Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Film Industry Hires Cyber Hitmen To Take Down Pirates

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the roll-for-initiative dept.

Piracy 457

thelostagency writes "Girish Kumar, managing director of Aiplex Software says his company is being hired by the film industry to attack online pirates. He says if a provider did not do anything to remove the link or content hosted on its site, his company would launch what is known as a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on the offending computer server. From the article: 'Kumar said that at the moment most of the payment for his company's services came from the film industry in India. "We are tied up with more than 30 companies in Bollywood. They are the major production houses." As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.'"

cancel ×

457 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Er, (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517100)

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

Re:Er, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517174)

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

Because niggers might use them. So if niggers might use it and it's illegal then you're a racist. So you can't make them illegal, nigga.

Re:Er, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517692)

Welcome back racist-homo-spam-bot; we've missed your posts...

Re:Er, (3, Insightful)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517338)

This was my first thought too. This should be HIGHLY illegal. This is vigilantism, plain and simple, and is completely illegal and immoral.

Re:Er, (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517396)

This should be HIGHLY illegal. This is vigilantism, plain and simple, and is completely illegal and immoral.

Let me get this straight. Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral. Hypocrisy, meet you. You, meet hypocrisy.

People wouldn't need to resort to completely illegal and immoral tactics if the offenders, to which they are absolutely forced to respond, were the least bit legal and morale in the first place. Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house. Simple solution - stop breaking into houses dummy, and then you don't have to worry about the, actions which are completely illegal and immoral, which follows.

Re:Er, (5, Insightful)

Dunderland1 (1752550) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517458)

Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house. Simple solution - stop breaking into houses dummy, and then you don't have to worry about the, actions which are completely illegal and immoral, which follows.

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

Yes, the pirates are breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the **AAs get to respond by breaking it in kind.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Er, (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517482)

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

Re:Er, (5, Insightful)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517492)

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

And yet if someone actually did that, everybody would be in agreement that it's deplorable.

There is a very good reason vigilantism is illegal.

Re:Er, (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517690)

There is a very good reason vigilantism is illegal.

And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism - they don't like the pricing, ignoring that pricing has long met their demands, so they seek their own justice by stealing.

would be in agreement that it's deplorable.

And yet piracy is cheered on as a god given right to steal because of a glorified sense of self entitlement which is all too often disguised behind dumb, inept, and hypocritical excuses.

To pirate anything and be against what the article is about means you are a hypocrite; not specifically you. To date, I've never met a pirate that wasn't a complete hypocrite. Never. Not once. Not ever. And I've met lots and discussed on-line with countless.

Where is your outrage for the people behind all the stealing? Morale people do consider piracy deplorable.

Re:Er, (4, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517806)

"And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism - they don't like the pricing, ignoring that pricing has long met their demands, so they seek their own justice by stealing."

And copyright infringement is ... wait for it ... also an illegal activity!

What pirates, or this company, have to say about the ethics of their actions is completely irrelevant. vigilante justice is not allowed because it gets disproportionate and results in feuds and wars and collateral damage, much like DoS.

"And yet piracy is cheered on as a god given right to steal because of a glorified sense of self entitlement which is all too often disguised behind dumb, inept, and hypocritical excuses."

By whom? Most people I know that pirate wholesale don't think of it as a god given right, just something they can get away with so they will. Your mistake is in trying to engage people who copy stuff by attacking their characters, which will inevitably result in irrational argument and a lot of hypocritical self justification as they still like to think of themselves as "good people". Exactly the same as what happens if you raise the environment issue.

And when it comes down to it people still find it hard to believe that swapping a few bits around from in front of your screen either has a victim or could possibly be anything illegal. It's not like you went out and shot someone.

"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.

You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?

Re:Er, (3, Interesting)

unr3a1 (1264666) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517526)

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

Lol... I see what you did there. The problem people keep forgetting is that the film industry goes after anyone they THINK is pirating their shit. They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.

Re:Er, (5, Insightful)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517626)

They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.

