased by you that are not delivered will be either replacement of such Songs or refund of the price paid for such Song, at Discordia's discretion.

[all highlighting added by me for illustration of mentions of DRM.]

As we can see here, the EULA which comes bundled with the software describes precisely how the DRM regime functions in Discordia software. That the website version of the "License Agreement" omits the relevant section does not invalidate the EULA included with the software which users actually have to signify acceptance towards in order to install the software, thereby binding themselves to the DRM regime described within it. This should settle any misconceptions concerning DRM in Discordia media vending software, however the curious may also examine protected files in a hex editor if any lingering doubts remain. ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, were you able to download any DRM conrent using LPhant? I wasn't. All seems to be in MP3 format. Maybe this didn't adjust the EULA yet. Let's see what happens in the next few days, as the EULA in the software is older than the EULA on the site duras2000 03:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and advocacy on behalf of Discordia won't fly here. Answer your own question by downloading the protected content instead of looking for downloads that do not admit to it. Also, you have provided no evidence that files which "appear" to be MP3s have no DRM. From the very beginning Discordia has been providing MP3s with DRM applied to the contents. I have provided evidence directly from the Discordia software and the links in the article connect to reliable third-party sources which discuss the DRM issue, which is how things are done here. Stop trying to push the company POV here. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"From the very beginning Discordia has been providing MP3s with DRM applied to the contents."

How can you possibly apply DRM rules to an MP3 file? A .AAC file or WMA, yes you can... but DRM on MP3's cannot happen! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AskMeHowIAm (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan downloads and popups cannot happen in an MP3 either, yet that is what the spammers and trojan spreaders are doing right now. The fact is that a file extension is merely text on the end of a filename and codecs can be created to handle DRM on MPEG audio streams while still allowing playback of unencrypted files. That you do not understand this doesn't change the fact that Discordia software has been using DRM-locked "MP3" files from the beginning of their current product line. Try playing a Premium Content file on another computer by simply copying it instead of using the proprietary software or the Windows Media Player to move it and you will just get an error message. The content is protected, even if you don't understand exactly how.

You CANNOT have DRM locked MP3 files! Their 'premium content' files (**under the monthly subscription**) are in WMA (Windows Media Audio) format, NOT MP3 format. AskMeHowIAm (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The EULA in the software is the binding one, date or not, because the user has to click through it to install the software. The absence of mention of DRM in the web site version merely serves to conceal that part of the EULA from those who don't read them during software installation. Either you were fooled or you are trying to fool the public. You get to choose which position to take on that one. ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone of you really read threw the eula provided with the client itself? The make a clear difference between the DRM protected content and the MP3s from some Sony products that can be bought, since Discordia acts only as retailer for the MP3s which have nothing to do directly with the rest of their service, based on montyly subscription and on per download charged fees. I changed the article respectively.

@AskMeHowIAm: PLZ, stay polite. My edits are not rubbish and I try to improve the Wikipedia articles on which I work as much as possible. I've reverted your last edits partially, because (for example), Shareaza was never acquired by Discordia, they only stole the project domain by forcing the domain owner to sell. As for the MP3 files, I've added a clear formulation separating the subscription service etc. and the MP3s that can be bought.

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "combined with a one-off purchasing fee per downloaded title" there is NO one off purchasing fee per downloaded title.

How you have phrased that means that you pay a subscription fee and then also pay a one off fee per each song you download, which is not true.

You can purchase MP3 files without having to subscribe to the premium service. All the premium service does is allow you to download as much / rent as much DRM music as you like. Instead of selecting the 'download' option in the search results, you click the 'buy' option to purchase it as an MP3 file.

With regards to the free content, it's a P2P network!!!! Peer to Peer. You are hardly going to be charged to share your own material with other users! Also see http://www.imesh.com/help.html#20 for an example of the types of downloads offered. Note, Free Peer to Peer, Premium and Purchased Premium AskMeHowIAm (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to excuse myself. I've reread the eula and you are right. It makes a difference between downloaded and purchased songs, which I must have overread the last time I went threw it. To my understanding, a user has to pay to renew the rights even on those songs he downloaded (and I thought downloaded = purchased which is not true.) Anyway, it is only stated for the Sony products that downloaded files are MP3, or am I seeing this wrong?

BTW, if you revert changes, make sure you don't revert all other changes to other parts of the article when only focussing on one part. For example you always reverted also the first lines (takeover of Shareaza) and some other stuff while changing the music purchasing stuff back.

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AskMeHowIAm, it's the iMesh network who provides the social networking features... why do you revert this every time agein? ^^ I don't think it is your intention to denie this^^ Also, the references for the takeover of Shareazas website hast to stay in order to be neutral (also the nevative aspects of discordias tactics have to be named in order to be complete) while the reference for the iMesh family has to stay, beacause without it, only insiders know what is meant. (BTW, does BearShare belong to the iMesh family or not?)

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Installation

This line below serves no purpose -

Lphant 4 overwrites previous versions of Lphant, deleting old installers in the process.

With every release of new software, the previous version is always over-written - why does that need to be mentioned?

deleting old installers in the process.

