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!

US Copyright Group — Lawsuits, DDoS, and Bomb Threats

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the fighting-fire-with-bombs dept.

Piracy 365

Andorin writes "The US law firm of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, otherwise known as the US Copyright Group, filed suit at the end of August against another 2,177 individuals for allegedly downloading and sharing the slasher film Cornered! (In total the USCG has now filed suit against over 16,200 individuals.) In retaliation, Operation Payback, the Anonymous-led project responsible for DDoSing websites of the RIAA and MPAA, targeted the US Copyright Group's website with a DDoS, temporarily bringing it down for a few hours. The group behind the attacks say they'll continue 'until they stop being angry.' Additionally, the local police department evacuated the office of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver after a bomb threat was emailed to the firm. The building was searched, but no bomb was found."

cancel ×

365 comments

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

Not Justifying The Actions ... (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770102)

I'm not justifying the actions of those who made the bomb threat or who are behind the DDoS attacks, but if US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms. They think they can do as they wish just because they're lawyers, etc, but they're discovering that the public doesn't like a bully, plain and simple.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (4, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770114)

This reminds me of what happened to Darl McBride after the SCO suits started. It got so bad that he began carrying a handgun at all times.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770140)

... in case he suddenly realized what a dick he was decided to kill himself.

And you believed him? (4, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770640)

Then why weren't any of the "threats" ever followed up by the local cops or FBI?

No, McBride was just attempting to paint anyone who opposed him as criminally violent.

With the resources of SCO at his disposal, they should have been able to identify ONE person who made a threat via email and parade that person in front of the media.

Instead, there is nothing.

I am... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770208)

When the government doesn't protect individuals, the companies harassing them are supposed to face public backslash proportional to the damage they cause. IE: When they harass thousands and ruin hundreds of lives for profit, they can and should be willing to expect pretty much anything. That's what happens when government doesn't do what it is supposed to: A small step towards anarchy.

That all aside, I don't expect that Anonymous will ever do anything serious as they are mostly doing things for personal amusement.

Re:I am... (0, Flamebait)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770824)

Wait...

So, the government is supposed to protect people who are breaking the law from being prosecuted for breaking the law?

How does that work exactly?

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1, Flamebait)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770224)

Sorry, but I hate those "I'm not justifying, but..." comments. A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it. Yes, they are trolls, but it doesn't mean that every thing is fair in the name of "retaliation". Or as the saying goes "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly.
In my country there have been a few cases of violence against doctors by angered patients or their families. Whenever there is a news item about such a case you see the inevitable comment: "I am not justifying violence, but sometimes doctors can be such assholes/jerks/arrogant bastards/whatever and they just deserve a few blows to straighten them up".
I would have worded the sentence differently: "If the US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully, they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms, however, this does not justify bomb threats." I will refrain from using the FTFY word :)

I think we know exactly where all this is headed.. (4, Insightful)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770248)

That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group." Then you can bet every agency will want "in" on the action; busting a bunch of (misguided) geeks is a lot safer than going after heavily armed drug dealers and much easier than tracking down serial killers.

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770298)

Do you want the agencies in charge of these things to not go after people who make bomb threats? It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase. I would like to see said agencies going after people making bomb threats to make sure they don't start to make real bombs.

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770490)

Anyone making bomb threats needs to be found, arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you act like a terrorist or terrorist organization then you should be treated as one.

If my original post gave the impression that I thought a bomb threat was OK I'd like to clear that up right now: Bomb threats are unacceptable and should never be tolerated.

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770732)

bomb threats are hilarious and should be encouraged

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770782)

bomb threats are hilarious and should be encouraged

note to everyone...

I put a bomb in /., y'all better run!

*waits for +5 funny*

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770828)

And that is funny, how...?

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770508)

But is it known for sure that the same group did the bomb threat as did the DDOS?