Actually, that is the core problem with vigilantism. It is based off of a perceived crime and usually not compared to any unbiased standards. Though how truly unbiased you can be in any case is a discussion for another topic. But the stated goal of the court systems of most developed countries is to give the accused a fair trail in front of either an unbiased judge or jury of their peers. Thus, hopefully, preventing the innocent from being punished and the guilty to be punished fairly.

What this is and many other actions of the copyright cartels, says is that they have seen the results of fair trials and don't like the results. So they have decided that they are going to write their own rules to get what they want. This is perhaps one of the better objective standards to determine when an group has gone from a lawful organization to a criminal institution.

Re:Er, (5, Funny)

halowolf (692775) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517656)

Just ask "What would Batman do?".

Re:Er, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517766)

throw a random *AA suited guy out of the window of a very tall place, only to discover that there were someone higher in rank pulling the strings or someother under in rank ready to take his place.

Re:Er, (5, Insightful)

Dr Max (1696200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517712)

Its arguable that the pirates don't steal anything. personaly i see it as closer to some one taking pictures of a painting and the gallary sending some one to there house to burn down the walls, saying "lets see you hang your photo now".

you wouldn't download a car

Re:Er, (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517720)

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

No, it's more like they are tracking them down and setting fire to every car in the parking lot. A DOS attack causes congestion and problems for more than just the person at the end of the "series of tubes".

Mod parent insightful (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517778)

Although a slim chance, a file-sharing site may have legitimate users. A DoS attack by analogy would be like pushing hordes of protesters inside a mall where some shops may be selling pirated CDs. At least the mall can restrict the right to entry and lodge a police complaint if people try to force their way in, while this may not be possible in the virtual world.

Would it be possible for the site owner to notify ISPs about this unwanted traffic and try to get some IP addresses blacklisted?

Re:Er, (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517800)

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

Or attacking them with a crowbar [youtube.com] (I couldn't find the uncensored version on the tube).

Re:Er, (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517566)

Yes it does - it works great in the middle east right now.

Is Hollywood unaware of the cheap availability of gasoline and matches? They are - really.

Assassins is a bit much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517634)

I'd go with getting someone to throw a brick thought the other guys' window.

Re:Er, (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517580)

Since the shit is stolen from monopoly abusers thieves which then exaggerate the damage to terrorize people and as a consequence keep law enforcement from going after bigger crimes, your argument doesn't hold much water. You are immoral if you pay them because you are supporting an immoral system. Google around, ask artists, see e.g. Courtney Love on piracy [salon.com] .

But, in a sense, I criticize pirates too, even if their immoral behavior makes less damage than the IP terrorists'. Piracy is not the answer. "Just Do Not Buy Their Stuff and consume/create something else and defend the right to access it" is the answer.

They won't bankrupt, as big media is a propaganda machine and will be financed some way or the other.
But you won't forfeit your integrity with piracy. And if you are thinking "The hell with my integrity", I'm beginning to think that your reaction is anticipated and sought after. Making you a criminal means you won't be able to defend your rights if you step on the toes of powerful people, and making you forget about integrity removes barriers to the acceptance of the only law that stands when you remove all other laws: "the most powerful wins".

That's why I think anonymous is a great concept used as a great deception: I prefer to be moral, and piss off the real power.

Re:Er, (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517624)

This is why its impossible to discuss this topic, in any way, on slashdot. No one wants to hear they are wrong and anyone who can explain why everything they say is both complete bullshit and only proves they are hypocrites gets moderated into the ground. The reason is simple, you can't reason with stupid.

Your rebuff means DOSing servers is okay so long as you don't pay for it. So commit fraud by agreeing to use their service by never pay for me. Gotcha! You make complete sense - and obviously have the moral high ground too.

The rest is complete bullshit too. I mean, you're comparing the damage of a couple hundred companies - at most - with theft by tends of millions of people around the world and have the brazen stupidity to claim the companies are doing far more damage. That's the literal definition of stupidity; lacking all critical thinking.

Re:Er, (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517726)

Theft leaves someone without something. Use ur brain plz. kthx ;-)

Wrong wrong wrong (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517650)

Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.

