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!

Operation Payback Shuts Down IFPI Site

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the countering-a-distributed-denial-of-liberty-attack dept.

Movies 376

newtley writes "Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's main IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) website is down. Not coincidentally, there's an Operation Payback post addressing the Pirate Bay crew's lost sentencing appeal: 'Dear IFPI, MAFIAA and other parasites, The recent verdict in the Swedish Appeal Court (ThePirateBay spectrial) provoked this statement from Operation: Payback. We emphasize our statement with a Distributed Denial-of-Service attack aimed at the IFPI's website.'"

cancel ×

376 comments

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

Notice (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361100)

Sorry the first post that was here had to be removed since it copied so many others.

Well, somebody's showing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361110)

that they are reasonable, thoughtful people, intent on a peaceful resolution, and not a criminal use of force and intimidation.

But not these guys, huh?

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (3, Informative)

jdpars (1480913) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361120)

What's the peaceful resolution they should be aiming for? What branch of the government can they appeal to to restrict the power of government to intervene without precedent? The courts are obviously not going to help them, nor the legislators, nor the president or any various governors.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361308)

What government are you referring to? The Pirate Bay guys were convicted in Sweden.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (2, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361418)

The Pirate Bay is not the Pirate Party is not "Anonymous" - I'm guessing, but I assume jdpars is talking about "Anonymous" - a multinational "mob."

Even if they could appeal to some government function, they can't - unless some global government came about and I missed the memo.

yeah (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361140)

are you aware that what you are saying basically totals to 'just be subservient' ?

the 'peaceful resolution' you speak of, has no effect. people elected someone on various premises, and he fulfilled maybe one out of a few dozen. people elected representatives on various issues, yet they set out to make laws totally against the will of public. they have even gone the extra mile of bringing out laws with NO transparency and democratic process, in the form of acta.

then there is the 'noncriminal', legal ways of doing that eh ? like, battling them in courts, where they have multiples of money to win over you ?

excuse me but what you speak of can only work in an ideal world.

Re:yeah (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361214)

Maybe you can prove your point by killing some record execs, let's see who gets the sympathy then.

Re:yeah (4, Funny)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361236)

DoS, killing people, all the same! Death penalty for jaywalkers!

Re:yeah (4, Informative)

Scaba (183684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361366)

Jay Walkers was framed!!

Re:yeah (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361492)

I know you're joking, but in the US there seems to be this trend to equating harsh sentencing with being tough on crime. The problem is that there's never been any sort of evidence available that tougher sentences actually lead to less crime. Back during the days of the wild west, the main reason for the hangings was that the outlaws regularly broke out of jail which wasn't really much of a challenge with the thin walls and small number of guards.

Re:yeah (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361364)

like, battling them in courts, where they have multiples of money to win over you ?

Like, not buying their music? Like getting voters to care enough about copyright law that it gets changed (because let's face it, most people don't care about copyright law)?

If you're going to get into a fight over this, you should pick a fight that you can win. Like the non-violent methods of MLK, who broke the law in a way that brought attention and public opinion over to their side. Starting a Pirate Bay might possibly be considered that. Doing a vengeful DDOS does not do that. It shows that in fact, those who oppose copyright really are unethical criminals who only want the law changed so they can do unethical things more easily.

If you fight unethically, then even if you win, you find the victory isn't worth winning. Unless you don't actually care about your ethics.

Re:yeah (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361454)

Here's a little gem for you:

Ethics is not black and white, and no ethics system that is more inherently "right" than another.

"Unless you don't actually care about your ethics." translates to "unless you subscribe to an ethical system incompatible to mine."

Re:yeah (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361476)

Like getting voters to care enough about copyright law that it gets changed (because let's face it, most people don't care about copyright law)?

i wont even comment on that. i think anyone with little insight would have realized by now that with this capitalist economic system and the current democratic election process, there is no way that people's interests can overcome private interests due to control of those interests on all aspects of life in the economic part. like mass media, donations and so on.