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770528)

Making bomb threats is terrorism. Here's a definition of the word -
        the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770606)

That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group." Then you can bet every agency will want "in" on the action; busting a bunch of (misguided) geeks is a lot safer than going after heavily armed drug dealers and much easier than tracking down serial killers.

"Whah! I want my Mommy!

The Feds are at the door because I have been playing with C4!"

Here again, the geek presents himself as a misunderstood and persecuted minority --- but in a very strange juxtaposition with the drug dealer and serial killer.

     

Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770888)

That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group."

And rightly so. They certainly fit the definition.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770292)

>>>A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it.

Disagree. I think a bomb threat is no big deal either. And it accomplished the goal (costs the assholes.... oops I mean the lawyers one day of nonproductivity). Now if they used an actual bomb... then yes they crossed the line.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770340)

See my comment above [slashdot.org] to see what I think about the thin line between bomb threats and real bombs. To quote myself: "It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase."
Sorry for being redundant, but I really am worried about "pranks" like these.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770410)

By that logic we should stop allowing private ownership of knives. It only takes one nutcase to cross that thin line between butchering a cow and stabbing a human.

Or we could just accept the fact that 0.001% of humans are nutters and will do stupid stuff regardless, so there's no point punishing the other 99.999% of sane persons who use various tools responsibly.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770514)

I'd argue bombing a copyright troll might be a responsible use of such tool.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770534)

Well, this argument can extend to any piece of equipment and any action, because every tool can be used for good and evil and any action can have positive and negative outcomes. Scissors and bombs alike can be used for good stuff and for terrorists attacks. I guess the amount of regulation you put around something depends on the probability that it can be used for bad purposes.
Scissors - Really useful tools that for them your 0.001% statistics is probably correct, and maybe even an overestimation, thus we allow their unregulated use.
Bombs - Really useful tools that are more commonly used for malicious purposes. I don't want to pull numbers out of the hat, but I guess 0.001% is a low estimate, that together with their high potential for damage, require that we regulate them.

Back to my original topic: The logic applied above can be used to assess how we react to an "innocent" bomb threat. In a group of people with more extreme ideals, who have shown to be men of action, there is a higher chance to find a nutcase and thus I expect law enforcement agencies to respond to this "prank" more seriously. Actually this is classical Bayesian probabilities - in the Operation Payback group you have a higher pre-test probability of finding a nutcase than in the general population.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770716)

By that logic we should stop allowing private ownership of knives

Knives have been regulated - and some types banned - for something like 200 years. Knife Laws [ebladestore.com]

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770438)

Disagree. I think a bomb threat is no big deal either.

You, sir, are an idiot if you truly think a bomb threat is no big deal.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770488)

Yeah, because we know how often bomb threats end up being real bombs, especially when e-mailed. Quite honestly, unless someone physically comes in, shows a suspicious package and says "I have a bomb" no one should be worried at all. Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out. There have been lots of bombings but if your idea is to blow shit up, or kill people, you don't call in threats. Our idea of "OMG A BOMB THREAT WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!1111!111!11!" has no basis in fact.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770670)

Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out.

I beg to differ [wikipedia.org] . This is just off the top of my head (Since I'm Israeli, I remember this incident). I'm sure there were other incidents throughout history, usually when a terrorist group wanted to perform an act that would be publicized, but with minimal damage to human lives.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770858)

Lets face it, there really hasn't been a single incident where a bomb threat was called in and carried out.

Oh, so I guess the IRA were a fictional organisation after all.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (0, Troll)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770458)

Try living in fear of some random nutjob blowing you up for a few months and then come tell us bomb threats are OK as a means to a political ends.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770526)

You mean, like working in central London before the Good Friday Agreement? Oh, that's right, everyone got on with his life and didn't "live in fear", even though some of the bombs were real.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770792)

It is sometime frustrating when having to deal with American and Western-Europeans (sorry for the generalization to come), that you realize they really do not understand what it is to deal with terrorism. In the late-1990's when there was a series of terrorist attacks in Israel, people were afraid to leave their home, they didn't go on buses (because there were many suicide attacks on buses) and many did not go out except for work. I had a girlfriend (yes, yes this is /.) that nearly had a panic attack when I went on a bus. My example is from Israel, because that's what I know, but it surely is relevant to many other places (Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Belfast in the '90s).
I know people that after 9/11 were glad that least now the Americans will understand what it is to have a terrorist attack on their homeland (sorry, not trying to Troll, just reporting hearsay).
So, no, it's not like people can just "get on with their life" that easy. In place that have had many terrorist attacks a bomb threat is taken seriously by everyone involved.