That's not the case at all and you know it.

DOS is illegal. Period. But the claim here is that if you're doing good works it's not illegal. That's bullshit. Otherwise the pirates they're taking down could make the same claim.

That's the way the law is. Something is illegal, or it isn't. If you claim to be on the side of right and good, you follow the law. Or you don't. That lets you know what the real gist of this battle is all about. This isn't about good versus evil. This is my interest versus your interest. There aren't any good guys in white hats in this battle.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517768)

But the claim here is that if you're doing good works it's not illegal. That's bullshit.

No. That absolutely is not the claim. Period.

The claim is, the hypocrisy is so blatant, its painful to read all these posts with completely irrational justification of why one crime is okay but another crime, a second crime, in response to the first crime, is somehow the worst thing to ever hit the Internet and is completely deserving of our ire while the first is to be celebrated.

As someone else already said, two wrongs don't make a right. And that statement is absolutely correct. The problem is, as usual, one wrong doesn't make a right no matter how ineptly and unintelligently others attempt to justify the behavior. Just read the surrounding threads and you'll find plenty of idiots rationalizing it in profoundly idiotic ways. Its almost impossible to find a pro-piracy post on slashdot these days which isn't completely irrational, idiocy. Its okay to steal because I'm fight'n the man! Its okay to steal because I don't like their pricing model. Its okay to steal because I'm helping their sales. Its okay to steal because I can't think my way out of a wet paper bag.

Then of course comes the, "boo-hoo, piracy isn't stealing, like, man...and I'll keep sounding unintelligent and completely off topic so I don't have to address the fact that no matter what, I'm wrong and must convince you through more idiocy I'm some how right in my immoral behavior." So on and so on... But of course, all too often, it can't even progress this far because mod-nazis know the core of anti-piracy posts are frequently completely accurate, or at least reasonably sane, so they do back flips to censor/moderate the posts so as to ensure they never have to come to terms with their hypocrisy and sheer idiocy.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517820)

That's exactly right. Copyright infringement is not stealing. OTOH some people would say that holding a copyright is itself a form of legalized theft. It is certainly not any kind of natural right. You can't own information. There is no property here. There is just an arbitrary gift from the public to the copyright holder allowing them to have an artificial monopoly over their work for a specific period of time. There is an easy way to avoid copyright infringement. Don't release your fucking work in the first place if you are so sensitive. Believe me. No one will care. The alternative is to live in a police state. Sorry I'd rather never read another book or watch another film than live in a full on police state, which is what we are headed for. So please keep your precious creative work to yourself if that's your price. It's not worth it.

Re:Er, (3, Interesting)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517772)

And when millions of downloaders decide to DDOS Aiplex Software you will have no problem with that either. Remember Make Love Not Spam [makelovenotspam.com] ? All we need is a nice screensaver like that and we can DDOS Aiplex right of the internet. The copyright infringers outnumber the copyright holders by millions to one. I'm not sure if what they want is an all out war. DDOS attacks aren't going to solve anyone's problems. All they will do is shut down the internet for everyone. Of course there are some corporations that would love to see that happen.

Re:Er, (4, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517342)

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

They are, and I really wonder if Hollywood (FTFA: "As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.") wants to really be poking ANOTHER stick into the hornets nest that the internet can be.

The way I see if, for every hundred thousand cookie cutter P2P users, there will be one who is savvy enough, annoyed enough and has the resources to return in kind to Hollywood. And there will be people like me, who don't fit in either bracket, but would certainly offer both refuge to that one person and buy them drinks for their efforts.

Re:Er, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517684)

It is useful for me . Thanks .One more word ,we supply lace wigs ,please go to(www.wigfromstar.com)

Re:Er, (2, Interesting)

Sinesurfer (40786) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517422)

So.... does the EFF sue Aiplex, the MPAA or the film owner?

(that's assuming Aiplex is careful not to upset hackers smarter than Aiplex). Do not DDOS Aiplex and if you're caught remember I told you not to do it.