Like, not buying their music?

and, that's the naive bit. your not buying music will not have effect, because they have heaps of cash signing over any band you are buying now. to refuse them, that band has to have a lot of principles, and choose to stay small, or, have a lot of willpower and break out of it like radiohead.

and the above situation does not even take into account the fact that those interests can manufacture laws or conditions that will render your indie music outlets ineffective, like killing network neutrality and asking them big money for transit.

If you're going to get into a fight over this, you should pick a fight that you can win. Like the non-violent methods of MLK, who broke the law in a way that brought attention and public opinion over to their side. Starting a Pirate Bay might possibly be considered that. Doing a vengeful DDOS does not do that. It shows that in fact, those who oppose copyright really are unethical criminals who only want the law changed so they can do unethical things more easily.

you are only saying this, because you dont know enough about history, especially on the subject you speak of.

mlks non violent methods were ENTIRELY organized violation of existing laws. flat out. there were segregation laws, and they have contested those laws, they DISOBEYED them, in an organized manner. so much that, at a point even mlk has exclaimed that, their organization moved like a military structure, very efficiently.

and that only succeeded, because they were moving from states that did not have those laws, and the federal government, a stronger entity than those states, were sympathetic to them in general.

had the federal government been the party observing those laws, things would turn out different, and the nonviolent VIOLATION of law by disobedience, would not succeed. history is filled with such cases.

please dont talk on matters on which you do not have sufficient information, like this assumption of yours regarding 'legal' nonviolent methods of mlk.

If you fight unethically, then even if you win, you find the victory isn't worth winning. Unless you don't actually care about your ethics.

there is no 'ethical' fighting against an oppressor. excuse me, but oppressors are called oppressors, exactly because they do not provide you any acceptable means to refuse their oppression.

Re:yeah (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361608)

Yea, I agree that a DDOS is ridiculous.

Doing RIAA's bidding! (2, Interesting)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361372)

then there is the 'noncriminal', legal ways of doing that eh ? like, battling them in courts, where they have multiples of money to win over you ? excuse me but what you speak of can only work in an ideal world.

I suspect that just like there are provocateurs sent by the police in peaceful anti-globalizing demonstrations, there are provocateurs at the source of these kinds of vengeful, reactive actions. And there is no way to insure that there isn't. These actions are in now way controllable under a sensible strategy. The goal of this is pretty simple: present any protest against corporate abuse as the doing of unlawful elements, and not as the expression of public opinion.

This goes exactly against of what you are pretending here: you say that there is no legal way to advance the views of public ownership of its culture, yet public opinion HAS an effect, since so much effort is put into skewing and misrepresenting it, and stupid actions such as this Operations Payback go a long way to do RIAA and MPAA's bidding to discredit it.

Stupid stupid stupid! And fucking naive.

so ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361482)

because public opinion has ANY effect, there is something called acta ? because it has ANY effect that, NONE of the promises the current administration given to get votes, have been fulfilled ?

Re:yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361390)

No, I'm saying:

A) recognize that the way to win this thing is to get the public at large, most of whom don't know what the heck DRM stands for, to agree with you
B) recognize that the public *does* have a vague idea of what a DOS attack is (hint it has the word "attack" in it and even my mothers knows that's bad)
C) recognize that going around DOSing web sites makes the public at large think your side of the argument are destructive thugs
D) recognize that in the entire scope of western history, the public at large, virtually never, backs the destructive thugs

Its not about beating your chest and feeling proud about sticking one to the man, its about winning the argument in the court of public opinion.

Based on that, I'd say DOSing a web site in "protest" against the copyright regime is among the stupidest, most self-destructive, things you can do.

Re:yeah (4, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361402)

the 'peaceful resolution' you speak of, has no effect

That is not entirely true. Educating the public, and persuading the common people that overly restrictive copyright laws hurt them personally, would probably have a very positive effect.