There WAS an actual bomb involved ... (3, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770700)

The building was searched, but no bomb was found.

They just failed to find a copy of the bomb^Wmovie [imdb.com] that they accused people of downloading. This bomb (title: "Cornered!") was a direct-to-dvd turkey that was already shown on TV in Hungary [imdb.com] . It's not nearly as highly rated as the 1945 film Cornered [imdb.com] .

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (5, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770326)

On the one hand, doing things like this makes 'Anonymous' look bad, and by association, then makes what they are supporting look bad and hands ammunition to the MafiAA and bully groups whose perspective is "fuck the consumer, down with consumer rights."

On the other hand, simply protesting verbally and writing letters, even writing letters to congresscritters, seems to do only two things: jack and shit.

And on the gripping hand...

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770370)

+5 just for the Motie reference.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (2, Funny)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770798)

On the one hand, doing things like this makes 'Anonymous' look bad, and by association, then makes what they are supporting look bad and hands ammunition to the MafiAA and bully groups whose perspective is "fuck the consumer, down with consumer rights."

They do far more harm than that. They make opposing current copyright laws look bad in the eyes of the average citizen. To get any real change you must have a majority of the citizenry on your side. Then real political pressure can be applied in a legit manner. Pulling stupid stunts like this paints anyone advocating change in this area in a negative light.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (0, Troll)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770906)

Sorry. In a democracy, you don't always get what you want. You need majority support. Resorting to violence to bully the majority will (hopefully) get you a taste of your own medicine.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770346)

Of course, you may just be from the UK, where you have the options to state that acts of the government's definition of terror are wrong or to risk up to 7 years in prison [legislation.gov.uk] .

Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.

whats that mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770364)

Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.

Whats that mean?

Re:whats that mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770854)

It's sarcasm. Preventing people from voicing their opinions in public, even (or especially) when they're idiots, will drive them underground where they form groups like e.g. the KKK. I think history tells us what follows.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770434)

A person commits an offence if-- (a)he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b)at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he--
(i)intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii)is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.

I'm glad I don't live in th UK (or EU in general). If I did I'd probably be arrested multiple times over for my anti-government/ pro-"killing tyrants like mussolini is acceptable" statements.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (3, Interesting)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770374)

Fighting terrorism with terrorism only seems fair.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770754)

It's only terrorism [npr.org] if we're the ones doing it.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (2, Insightful)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770512)

A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb? There is no justifying it.

There fixed that for you.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly.

A prank phone call is now violence?

Phillip.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770846)

If I say to you that I will "kick the shit out of you", is it violence? I was just threatening, not really hitting you. Of course, it depends on context and intent, but you catch my drift.
BTW, using FTFY implies that you know what I mean better than I do, which is quite arrogant and this is why I refrained from using it in my original post.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (3, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770584)

"A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it."

I believe you are confusing a bomb threat with an actual bombing.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770890)

No, I'm not.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770330)

They also get the chance to realize, that they're totally helpless against that group, just like most of the people they filed lawsuits against. Bravo! Let them understand, that they will physically have to deal with their actions (e.g. not getting any work done during the bomb-threat).
And they will strike down with furious anger...

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770388)

Who cares about justifications when there's nothing to do to make these greedy constructs of apathetic individuals stop?