OR - and I very much doubt that the installer deletes .exe files from your computer, how would it know what to delete? AskMeHowIAm (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is relatively simple. For example: the installer searches for the names of executable files fitting to the known names of installers of v3.51 and previous versions of the software. Once found, these files can be checked against a hash value and deleted if the hash matches. So it is relatively easy to identify old installers. (Note, this was only an example how it could be done; how the Lphant v4 installer exactly does it, I don't know but there are litterally houndreds of ways doing it.)

This is not about the previous version of the software: it is quite normal, that previous versions of a software are deleted/overwritten during an installation process, but what this line tells is not that it overwrites a software, but that the user is taken away the option to downgrade if the installed version of Lphant v4.0 doesn't please him, so this is quite important. Old Death (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LphantV4 seeks out and silently uninstalls the original version of Lphant before installing it's own non-compatible version. The intent is clearly to remove users from the public P2P networks and remove the software they used to get onto those networks. It is disingenuous to claim that it is an innocent upgrade process whet it is crystal clear that Discordia is deliberately removing competing software in order to replace it. Such activity, removing the competition from users computers and replacing it with something different for commercial purposes, is not the same as upgrading one's own software. It is anticompetitive behaviour which is illegal in most jurisdictions. If the Discordia software had done it openly and honestly by announcing the move and giving the user an opportunity to decide whether to allow the replacement and continue, then there would be no need to mention it. If their software had left the other program alone and installed to a new folder it would not be an issue. Since it secretly removed software they did not create in order to replace it with their own, it merits a mention. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"LphantV4 seeks out and silently uninstalls the original version of Lphant before installing it's own non-compatible version."

Yes because unless I'm totally missing something, it is a NEW version of the software. Remove the old files, install the new ones.

"but that the user is taken away the option to downgrade"

What programs do you know that allow you to downgrade? You can't downgrade MSN, you can't downgrade Yahoo, in your case, you can't downgrade Shareaza once you install a new build. Heck you can't install XP over Win 2K and expect to downgrade by the click of a button. AskMeHowIAm (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new version. It is a replacement version by a hostile entity trying to eliminate the original software to replace it with incompatible software. Many software programs permit downgrades, and Windows is an excellent example because it goes to great lengths to provide that capability. Such arguments aside, The original Lphant and the Discordia software are completely different programs and both should be represented here, neither one erasing record of the other on the WikiPedia even if a commercial entity wishes to erase record of the public P2P software or if the public wishes to erase record of the commercial version. Both shall remain and the differences between them shall remain in the article. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and disagree, disagreements aside as I do not want to waste my time arguing - I agree that both should be included, but not the way in which it is currently being done by some people on here. My account is too new to modify the article, but I propose a time line somewhat similar to the iMesh article: Original program / Current program. The features of each release [if available] can then be included next to the release.

The software info box should also refer to Discordia's Lphant as it is the new version. That does not mean 'Juanjo' cannot be mentioned anywhere in the article. 84.68.29.237 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discordia may be laying claim to the software and trying to erase it from people's computers but they cannot claim ownership of WikiPedia or erase the original Lphant from the public record. It is both fair and balanced to show the sequence of development and both of the latest releases because the article refers to two different programs now that a second developer has shown up with a different program and used the same name. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, may I add that the installer behaves quite suspicious? When trying to have a glimpse at the EULA included in the installer, the first thing (even before showing me the license agreement) the installer did was trying to access my registry (my security protection blocked the access^^). This is more the behavior of adware/spyware than the behavior of sophisiticated and trustable software. Old Death (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerted efforts by Discordia

By now, any observer can see clearly that company advocates are making a concerted effort to "clean up" WikiPedia articles which refer to Lphant, BearShare, Shareaza and iMesh, four P2P programs which work on publicly accessible P2P networks. If this campaign continues for much longer there may be a need for administrative action to protect the WikiPedia from further attempts at alteration by this company and it's advocates. Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the article was like after 15 edits or so, all of them clearly "against" Discordia. Does this look like an article written from a NPOV? 01:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Features

Lphant supports BitTorrent and the eDonkey network for its downloads. It features swarming and is able to do simultaneous downloads from both eDonkey and and BitTorrent sources for a single file. Also, it is able to download large files (which means files bigger than 4GB) on eDonkey and features EngGame mode as well as ICH (intelligent corruption handling).

LPhant Domain Takeover

Discordia Ltd. is an anti P2P company threatening clients and free file distribution over the internet. On March 2009 Discordia Ltd. took by force the Lphant domain using the same tactics used to obtain the domain of the open source project Shareaza in 2008 [1]. As they got the domain but could not get the software they are employing the following stategy to eliminate the original Lphant :

Lphant advertising software suggests the user to upgrade to the new version 4. When the user visits the official website of Lphant in the hands of Discordia, he downloads and installs a program. This program deletes the previous version. This program is a fake, a costume, it is compatible neither with BitTorrent nor with eDonkey [2]. At this point the user discovers that he's lost Lphant P2P client, and the page to download the previous version (v 3.51) no longer exists.