What effect do you think this direct action is going to have? Because I don't see it as likely to have any effect at all -- at least, not a positive one. Taking a website that nobody visited anyway offline for a few hours is hardly going to make the entire recording industry turn round and say "Oh God, what have we done? The real pirates were us all along!". At best it will be ignored. At worst it will be used to justify new censorship laws.

Re:yeah (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361488)

excuse me.

people have given their votes to current administration on a number of election promises. NONE of these have been fulfilled, and even this administration pursued acta even more fervently than the former.

so, public's opinion, mattered ZIT.

what makes you think, it will effect anything for this matter ?

Re:yeah (1)

Aerynvala (1109505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361510)

I'm sorry I don't have mod points to give you for this post.

No, nobody’s showing that... (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361154)

What gave you that idea anyway?

criminal use of force and intimidation

Indeed. Fight fire with fire.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361246)

If they're intimidated by a DoS, they need help.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (1)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361250)

There's no justice like angry mob justice.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (2, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361302)

Some people consider imprisonment to be the use of force and intimidation. DDOS attacks seem tame in comparison. I suppose maybe you care a lot about whether the use of such tactics is "criminal" but that only depends who is writing the laws.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361368)

Criminal is indeed the key word, use of force is non-criminal in certain circumstances, and ultimately, the whole process of law is through a form of intimidation, which would include imprisonment.

However, there is a key difference in that, and what happens when you DDOS a website.

For example, there's at least some pretense of being accountable when it comes to putting somebody in jail or prison in the US.

Where is the accountability for Anonymous?

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (2, Interesting)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361430)

The pretense of accountability that is common in western nations is not adequate for me to believe there is a difference between the two. In practice there is zero accountability.

I'd say all parties involved are being assholes. But I am much more afraid of being on the wrong side of the government than anonymous. That tells me the government makes a better use of fear and intimidation and is therefore the bigger bully. Maybe anonymous would do the same if they could, but they can't.

As far as what is right, it's not right for people to be imprisoned for sharing copyrighted works. It's not right to DDOS someone's server. But I don't really wish to argue about which is less right.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361560)

Indeed, there's a lot of argument about things, including what's right and wrong, including the base issue, the sharing of copyrighted works. Don't like how it's handled? Here's my suggestion, change the law through lawful means. A protest such as this does not serve the cause well at all.

And me, I'm less confident that Anonymous types can be worked with than the government. It's not just a matter of being on the wrong side, but rather of realizing that there are at least some checks and balances on the part of the government. Sure, some governments can make use of jackbooted thugs, and pogroms, but not the one I live under. For all its failings, it's better than that.

Of course, I'm watching an episode of Star Trek where there's a stubborn guy resisting change when there's an implacable force that just doesn't care about what he wants.

Ostensibly he is part of the local government, but that's another matter.

Re:Well, somebody's showing... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361602)

For example, there's at least some pretense of being accountable when it comes to putting somebody in jail or prison in the US.

Mere pretense is WORSE than no accountability at all.

Meanwhile, a DDOS is not more than the net equivalent of a picket line or a sit-in.

Once again we prove... (1, Troll)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361124)

You never mess with Anonymous. Whether Anonymous is right or wrong is for you to decide. But under either case, you don't mess with them.

Re:Once again we prove... (4, Insightful)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361170)

Whether Anonymous is right or wrong is for you to decide. But under either case, you don't mess with them.

What a utterly stupid statement. That's justification for doing nothing about bad behavior by any individual or organization simply because they engage in bad behavior, and those who engage in bad behavior are not to be messed with.

Re:Once again we prove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361226)

Looks like we have our next war on an idea ready to go.

Re:Once again we prove... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361556)

That is presuming that what Anonymous is doing is bad. not all will agree

Re:Once again we prove... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361254)

I'm sure they're shaking in their boots. I mean, Anonymous went and took out a website that no one visits. What will they do now? How will they bribe politicians without ifpi.org?

Re:Once again we prove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361256)

Damn straight! If you're evil in the eyes of Anonymous, you better watch out! And if you're deserving of excessive happy birthday wishes because you're just that kick ass, then you better watch out, because you've never heard so many happy birthdays your way before!