These huge systems consist of little more than little individuals, who only care about their jobs and paychecks. They don't care if their job is unethical because "I'm just working here". "It's my job" is not an excuse to leave responsibility at the door and let company lawyers deflect the backlash.

I hope some of these attacks remind even some of the people that they can't hide in big machines and pretend to be innocent little cogs of it. Someone's going to bear responsibility and if a big machine is all made of little people, then those little people are going to be that someone. Each individually and alone.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770536)

I'm not justifying the actions of those who made the bomb threat or who are behind the DDoS attacks, but if US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms. They think they can do as they wish just because they're lawyers, etc, but they're discovering that the public doesn't like a bully, plain and simple.

I'd be very much surprised if a measurable fraction of "the public" has ever heard of the US Copyright Group -

or the bomb threat.

Google News (at 11:30 AM ET) returns only two hits for the story, one from TorrentFreak. No surprise there.

Slashdot completes the circle.

On the record, whenever the geek does get his day in court, the jury tends to hammer him into the marble flooring. The outside world isn't as friendly as it seems.

Which is what makes the bomb threat so stupid and so dangerous.

Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770660)

This sort of behavior is going to continue until the laws are changed. Unfortunately the public at large is still very unaware of copyright issues (If they were more aware of copyright issues, they might find themselves getting sued less.) Also, any candidate running on IP Reform issue will find his opponent to be extremely well funded by the entertainment industry. I doubt the Democrats or Republicans would take such a candidate either since they're both suckling at the teat of the entertainment industry (The Democrats more that the Republicans last I checked.)

So assuming you manage to win with your underfunded independent ticket campaign, good luck persuading the other members of your branch of Congress to sign on for a bill that changes anything.

This would have been a good year to run though. I'm sure there's a pro-baby-punching tea party candidate out there you could run against, which would give you the best odds in decades of getting some votes.

Anonymous (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770104)

Not so cowardly...

Re:Anonymous (1)

RMS Eats Toejam (1693864) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770220)

Brains take a backseat to bravery.

Huzza for those responsible. (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770148)

Hip, hip

Re:Huzza for those responsible. (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770362)

Nuh-uh.

Pranks, yeah. Making their lives miserable through perfectly legal means, yeah, I can smile at it (e.g. when Mr. Ralsky got a taste of his own spammy medicine a few years back... those were good times).

OTOH, breaking the law is only good for those willing to challenge an unjust law. Notice that the US Civil Rights Movement didn't resort to breaking other laws to make a point - they only broke the unjust ones. Most importantly, they were willing to take the punishment for it, in order to point out to the world at large just how unjust those laws were. That's the whole point of civil disobedience.

While, yeah, I have zero love for a law firm that engages in the RIAA/MPAA's tactics, the best way to make one's point is to do so w/o breaking other, more important laws.

What this would accomplish (at least if done large-scale or over time) is to provide fodder to make existing laws even more draconian, and to allow government(s) to step in and regulate the Internet even more, which none of us want.

Re:Huzza for those responsible. (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770450)

The Civil Rights Movement did break some "just" rules however, like those limiting demonstrations to only "free speech zones" and/or off public streets.

Re:Huzza for those responsible. (1)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770368)

...BOOMMmmm

Hmmmmm (1)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770168)

I'm a little worried about the direction this is heading. I wouldn't be surprised if individuals who work for these firms will start to be publically identified and their private lives targetted. It is one thing to ddos, when when threats of violence are made the game is moving into a completely different ballpark. There are enough nutters out there and one of them could easily get worked up and do something daft.

Re:Hmmmmm (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770246)

"I wouldn't be surprised if individuals who work for these firms will start to be publically identified and their private lives targetted."

That's exactly what needs to happen, copyright and corporations have shown themselves to want nothing more then a monopoly, and turn customers and citizens of the world into serfs where the rent everything in perpetuity. WHere ownership rights on the customer end are being rescinded and quite frankly copyright will always be abused it goes against our rights to own what we purchase outright and modify it as we see fit.