Re:Er, (1)

bm_luethke (253362) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517520)

Only if they are prosecuted - indeed we have so many laws out there that it is an unusual person who would *not* violate at least something. Some figure this is by design, personally I figure the old saying of never attributing to malice what can be attributed to stupidity holds true, but YMMV. However things are only truly illegal if you are prosecuted, though they may be against the law to do what good is the law if it isn't enforced?

Further ones needs to note that *at best* this guy is doing something dishonest so we know that honesty isn't a big part of his business. As such, whilst it fits many of our (including mine) idea of something I would expect I also wouldn't get totally worked up until we heard something more substantive. After all this certainly garnered his company a great deal of press.

Really? (5, Insightful)

telekon (185072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517102)

If DDOS attacks are suddenly legal, there are a fuckton of servers I want to point at the MPAA right now.

Re:Really? (2, Insightful)

dwywit (1109409) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517120)

I suspect a certain software company - sort of rhymes with "complex" - might find its own servers suddenly subjected to the same treatment.

Re:Really? (1, Troll)

an00bis (667089) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517130)

Exactly. This may slide in India, but MPAA is out of their league if they want to get into a tech battle.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

telekon (185072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517156)

Are you suggesting that Anonymous never forgives, and Anonymous never forgets? Perhaps that none of us is as cruel as all of us?

The MPAA needs to learn the Rules of the Internet. [rulesoftheinternet.com]

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517142)

The pirates are already on Bittorrent. They know how to scale. These guys can't go far to DDoS the internet.

Re:Really? (5, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517250)

Here's a though. If computers are going to get infected anyways and turned into SPAM spewing zombies, why not modify the virus to host P2P trackers along with it? Let the blackhats and MPAA roll around in the mud and take care of our vexing problem for us =) It would kill two birds with one stone. The SPAM goes away and the MPAA gets busted as an accessory to the crime. If they don't, they still keep taking down the SPAMMERS. Win WIN!!!!!

Who has the right incentive? (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517746)

why not modify the virus to host P2P trackers along with it?

Who should do that?

Are you suggesting that I, a disinterested party, finds all the infested machines, break into them, and make sure they run P2P software such that someone else will come in and take out the machines? In that case, if I'm willing to break the law (by breaking into machines) and I don't mind spending my time on doing this work, why don't I just clean the machine myself?

Or are you suggesting that the virus _writer_ goes out of his way to attract more attention to himself from people who have lawyers and can poke law enforcement? Why is that in his interest?

Or are you suggesting that the people owning the machines running the virus finds the virus and modifies it? Why don't they just remove it?

Your plan sounds great, but who executes it?

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517274)

Is that an English or Metric fuckton?

Re:Really? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517662)

Damn, and here I was measuring these things in sh*tloads, now I have to rescale them to fucktons? And to think, it all started as only a few dangstroms wide.

Re:Really? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517380)

My guess is that it's legal if you have enough lawyers and lobbyists to whitewash it.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517556)

If DDOS attacks are suddenly legal, there are a fuckton of servers I want to point at the MPAA right now.

They aren't legal for mere mortal serfs like you. They are legal for the nobility by virtue of their divine property rights. Learn your place and bow to your masters.

Re:Really? (1)

zdzichu (100333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517582)

They are in third world, like in India.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517628)

If DDOS attacks are suddenly legal, there are a fuckton of servers I want to point at the MPAA right now.

Is that an imperial fuckton or a metric fuckton ?

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517700)

I was kinda thinkin' the same thing. I guess all is fair, now.

What could possibly go wrong. (5, Insightful)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517108)

In other news, I've decided I'm going to start shooting out the tires of cars that I witness passing on the right.

or should I be going after Ford?

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517126)

No fucking kidding. Why isn't a request being made to Interpol to have this guy and his company dragged in to face American justice for violating anti-tampering laws?

Oh that's right, it's for Big Media. Whatever they do is perfectly fine.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517196)

not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (2, Insightful)

digitallife (805599) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517262)

Just ask Canada to extradite him... They've never refused an extradition request from the US. They'll probably even get him out of another country just to extradite him.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (4, Interesting)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517264)

not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.