Re:Once again we prove... (2, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361320)

Agreed. While I don't always approve of the things Anonymous does (such as what they did to Boxxy), you can't deny that they know how to get things done.

Seriously, am I the only who's thought about what we could do if we could get get Anonymous to focus on digging up information on corrupt politicians / cops / other government employees?

Re:Once again we prove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361438)

No, you are not the only one, but would that really be such a good idea? Targeting the powers that be involves risk, and in some places, that risk involves a body count.

The PRC, or maybe Argentina, Russia, can offer examples of what happens when Citizen Joe takes the initiative. It isn't pretty.

Re:Once again we prove... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361522)

It's really not that hard, the easiest way is to get those people on tape harming cats.

Re:Once again we prove... (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361606)

If /b/tards could be effectual, they wouldn't be /b/tards. Instead, we'll be subjected to their normal blather of incoherent teenage rage. In other times, they would be painting anarchy symbols on overpasses. These days, they take down web sites nobody cares about, so at least they've been sectioned off to a place where they do less damage.

Re:Once again we prove... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361618)

Oh please. Anonymous may be a bunch of immature teenagers but their only goal is lulz, and I'm laughing my ass off. Mission accomplisehd.

Re:Once again we prove... (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361406)

By your reasoning, if I tracked you down and beat you to a pulp, you wouldn't be seeking revenge because I was engaging in bad behavior?
...
Can I have an address?

Once again we prove...Anonymous Bravado. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361604)

You never mess with Anonymous. Whether Anonymous is right or wrong is for you to decide. But under either case, you don't mess with them.

Yeah! Don't mess with me.

Thank you guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361126)

We have to fight back, take action, escalate!

Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters unite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361142)

Excellent work...

There will be a revolution someday... this is just the beginnings.

Re:Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters uni (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361230)

A revolution someday? Why not a revolution now? Don't wish for things, when you have the power to make them happen.

Re:Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters uni (1, Redundant)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361350)

I'm afraid you're right. The maldistribution of income in the United States is now worse than it was in the 1920s before the crash, worse than it was for most Latin American countries during their "banana republic" phases, and worse than it was for the Weimar Republic. A disgusting excess of wealth accumulated at the top has distorted our political system, making government insensible to the needs of the common people. This Internet censorship is just a tiny example of the ongoing decay of our society. Growing corruption and socioeconomic leads to civil unrest, and eventually, a violent revolution.

Revolutions are not pretty things. While there have been a few good outcomes (e.g., the American Revolution), the vast majority of post-revolutionary governments end up being oppressive theocracies (Iran [a perversion of the original intent]), violent tyrannies (France, the Bolsheviks), or fascist nightmare states (Germany, Italy, Spain). All were belligerent, and all led to war.

In the 1930s, we dodged lightning. FDR was a visionary who managed to head off a growing revolutionary movement by using public works programs, social security, and the rest of the "new deal" to improve the life of the common man. If we'd elected another Hoover, we would have most likely had a fascist revolt.

Today, we're not so lucky, and we have all the ingredients for a political hellstorm: severe and ostentatious socioeconomic inequality; rampant corruption in all branches of government; a climate of anti-intellectualism; and millions of angry, ignorant, and powerless people eager to hang their hats on whatever demagogue gives them the best scapegoat and massages their egos to his (or her) greatest advantage. It's a powder keg.

The revolution may not come tomorrow, next week, or next year, but barring a political miracle, it is coming. And when it does, the most reactionary, unstable, and angry elements of our society will control a military more powerful than the rest of the world combined and enough nuclear weapons to turn every city in the world to glass that glows in the dark. Napoleon and the fascist states of the mid-20th century had nothing on our power. God help us, and God help the world.