I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings. We've seen how free market ideology works in the real world where there are no scruples and money makes the rules and if you don't have money your voice doesn't matter. We're already in an era of corporate dictatorship of policy to such an insidious degree.

Why exactly would you want more of it? Right now the economy, government and law is so twisted by the structures of power that be, we need constant resistance and less ideological infighting of right vs left, left and right simply doesn't matter, these are distractions from the main issues - the removal of our liberties and rights as human beings view the market mechanism. We're seeing how money and markets can be transform a society into a society of serfs, any system can be gamed, transformed and abused, how so many people can't see this is disturbing.

Re:Hmmmmm (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770338)

We're seeing how money and markets can be transform a society into a society of serfs, any system can be gamed, transformed and abused, how so many people can't see this is disturbing.

How most people can't see this is quite a mystery unless you are willing to entertain the idea that people are not naturally this blind and must be trained to be this way [cantrip.org] . Then you realize this is the main reason for having a government-run public school system [johntaylorgatto.com] . The mystery then disappears but a sense of relief is not forthcoming, because it took a few generations to make things this way and may well take a few generations to begin to undo the damage.

Re:Hmmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770570)

Actually, the main reason for having a government-run public school system is so that you don't have uneducated voters; or at least that was Jefferson's idea.

Re:Hmmmmm (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770748)

Then you realize this is the main reason for having a government-run public school system.

Sometimes I wonder how this trash gets modded up. Pretty much all modern countries have public schools because otherwise kids wouldn't get any school at all. See the whole third world as an example, lack of education is a huge blocker for prosperity. The reason we have teacher's degrees and curriculum is because otherwise we'd have no quality control and no assurances that kids would get out of school knowing even the minimum about the world they ought to. Why is creationism so prevalent in the US as opposed to everywhere else? Because you can pull your kids out of school and teach them whatever you like. And not how reproduction works and what a condom is for. Can homeschooling or private schools be better than public schools? Yes. Can they be worse? Absolutely. At a minimum, you have to deal with a lot of other kids that aren't like you and don't think like you. By far the most narrow-minded and with the most twisted world views I've met have been American and home schooled. Granted, so have some of the brightest but it seems to bring out both kinds of extremes.

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770836)

I actually spent some time reading your links. Then I talked to my wife (who is a school teacher) about it, and she simply replied that all of this is well known. She said the question isn't what is happening but how to deal with it. Children do need to learn something about conformity since that is going to be important to them as adults in society, unless you think we can have a world full of unibombers and be OK. There is value in questioning the system, hell I've been doing it my whole life and never gained a damn thing from it, but the reality is you can't just criticize and expect everyone else to come up with a solution.

Re:Hmmmmm (2, Informative)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770342)

I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings.

You are confusing explicit support with apathy and ignorance. I know an argument could be made that they are equivalent, but the truth is the people who care AND are willing to act is such a small percentage that the organized actors (corporations and law firms) are the only ones who are effective at advancing their agenda.

Re:Hmmmmm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770480)

So what. If you work for an a$$hole company, you need to be willing to live with the consequences.

Evil begets evil (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770268)

Individuals who work for these firms can always chose to stop being evil, thereby reducing their risk.

Re:Hmmmmm (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770296)

You say it like it's a bad thing. It's the only way the lawyers will put any thought into what they're doing. Those folks(the lawyers in this case) are out to ruin lives. Those guys pay firms to DDos you, hack you, stalk you, put malware on your computer, and finally litigate you to death, just for uploading a few songs. Do you think the Jammie Thomas case, even the more lenient judgement, is justice?

If anything, it sounds like Anonymous is trying to beat the thugs at their own game. Let's hope that they succeed.

Re:Hmmmmm (2, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770378)

I wouldn't be surprised to see some congresscritter use this as an example to introduce legislation that makes all of our lives just a little bit worse, by regulating the unholy shit out of the Internet.

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770590)

I wouldn't be surprised to see some congresscritter use this as an example to introduce legislation that makes all of our lives just a little bit worse, by regulating the unholy shit out of the Internet.