IANAL but surely the american companies hiring his company would be somewhat accountable wouldn't they?

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517616)

Do you have any evidence that any US companies have actually hired him to do DOS attacks?

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (3, Informative)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517658)

Do you have any evidence that any US companies have actually hired him to do DOS attacks?

FTFA:

As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.

"We are tied up with Fox STAR Studios - Star TV and 20th Century Fox - who are a joint venture company in India."

Fox Star is of course owned by News Corp. But by all means take my above comment as a hypothetical if you prefer.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517316)

That isn't true. If the packets cross though American controlled territory any where they are violating American laws. And America makes sure as much traffic as possible crosses their territory in order to be able to tap it.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (3, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517406)

That isn't true. If the packets cross though American controlled territory any where they are violating American laws. And America makes sure as much traffic as possible crosses their territory in order to be able to tap it.

Do you have a source for that? Wouldn't that mean that if you were to do something illegal then you would be charged in every country that your traffic was routed through?

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517630)

> Do you have a source for that?

It isn't true.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517756)

not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country

I believe that would be a case of "screw the rules, I have money" being trumped by "screw your money, I have nuclear weapons". More seriously, India and the US have friendly relations and very strong commercial ties, I doubt they'd refuse an extradition request any more than Canada would (and have they ever?).

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

aaron552 (1621603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517322)

Oh that's right, it's for Big Media. Whatever they do is perfectly fine.

A classic case of "Screw the rules; I have money!"

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517358)

Which is great, because most places I've lived that's entirely legal and never seems to cause a problem.

The only time it wouldn't is should you randomly decide to shift right without LOOKING first.

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (2, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517510)

Exactly correct. If anything along those lines should be illegal, it would be BEING PASSED on the right. If you're being passed on the right, move to the right!

Re:What could possibly go wrong. (2, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517764)

If you're being passed on the right, move to the right!

Ahh, Boston driving! Better advice would be "after being passed on the right, move to the right!".

So like (5, Interesting)

adversus (1451933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517110)

21st century version of a protection racket? "Do what we say or we'll beat your connections down."

Re:So like (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517202)

I think this article should be published far and wide, it's anti-product placement for the MAFIAA. Stop denial of service attacks on the Internet, abolish copyright today. Do not support organized crime, boycott MPAA today.

Re:So like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517236)

21st century version of a protection racket?

"Do what we say or we'll beat your connections down."

Bad analogy. You can call it vigilante justice but it's nothing like a protection racket.

Re:So like (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517610)

re protection racket?
Thats a nice movie you have, like to reviewed, rated, shown in competition, press access, got many screens yet?

Re:So like (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517318)

Not just that but unless India has a law going by the name DMCA, he's using US law, from a base in India to warn sites that could be anywhere else to remove their material, then DoSing them.

It's not just bad, wrong and (in some jurisdictions) criminal, it's fscking nuts!

Re:So like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517356)

You know you can say 'fuck' on /. right? No one cares.

Re:So like (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517552)

Well aware but after years of dodging email filters and triggers on other sites it's become second nature.

Re:So like (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517442)

Essentially, if the Justice Department, and more importantly DHS and 'CyberCommand' doesn't step in hear and shut this down as willful domestic 'cyber-terrorism', their existence and purpose is officially complete and utter bullshit.

As far as I know, these DoS attacks will be on the same networks that they are so hell bent on protecting from the evil entities over-seas. I guess if Corporations attack citizens online its ok, but if it crosses international boundary, it's suddenly technological warfare.

And as for Aiplex? Aside from the fact that you can't defeat piracy, it's always good to know who your enemy is. Thanks for the announcement.

/hates using the word 'cyber' as much as anyone else
//can't believe the MPAA still thinks these efforts will stamp out piracy

Re:So like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517472)

21st century version of a protection racket? "Do what we say or we'll beat your

Well, in these times of war [wikipedia.org] and conflict..