Lphant developers are deciding to continue its developement, but this is presumed to be limited because some had to sign a legal agreement with Discordia, which took over the page.

Presenting the Discordia v. P2P controversy in an encyclopedic fashion.

Trying to cover the controversy in existing sections is clearly not going to work, not even in the Acquisition section, which should, in fact, be put into a new History section ending the portion relating to the original Lphant.

Here's a proposal:

Create a History section with a clear dividing line between the two different programs. Within the two areas, limit contents strictly to the individual histories of the two applications without touching on the controversy or the differences between the two applications.

That this section will naturally have more data on the original program is not a problem as the Discordia version will eventually build up a history of it's own as the years pass.

Create a Controversy section that neutrally outlines the Discordia issue as it relates to Lphant only.
- Within that section, provide links or references to similar sections in articles of the other three affected P2P apps and/or a separate Discordia article, but do not dwell on the other apps or history of the controversy that predate the acquisition of the Lphant website.
- Also, keep it clear that the acquisition was of the website only and not the software or the open source project.

If we keep it properly organized in this fashion the controversy can be presented in an encyclopedic fashion and nobody will have an excuse for excessive reverts or edit warring.

Let's get a plan for this in place before we start creating sections and moving data around. The article can temporarily sit as it is for now while we discuss how to proceed. If there are minor changes to make, let's decide now and then temporarily leave it alone. Agreed? Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Old Death (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense.Aaron, why don't you give this a stab. Get a release version section under the current version, followed by a controversy section. I took a very close look at the lphant and couldn't find any reference to DRM inside the app aside from the EULA on the app which seems to predate the EULA on the app. All audio downloads were either MP3 or Non DRM MP3. My guess is that the EULA in the app is obsolete and will be updated at some point. 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.213.241.139 (talk)

This article is about the original application -- it is NOT about a domain name

I have cleaned up various inaccuracies in the starting paragraph and intent to continue.

The starting paragraph cited http://www.paidcontent.co.uk/entry/419-indie-music-rights-agency-merlin-adds-tracks-to-p2p-network-imesh/ which states "Lphant is now relaunched as a legal download P2P site but is still is still compatible with file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent" in an effort to phish users to download an application which uses the same name and elephant-like logo to the original one, but is neither created by the original author nor does it connect to BitTorrent.

Considering that no information has been published about the acquisition of the lphant application by anyone, the developments on the domain name are irrelevant to the article, aside from any information that will dissociate the original application to discordia's domains. In other words, Discordia's client does not have a place in this article. Neither does lphant.com anymore. As a result, there is no reason to link to lphant.com and especially not to shareaza.com which is attempted by certain users. Any links to shareaza.com especially under the name Shareaza are used to increase the page rank of the fake site on shareaza Google search queries.

Fortunately the original lphant.com site is still on the Internet Archive, so any request for citations about the original application will be satisfied. Since Discordia will probably try to remove the old information from the Internet Archive, it is suggested that as many editors as possible save them for future reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.150.66 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-client-does-a-deal-with-the-devil-090310/ AskMeHowIAm (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link does not state that Discordia has acquired the lphant application. Without a clear statement from either Discordia or the author of the original application regarding acquisition of the application, any information about Discordia on an article dealing with the original application is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.150.66 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a little more reading for you, taken from http://merlinnetwork.org/news/ 9th March 2009: Merlin Signs Deal With iMesh

http://merlinnetwork.org/download.php?type=file&id=f1237485416

The deal also includes a settlement relating to usage of Merlin members’ repertoire on the hitherto unlicensed Lphant P2P network, recently purchased by iMesh as part of their European expansion. Merlin members’ repertoire will be available from launch on the new legitimately licensed and filtered version of Lphant.

and

Said Charles Caldas, Merlin CEO, “We are pleased that iMesh inherently recognised the value of the Merlin repertoire in expanding their footprint to the global market, and are happy to be invol

Otherwise I fail to see how you CANNOT understand / accept how Discordia have bought out Lphant when there are many sources out there that clearly state the situation. Why should a company have to release a statement about a takeover anyway?? Bearshare (for example) did not announce that they had settled with the RIAA, that came from court documents, no announcements from either party!! AskMeHowIAm (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

``Why should a company have to release a statement about a takeover anyway?,,

On of the reasons would be to validate edits in information-related services such as wikipedia. That iMesh is claimed to have purchased the "Lphant P2P network" is not related. This article is about the client. (Besides from the fact there is no Lphant P2P network.) Finally, if iMesh/Discordia/Merlin whomever hold the rights to the application, they will soon request from major download sites for it to be replaced with their own client. That will set the matter in wikipedia as well. Until that happens, acquisition of a domain name does not have any impact on this article.

As for Bearshare, I point you to a source from its Wikipedia article:

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22181 "It’s possible the May 3rd filing was a means to force Free Peers, Inc. into negotiations and a settlement. As part of the settlement reached on May 4th, FreePeers, Inc. will give up all intellectual property rights to the BearShare name. This includes the BearShare source code, all associated domains (over 100), and its massive user base."