So what? Let'em try. "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770386)

Ultimately I agree with you. It's just a real shame that there hasn't been any voice of reason here to actually take a more appropriate action.

But the way things have been going for a while, the likelihood of an insurrection has been increasing in recent years. While this isn't really that scale, if the authorities aren't mindful all the anger by various groups could very easily solidify into some form of rebellion.

Ultimately, it would primarily be the fault of the politicians that stir up fear and anger for political gain, ie., primarily conservative politicians.

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

arielCo (995647) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770428)

+1, Interesting. But the purpose of a bomb threat is to disrupt, to nag them silly. Nutters get cues from everything and amplify them, so it's been too late since a noticeable number first chanted FUCK THE *AA.

On the other hand, the ones calling the shots are surely responsible for the legal harassment and its financial/emotional/misc consequences, so why not give them a taste or two of that?

Re:Hmmmmm (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770546)

Sure. Rather than just clicking a few mouse buttons, or VoIPing a prank call, one may suddenly heave his lard ass out of his swivel chair, pick up a baseball bat, drive all the way to a lawyers office, sneak past security, and batter one of them to death. I mean, it's a pretty thin line huh?

Phillip.

There's more to it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770172)

This only happened after Aiplex Software was contracted to DDoS attack file sharing web sites:

http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/an-interview-with-anonymous/ [pandasecurity.com]

Anonymous Symbol (1)

hachete (473378) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770184)

Anonymous surely need it's own symbol by now.

It was bad of me, but I did chuckle when I heard of this.

Re:Anonymous Symbol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770838)

There is. Several, actually.

Green oval head with question mark.
Suited man with no head.
Suit with the green oval head.
Guy Fawkes Mask, after the film made it popular since it rung many of the same bells behind the Anonymous movement. (one of the phrases becoming part of the groups sayings)
There is one with a globe with the suit as well, with arrowed flower shapes coming in from the left and right sides to the bottom.
That is just a few of them that come to mind.

But the whole idea of a logo for an Anonymous group is sort of backwards, really.
Anonymous is everyone. Anonymous is no one. To be assigned a logo assigns an identity.

I wonder (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770186)

if Slashdotters will respond in the same way they would if someone called in a bomb threat to one of the many abortion clinics known for doing illegal late-term abortions

Re:I wonder (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770274)

Why -1 Troll? Bomb threats are dangerous weapons and I consider them a form of violence. They are no more appropriate here than they are in the GP's example. Remember, there are many people in the office being "attacked", not just greedy lawyers. There are assistants, secretaries, paralegals and more. Do all of them need to suffer because of their boss(es)? They are just hones people trying to make a living. Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770400)

Um... invoking Godwin here but the "I just did what I was told, I'm just a gear in the machine" excuse went out circa 1945 when we saw what that can lead to. If you are supporting them, you are supporting them.

Re:I wonder (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770554)

I think there is small difference between supporting the Nazi war machine and being a secretary in a law-firm dealing with copyright infringement lawsuits. And yes, you have won the Godwin award for this thread. Congratulations, you have a choice of a teddy bear or $10 coupons to Nazi-R-Us superstore.

Re:I wonder (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770616)

Because only you consider it a form of violence and nobody else does. A prank phone call is not violence, and no matter how much insisting the contrary will make it so.

The assistants and secretaries just get to goof off work for around half an hour at their employers expense. Smokers get an excuse to have another ciggie. I've been evacuated through bomb threats in London, it's no big deal.

Phillip.

Re:I wonder (3, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770622)

Why -1 Troll?

It's begging the question. The question is phrased to make you accept, as a fact, without presenting evidence, that there are 'many abortion clinics known for doing illegal late-term abortions'. So long as there's an overriding argument that violence can be justifed if it's in self defense or support of the law, then the Troll AC is claiming that violence CAN sometimes be appropriate, AND he's advancing a claim that the abortion clinics are doing something that does make it appropriate. He uses the word "many" to imply that the actions are so common the legal system must be ignoring a violation of the law deliberately, and "known", without specifying if it's 'known' to a legal standard, or just 'known' by somebody having started a rumor without any evidence.