Cool, now we can measure the effect of piracy. (5, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517124)

Let's see a graph of how their earnings went up during the attack.

People want to pirate Bollywood films? (0)

Sirusjr (1006183) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517148)

This is interesting but I am surprised that there is even a demand online for people to download bollywood films. I think any web site who refuses to comply with a takedown notice deserves what they get.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films? (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517188)

Bollywood is bigger in its region than Hollywood is in the US. Not so much in the US, though.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517280)

When I first heard the term Bollywood I thought it was meant to describe Uwe Boll-caliber movies. Oddly enough this turned out to be fairly accurate. They aren't so dissimilar after all.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films? (1)

Kinky Bass Junk (880011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517258)

Being Bollywood isn't the point - if it is happening in their industry it will happen in Hollywood, too.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517364)

... and all the infrastructure in the way does too? The words "collateral damage" mean anything to you?

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films? (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517584)

This is interesting but I am surprised that there is even a demand online for people to download bollywood films.

That's because you obviously have not seen this! [youtube.com]

This will have the same impact as (3, Interesting)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517160)

Pissing on a bonfire...

Sounds reasonable to me. (5, Interesting)

jafo (11982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517206)

Because DoS attacks never harm innocent bystanders like the ISP, *THEIR* ISP, or other customers of either of them.

We have enough problems with DoS attacks launched by miscreants. So, yeah, maybe some of these ISPs don't take reports seriously, but I do know that not all "copyright enforcement" type actions are well researched...

This one time we got a DMCA takedown notice from a software vendor in Australia for a site run by a department of a local university, for running an unlicensed copy of their software. The DMCA takedown notice was sent to my company because they "couldn't find the contact information" *FOR A UNIVERSITY*. I found it by clicking on the "contact" link on the page they made the takedown request for.

Turns out that the university *DID* have a license for the software, BTW.

I know it's annoying when your stuff gets stolen, but don't go attacking people.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (1)

jvillain (546827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517330)

I can see the ISP's breaking out the law suites here. They have been looking for some pay back for the *AA and this just might be their ticket.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517534)

I know it's annoying when your stuff gets stolen, but don't go attacking people.

Yes it is annoying when someone physically removes my stuff so I am deprived of that stuff.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517812)

God, I wish everyone like you would give it a rest and stop being semantic shitheads. I know you've brainwashed yourself into thinking you're some kind of innocent angel every time you steal something, but piracy is using a product without paying for it. Whether it's theft or it's copyright infringement, you're a crook for doing it. Get over yourself.

No kidding (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517604)

All I've got to say is if we see this on our (a university) network, we will go after them. Conveniently we've got a company name now and them admitting who hired them. I'll be looking up some IPs and adding them to our network monitors. If these guys decide to DoS our network, we'll get the logs and turn it over to the lawyers and the police.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517728)

I suspect the takedown was sent by an automated copyright-enforcement bot. That explains why it was unable to look up contact information.

1. Join torrent.
2. Get IPs.
3. Whois IPs.
4. Send takedown to the addresses returned in 3.

Of course this creates numerous false positives - IPs change, multible users behind NAT, outdated contact info, and even completly unrelated files that just happen to share the same name (Such happened with the text-based adventure game Doom 3 when a much bigger-budget game of the same name was released). But sending out DMCA notices are cheap, and when they are sent falsely it's the bystander who recieves them that has to pay to clean up the mistake. So why should the enforcer care about double-checking?

And this is legal how? (2, Insightful)

pavera (320634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517384)

Pretty sure DoS attacks have landed many a hacker with extraordinarily long prison sentences... So when are we raiding the corporate HQs of the hollywood studios?!?

Re:And this is legal how? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517428)

This isn't legal. Mr Girish Kumar is actually admitting that his company is committing criminal offenses.
Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, but civil matter.
He can argue all he likes that his targets are breaking the law, but that does not give him the right to break the law in response. The courts take a dim view of this type if vigilantism.

Re:And this is legal how? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517606)

Unless you steal from a cable/satellite operator, then its a criminal offense.

