Let's examine the MIT licence:
Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders]
Standard copyright string
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
In essence the recipient can do nearly anything with the Software, provided that:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
The above copyright notice (the "Copyright (c)" line) and the remainder of this notice is included "in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." - see below.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
A standard disclaimer of liability
Now, what does that condition ('The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.') mean? It means simply what it says, that the copyright notice and the licence texts needs to be included (somehow) in all copies of the Software or substantial portions of the Software. If someone therefore produces a derivative work, they need to include this text. That's what it says, no more and no less. Unlike the GPL which specifies how the text has to be included, this merely says that it needs to be included. There is no word like "prominently" describing how it has to be included. A common route is simply a text file somewhere within a binary tar-ball.
Why does the MIT licence not specify a greater degree of prominence? Apart from the fact MIT presumably felt they did not need or want that, two reasons:
This would restrict what the recipient can do. An early predecessor of the GPL says the message should be displayed "on start up of the program". How would that work in a SaaS environment for instance? If a program is composed of (inter alia) 100 MIT licensed modules, would you want 100 licenses displayed?
The purpose is (I believe) in the main to provably assert copyright (so the recipient cannot claim they did not know code was not in the public domain) and ensure the disclaimer of liability was effective (which it might not be were it omitted).
To your questions:
Is there a license that addresses this?
You haven't explained what 'this' is. Is the issue that you aren't getting credit, or that people are selling the software and making money in a 'shady' way?
If the issue is that you aren't getting credit, there are licenses (e.g. the GPL) which require more prominent attribution. However, even these may not be sufficient for you. For instance, it's quite possible to distribute products containing GPL software and not make this particularly prominent. Consider how many appliance routers etc. contain Linux. Sure, the good guys will (somewhere) mention the GPL licence, perhaps in page 98 of their click-through licence, and offer the source, but there's nothing to make them give credit.
And there is nothing to prevent people selling GPL licensed software either. Look at (e.g.) RHEL.
It's thus not evident what precisely you want to do. Perhaps you want to permit only non-commercial use of your software without some pre-arranged prominent attribution (I'm taking it that's the 'shady' you are referring to). That's fine, but that's not an open source licence (or at least not an OSI compliant licence). See for instance the answers to this question, particularly the bit mentioning that the Open Source Initiative says:
Can Open Source software be used for commercial purposes?
Absolutely. All Open Source software can be used for commercial
purpose; the Open Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell
Open Source software.
Also, the fact your current software is released under the MIT licence means that they can always use that version of the software under the MIT licence. This doesn't give them the right to future versions (derived works) under that licence though.
Or, is there any precedent that the MIT license already covers this scenario?
The MIT licence permits the behaviour you complain of, providing they include the licence text including the copyright string somewhere. They only have to include it in copies of the software, and have every right to put it behind their 'paywall', whether you like it or not.