      Abortion is also a much bigger hot-button issue than the RIAA. The chance of rational discourse drops when Abortion is brought up, and on Slashdot, the chance of people managing to discuss a local hot topic such as the RIAA was already low. (Hell, the way Slashdot is these days, the chance of rationality is too low even without it being a sensitive topic).

Re:I wonder (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770866)

You understood his sentence as a way to excuse violence against some causes. I understood it in a different way: Slashdotters are ready to accept such acts as bomb threats when they are aimed at law-firm that "hunt down" copyright infringers, but if it was a bomb threat against something that Slashdotters usually (as a hypothetical homogeneous group) support (e.g. abortions) their opinion might have been different. Yes, his wording was a bit provocative, but since it was used to uncover the hypocracy of some of the comments here, I don't thing it deserves the Troll designation.

Re:I wonder (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770832)

Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?

Accepting that the employer's business decisions were so horrible that a bomb threat against the employer himself is morally justified, then yes, that would be OK. All the assistants and secretaries are helping their evil employer by continuing to work there, and if they had any moral fortitude they would find work somewhere else. Yes, even if they have to move their family onto the street for a couple of weeks (remember, this is a company doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat). All the corporate evil in the world would dry up if people would refuse to support it.

All this for a loser film? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770188)

You'd think it was a blockbuster release like LOTR or something.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151911/ [imdb.com]

Cornered, a 2-star rated slasher with a no name cast.

Actually on second thought, they might be making more money on the settlements than on theater sales.

Re:All this for a loser film? (1)

BradyB (52090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770226)

Maybe its a news marketing effort, because until right now I hadn't heard of this movie at all.

Re:All this for a loser film? (5, Informative)

chebucto (992517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770352)

Recently a lawyer in the UK was also targeted by the 4chan group.

What's notable is that he was in the same business as the law firm in this article - sending out compliance letters for alleged copyright infringement. As this article [arstechnica.com] notes, lately the UK lawyer had only been getting business from porn movie producers; all his mainstream clients had stopped hiring him because they no longer saw a net benefit in suing their fans.

This might explain why the law firm was threatening people over a c-movie: the 'real' movie studios in the US might no longer want to work with people like them.

The law firm he ended up with was ACS Law, run by middle-aged lawyer Andrew Crossley. ACS Law had, after a process of attrition, become one of the only UK firms to engage in such work. Unfortunately for Crossley, mainstream film studios had decided that suing file-sharers brought little apart from negative publicity, and so Crossley was left defending a heap of pornography, some video games, and a few musical tracks.

Re:All this for a loser film? (1)

horza (87255) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770636)

ACS Law is also now subject to a £500,000 fine under the Data Protections Act as when they brought their site back online after a DDOS they also made a file with their victims' personal details readable which was subsequently downloaded by hackers.

Phillip.

What is the point? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770200)

Their website is nothing more than a simple blurb page. It's not conducting business for it, and being honest, few people will even want to look at it. It's probably a $7/month shared box with 400 other unused domains.

If they want to affect them, they need to clog their fax machines and phone lines.

Not surprised (4, Insightful)

dyfet (154716) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770216)

When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.

Re:Not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770776)

nice words

Troll (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770238)

If something is illegal, the way to do something about is to change the laws. Not to do further illegal things.

Artists have to earn money too. You immature twats.

Re:Troll (4, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770262)

In a world where votes are counted in dollars changing laws is no longer up to the people.

Re:Troll (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770314)

So just when did you get to vote for or against the DMCA? Lobby groups can push laws past you that you have no chance of stopping. Remember soap, ballot box, 2nd amendment. This has reached the 3rd option.