DDOS on aiplex.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517386)

There would also be a possibility of a DDOS on aiplex.com....

What about shared servers? (2, Insightful)

MrClever (70766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517440)

My websites generally sit on shared servers. What if a different customer on the same server as my sites hosts something subject one of these DDoS attacks? Answer: I'm boned!! Yeh great idea geniuses! Like others, if these sort of attacks are now legal, then I've got my hitlist ready to go.

An Indian should note the law of karma-sanskara (1)

woboyle (1044168) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517446)

Cause and effect - I suspect that this company is going to regret such actions, and in a big way.

How is he going to pull it off? (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517474)

DDOS attacks require a ton of people to properly work. Torrents sites are going to have a very large bandwidth and the ability to service many clients at the same time. So he's probably going to need more than one company to do it.

Secondly, if they're all in the same company, chances are they have a similar IP range - which means that any admin worth his salt can disconnect them from the network.

Of course, if they use a botnet, to do so - which is probably the only plausable way - they're going to be breaking quite a few international laws - and get sued into oblivion.

So yeah, I think this is going to end up in tears.

Re:How is he going to pull it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517536)

what is going to be the best deal is that when someone is using torent for like just some linux isos and using it legally than they get hit with ddos attacks from these shenanigans then there will be big lawsuit problems....bc not all people use p2p for just sharing copyrighted material...so this will be interesting...especially when they were stupid enough to advertise it thru the news...now everybody can get in on the class action lawsuit.....

Re:How is he going to pull it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517678)

A) Learn to write English, thanks.
B) DDOS'ing individual torrent users is just not feasible for about a million different reasons, they're going to go after websites that serve up torrents.
C) The torrent sites they're targeting are ones that explicitly host copyrighted material, and most Linux ISOs use decentralized tracking anyway.

Summation: you're dumb and you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:How is he going to pull it off? (1)

snookums (48954) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517730)

Actually, TFA implies that it's not a DDoS, but some other kind(s) of DoS being used. Perhaps something like Slowloris [wikipedia.org] , or exploiting other unreleased server vulnerabilities.

Re:How is he going to pull it off? (1)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517770)

Yep, makes sense, even with the ease of buying botnets on the underbellies of the net, that technique has a very limited list of counters. There is even a windows version *shudders*

Re:How is he going to pull it off? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517826)

ah, wondered why it was getting difficult to get through to PB these days... and several other torrent sites seem to be having problems as well... very dastardly attack...

Re:How is he going to pull it off? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517796)

DDoS attacks require a ton of *bandwidth* to work. If you have the budget, there's no reason you can't just buy a business-grade 10-gigabit fiber connection.

Actually, you don't need that much if you know the right tricks. There is a program called Slowloris, or another called Anoctopus - from what I gather, Anoctopus was written in C by someone in Anonymous for their own use, and Slowloris was written by an actual security researcher based on the Anoctupus source. Either one of them could easily kill a torrent tracker in only a hundred k/sec of traffic, and any webserver not explicitly configured to defend against such an attack.

Links to the company in question, please visit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517642)

About aiplex [aiplex.com]

Aiplex Software Pvt. Ltd. is one of the leading providers of healthcare (Medical Transcription), Net Vigilance (Anti movie piracy) and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) services to clients across the globe.

Aiplex has a blend of technology savvy & process driven dedicated team bringing about a paradigm shift in rendering customized solutions to its clients. We have steadily grown in reach and service offerings with a favorable cost-benefit ratio & keeping pace with the emerging business needs of our customers.

HIOOOOO (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517680)

Be interesting to see what happens when someone "In country" gets ddos'ed and their base commander considers losing his uplink an act of war.

Spammers as well as script kiddies. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33517716)

Five minutes on Google, and they already look like tools. They're amateur spammers, too. I find it hard to believe anyone hired them for anything. Why don't you have a look yourself, and if you wish, tell these utter clowns what you think about their business methods?