Re:Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters uni (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361548)

The maldistribution of income in the United States is now worse than it was in the 1920s

Nonsense. The standard of living is substantially higher - for everyone - than it was 90 years ago. How rich some people is has nothing to do with how much better off everyone is. Your class-baiting, "the pie can never grow, so the only way for anyone to enter the middle class is to take money from somebody else" clap-trap is embarassingly juvenile.

In the 1930s, we dodged lightning. FDR was a visionary

No. FDR was a patronizing rich guy (who wasn't "visionary" enough, apparently to spread his own "maldistributed" disgusting display of personal wealth around to the nearest farmhands, was he?) who directly, and personally made the Great Depression much worse, and much longer than it otherwise would have been. He hurt more poor people than any single person in the last century, and his legacy is a lower strata of squalid dependency and a sub-culture of plantation-living poor people who - thanks to people like you - blame entirely the wrong people for it and think that only cure is more of the same.

enough nuclear weapons to turn every city in the world to glass that glows in the dark

Give it a rest, already.

Re:Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters uni (4, Insightful)

madprof (4723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361578)

No, the inequality of wealth has a reasonable effect on the level of social cohesion within a country. Obviously people are materially better off now than poor people were in the 1920s. You'd expect that. But it doesn't mean that the poor people today have the same opportunities (despite the best intentions of law makers) to progress in their lives as those who are raised in rich households.

Re:Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters uni (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361590)

I see. So your solution is to make slaves out of the productive people, so that poor people can have more stuff.

Re:Rebels leading the charge! Freedom fighters uni (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361650)

I'm impressed: I couldn't squeeze that many fallacies into the same sentence if I tried. You're arguing that poor people aren't productive, and that the welfare state, with its progressive taxation, is "slavery"? You're really arguing that people who make millions would be less "productive" if taxed at a higher rate? If you're posting on Slashdot, it's exceedingly likely that you are not wealthy enough for our current plutocratic policies to work in your favor.

You illustrate my point perfectly: you've been convinced by the propaganda of the ultra-wealthy and their lapdogs to argue (and presumably, vote) against your own economic interests and damn our country in the process.

Meh. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361146)

DDOSes are not serious for people who do not rely on and in fact mostly hate the internet. Quietly compromise and subvert their servers, collect damning emails for a while (they'll be there), then leak them and/or counter their plans. After a while, when you've got the hang of their writing style, you could also send forged ones.

What the hell is the point? (4, Insightful)

BitHive (578094) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361160)

I bet 99% of people on either side of this issue have never been to ifpi.org, what exactly is this supposed to accomplish?

Re:What the hell is the point? (2, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361168)

If your side seems powerless and morale is low, a symbolic victory is better than none at all.

Re:What the hell is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361210)

If your side seems powerless and morale is low, a symbolic victory is better than none at all.

true

Re:What the hell is the point? (1)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361206)

Exactly, if they really wanted to hurt them, wouldn't an attack on something that would cost them real money (like a RIAA-blessed streaming music service) be more damaging?

Re:What the hell is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361248)

Thanks

Re:What the hell is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361338)

If you REALLY wanted to hurt them, and badly, an exposure attack on ALL the websites of the enforcement agencies under the IFPI/ MPAA/RIAA payroll ( would include a number of congresspersons/ parliamentarians) that airs the "dirty laundry" of these agencies SIMULTANEOUSLY might get their attention. It's insufficient to merely affect their profit margins, it'd be necessary to inflict PR damage control costs on top of that. Anything less is just an annoyance.

Doing something like that, however, would probably result in such a severe backlash (targeting "cops", even dirty ones, usually does) against the general Internet using populace as to make a virtual equivalent of the Stalinist purges a not so virtual reality. In some countries (not all of them third world, by the way), stories might circulate about people who "disappear" after having posted on a shady blogsite, much as is rumored to happen in places like the PRC, currently.

In retrospect, maybe that's why Anonymous, and groups like them, have so far chosen NOT to take things to that level....yet. Let's hope calmer heads, on BOTH sides of the fence, prevail.