Re:Troll (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770412)

When you live in a democratic republic, that's how it works. You don't seriously think that allowing the people to vote on that would've resulted in a different conclusion, do you? I live in a state where we have both initiatives (Both to the legislature and to the people) and referendums which allow residents to overturn legislative action.

And it tends to be pretty asinine lately. We've got quite a few initiatives on the ballot for the next election, and for the most part the actual contributions by the citizens in terms of funding is averaging less than a thousand dollars each. With some positions actually managing to get $0 in contributions from citizens.

Perhaps at the federal level it would be different, but I doubt it. The voters here in WA tend to be a lot more savvy than the voters at large in the rest of the country, and even we probably shouldn't be allowed to vote directly on most of these issues.

Support Dunlap, Grubb, and Weaver (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770408)

Keep suing people who actually are illegally copying copyrighted films. This has nothing to do with extensions of copyright laws; this movie was released two years ago. It would have been illegal to warez it under the original US copyright law. And this isn't a rare foreign film that has no legal avenue of purchase in the US; you can get it on Amazon. The warezers are greedy people who are taking what they have no legal right to and they deserve to be sued. And you can argue about the unfairness of the dollar amount asked for, but that does not change the fact that the warezers deserve to be sued. You can talk about how greedy the big Hollywood corporations are, and you won't even be on topic; this law firm is targeting people who warez indie films.

Like Button (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770422)

I wish Slashdot submissions had a "like" button like Facebook. I love everything about what Anon is doing, bomb threats included. In fact, it would greatly please me if some of them would actually follow through with their threats of violence toward some of these individuals. Let a couple of these pansy-ass lawyers take a couple of good, old-fashioned ass whippings and I bet they'll go find something else to do with their lives.

US Copyright Group, NOT USCG (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770442)

USCG = US Coast Guard, NOT US Copyright Group. Please don't USCG for these rat bastards.

They found a bomb alright but... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770562)

It was an Uwe Boll boxset

So the sides are? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770752)

Anonymous = NOD
US Govt = GDI ?

"Never heard of it either" (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#33770804)

The Hollywood Reporter on "Cornered!": "No, we've never heard of it either". [hollywoodreporter.com]

That's bad. The Hollywood Reporter tracks almost everything Hollywood is doing, in more detail than you need unless you're in the industry. If their people haven't heard of it, it's unknown. There's one entry in THR's database: "MPAA ratings: Jan. 20, 2010", where The Hollywood Reporter listed the MPAA's rating decisions for the week. (It got an "R".) So the producers sent a copy in for rating and paid the fee.

Some DVDs are available for remainder prices on Amazon.

It's going to be hard for the producers of this turkey to demonstrate that they lost any money through downloading. They may have trouble finding anyone who actually viewed the download.

Dewey Soakkum and Howe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33770856)

There are a lot of firms like Dewey Soakkum and Howe that are in it for the money. They don't care about people they crush. Their client pays, and they get a bounty for crushing people. With hundreds of years of history and regulation, and because its all white collar, law enforcement hasn't been as draconian as the corporations would like them to be. Call on the lawyers. Like a rabid pack of attack dogs, they come in and chew on anything they see. Innocent, guilty, you all get bit. If you complain, you are screamed at "Be lucky we don't find something to sue you over biotch!" The corporations want unmuzzled attack dogs. Outfits like Dewey Soakkum and Howe (or in this case Dunlap Grubb and Weaver) are those dogs. The corporations pressed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (and other draconian laws) with paid, politicians. Then they pay attack dogs to enforce these draconian laws. People have had enough. The only reason the US government wants to protect IP so badly is that its a big export when the US has so little to export. Other countries are not willing to play these stupid games. In an age of rapidly expanding information, the Berne convention should be becoming less invasive, more liberal. Instead, they are becoming more invasive, less liberal. They are creating a vacuum. At some point, whole governments (by the people) will overturn or radically change Berne (and even more draconian laws already planned). The people won't put up with it any longer. The board is set. Pieces are moving.

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>