+91 95386 66666
+91 98451 28280
karan@aiplex.com
rajani@aiplex.com
girish@aiplex.com
mahesh_r_blr@hotmail.com
+91 80 2503 5411
www.onlineantimoviepiracy.com
www.reportmoviepiracy.com

Aiplex Founded in 2003 provides net Vigilance services & is a leading provider of Windows-based Network Vulnerability & security Solutions that enable corporations to safely conduct business operations via Internet. The following are the solutions rendered to various clients across the globe.
a)Search engine optimization
b)Medical Transcription services
c)Email marketing / e-campaign
d)Business solution & Statistical Analysis
e)Net Vigilance (The complete corporate / Media security for copyright contents)

Net Vigilance
We are proud to claim that we are the only Net vigilant company in the Globe thus far to provide unprecedented services on Internet based piracies. To eradicate piracy at its best possible, we strategically follow some of the best practices outlined below;
a)Finding the links of the unauthorized content using appropriate software which co-relates the copy right / licensed material in any given format.
b)A detailed statistical analysis of the site which has such pirated content would be made available on a weekly/fortnight basis - they are so called the very enemies to the creator.
c)Our 24/7 net vigilant agents & customer support team will have a rigorous check on video sharing communities and do regular check ups for copy right deviation.
d)We shall approach the service provider with the authenticated links of the unscrupulous pirated products being uploaded & appeal them to remove the content/file by sending legal notice / request letter for violation of copyrights.
e)Our 24/7-support team would also prevent the damage by sending instant legal notices to the service provider & block the account for deviating copyright laws.

Techniques used in identifying & preventing the copyright damage
a)We shall promote various articles in leading forums & reiterate the pros & cons of copy right deviation.
b)Creating accounts in popular social network communities and inviting people to contribute in locating the unscrupulous videos or duplication of an original recording for commercial gain without the consent of owners.
c)Conducting torrent search with torrent Meta sites using software.
d)Conducting music search with music meta sites
e)Conducting video search with video spotters and video sharing meta search engines
f)We can prevent by sending a strict warning notice/legal notice to certain service provider who invite their clients to upload videos & movies for the benefit of having more traffic to their site.
g)We can provide the copyright infringement articles which helps the company to promote and update their method of protection against the piracy.
h)We will seek advice from various technology forums that are implemented which could help the copyright content owners to protect their material against piracy.

Aiplex Net Vigilance strength lies in DATA BASE
We have a huge database of popular forums, search engines, torrents, video sharing communities, blogs & social networking communities which can be used to reduce the rate of piracy growth in Bollywood.
a)We have a list of 14500 leading torrents where movies are uploaded currently.
b) A list of 97 leading movie uploading sites where people are allowed to upload more than 1GB single file is available with us.
c)A mega list of 40000 plus forums where general discussion are made will have high impact while we invite aspirants to share views or locate the pirated content on web will surely reduce piracy.
d)A list of leading 159 video sharing communities where videos in any forms are uploaded can be on a rigorous check for any new uploads.
e)Aiplex has accounts in all social network communities, blogs, video sharing communities not only in its brand name, but also with duplicate names to identify and monitor various uploads.

For further details
Aiplex Software Pvt. Ltd
No. 2943/E, 1st floor, Opp Maruthi Mandir,
Service Road, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040, Tel: +91 80 2330 5411/12/13
Mobile: +91 97393 68832

Sauce for the goose (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 3 years ago | (#33517754)

If political parties can hold entire cities and states to ransom for their jingoistic agendas like enforcing the use of their regional languages, or as a protest to some trivial insult to some historic figures, or for banning a book that 'hurts' their 'religious or cultural feelings', or thrash people up for trying to celebrate Valentine's Day, there is no doubt a DoS attack would be condoned even if illegal.

Ironically, certain aspects of the Indian cyber laws are really draconian, paranoid and against free speech (which is only a right with stipulations in India). Unfortunately, nobody cares.

Idiots even think the UID program will help thwart terrorism, and they don't realise that it would only be another tool in hands of politicians, bureaucrats and the police to harass citizens even more than they are doing now.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>