Re:What the hell is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361432)

What does calmer heads prevail accomplish change? It's great to stay calm, but escalation forces people to take sides, and solving a problem now is often better than solving a problem later when it's bigger. Unless you're saying let's never solve the problem at all, just stay calm and take it forever.

Re:What the hell is the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361508)

I'm not saying do NOTHING, only that any strikes to be made should be a bit more focused than the potential "nuclear option" scenario I mentioned. Prune the branches, before poisoning the root. Which appears to be what Anonymous is actually doing.

Think of it like a cold war exercise, I think the analogy isn't too far off, actually. Do you want to WIN? Or do you want THEM to lose? There IS a difference, after all. If THEY lose, there's a very real possibility YOU might ALSO lose. Mutually Assured Destruction is NOT in anyone's interest, right now, is it?

Re:What the hell is the point? (0, Troll)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361446)

Well, it's like any freedom fighters.

For example, the Patriots didn't win America's freedom by going up against the Redcoats in the field, they won it by temporarily occupying remote British farmhouses of zero strategic value.

And Martin Luther King Jr certainly did nothing for the cause of civil rights by standing up in public and speaking out -- the real heroes of that movement are the ones who anonymously blocked the entrances to Whites Only restrooms, often for whole minutes at a time, while said restrooms were closed anyway for renovation.

Geeze, it's like kids these days don't even get taught history at all.

Re:What the hell is the point? (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361496)

"For example, the Patriots didn't win America's freedom by going up against the Redcoats in the field, they won it by temporarily occupying remote British farmhouses of zero strategic value."

My revision of history must be out of date, it says the Americans got routinely pounded in the field until they decided they needed to be a professional army and brought in foreign advisors. I suppose it's cleaner to leave out the Prussians and the French but leaving out all the major engagements seems a bit silly.

Re:What the hell is the point? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361540)

To piss them off.

Idiots (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361182)

Yeah, because launching a DOS attack against a web site you don't like is *such* a good way to demonstrate that you're a respectable, law abiding organization.

Re:Idiots (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361258)

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the objective. It was probably launched for the lulz.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361376)

Personally, there are situations where I'm not interested in being respectable and law abiding. If a government, company, or person fucks with me, then I'm willing to get down and dirty to push back at them. Seriously. I'm not interesting in demonstrating that I'm a "good person" unless it advances my position.

Re:Idiots (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361462)

most of the "attack"s would be stealing data, wiping hard drives, and would be flat out hacking.

dos attacks are a protest, infective, technically illegal, done as the last non-violent resort
in other words civil disobedience which is done by respectable, law abiding people

Slashdotting (1)

denshao2 (1515775) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361186)

Adding Slashdot to the DOS just makes it even worse.

Re:Slashdotting (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361538)

To be fair a website like that ought to be able to handle it. I mean it's not like it's a commercial venture or anything.

make it count..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361192)

Why don't they choose a website that someone would actually go to? Raise your hand if you've ever been to the website they decided to DDOS other than because this was posted on slashdot. What would be better is if they DDOS'd their monetary transaction server, or whatever way they accept money transactions from the outside world.

Captcha: "pervert"

interesting...

And who noticed? (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361194)

So, the IFPI's site got shut down... and how many people noticed and cared? I know I've visited it a few times (in a "know your enemy" context) but I would imagine this isn't going to affect any of the major players in the copyright troubles or the general public. I guess it is kind of like picketing somewhere that no one really wants or needs to visit.

While I would not wish to recommend or encourage illegal action, it is possible that targeting (lawful) content distributors would be more appropriate and have a greater impact (although might be harder to achieve). After all, shouldn't this be aimed at raising awareness in the general public as much as showing that "the Internet" is just as good (if not better) than the US government at taking down sites?

terrorists (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361222)

Now the US govt has all the evidence they need to declare file sharers as terrorists/collaborators. Get ready for police action with full UN approval. ACTA's secret rules probably allow deadly force.

Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (3, Insightful)

rh775 (963558) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361238)

The best response to these types of organization is not through government or peaceful resolution. Even by stealing the media these organizations represent you are part of the problem which limits human potential. We can all stop buying (or even stealing) music that these organizations control. If you enjoy music and film, learn to create something of your own and share it. Subvert the organizations, not their websites/servers. Go to free, live performances, learn an instrument, write a screenplay or lyrics, share your creations in public or over the internet.

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361300)

And the result will be that these organizations require licenses and fees to create and share said content.

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361370)

i agree the only answer is being very very loud so the the government officials can hear our complaints over on the other side of the great wall of money and lies.

sadly its a very thick wall, that only some officials will tear down the money wall do destroy the lies

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361348)

> We can all stop buying (or even stealing) music that these organizations control

Well yeah, I've been saying that for years, and trying to convince r/l friends of the same thing.

You know what that's accomplished? Exactly jack, and shit. Most non-techies don't care. It's too abstract to fit into their mental model, and hey, there's that new Brittany song just came out...

I do my part - I donate money to CC artists, support local acts... but most others don't, so nothing changes.

Ha! CAPTCHA = manure. Really! Sums up what I think quite nicely, it does.

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (4, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361354)

Even if everyone stopped buying from those companies, they'd still find a way to make themselves a tax. You'll be buying Lady Gaga songs every time you pay your water bill.

The only way to fix things is to: 1) make corporate lobbying illegal and put all politicians' dealings in the open, and 2) perform an evidence-based reform of copyright law to restore it to a reasonable length and scope.

In doing those things, a lot that is wrong with America will automatically correct itself. Alas, things may already be beyond repair...

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (5, Insightful)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361414)

Unfortunately, if we stop buying their media, they'll simply assume we're stealing it anyways because there is *no way* that their profits should ever shrink. It is the best option and the easiest to implement though and it's the method I've been using for quite some time already.

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361586)

if we stop buying their media, they'll simply assume we're stealing it anyways

The people who create the entertainment that everyone is ripping off won't notice when there are no longer thousands of web sites dedicated to ripping off those works?

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361472)

That's so idealistic and out of touch with reality that it hurts!

I share the sentiment, but I also live in reality.

Even just ignoring the "you don't need those big name movies when you can watch this thing I made with my friends and a web cam" argument.. the "we" you refer to is so small it doesn't register on anyone's radar. It's like boycotting .. if you don't have a sufficiently sized mass of people.. you arn't making a statement, you are just depriving yourself.

The huge bulk of people buying media (or downloading it illegally) just don't give a shit about any of this, and they want the material being put out by big media.

create? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361504)

I can write, but I'm no threat to the publishing industry. I can even write lyrics, but I'm not a musician nor would I ever be able to be one with my palsy. However, I have DSL line and I can contribute to what basically amounts to an Internet sit-in AKA DOSS.

It always makes me laugh when people don't make the connection DOSS == sit-in. It worked in the 60s, why not now?

Re:Don't listen to, or view recorded media? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361638)

"Even by stealing the media these organizations represent"

Most of the post sounds great, but again as people have posted thousands of times in the past, though somehow you still haven't gotten the message: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT STEALING!!!! Please stop propagating the incorrect and polarizing claim that it is stealing or theft because it absolutely is not.

Stupid move - kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361278)

IFPI Guy: "You see. It's just lawlessness. Those folks scoff at the law and don't care about property."

RIAA: "We've been saying that too. Here's just one more example."

Politicians who writes the law: "I see your point. We're going to have to get tougher and have more stringent laws to protect the rightful owners of the property."

IFPI/RIAA: "We'll take care of the grunt work of writing that law, Senator. Don't you have an 10Am T-off?"

That's pretty much what will happen. The DOS attack has given the other side more ammunition and the attack has done nothing to hurt them.

Bravo! Well, done!

Re:Stupid move - kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361436)

lulz

Common thuggery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361310)

Fantastic! Instead of being creative and beating them at their own game you're giving them ammo to use against you by the real powers that watch over the recording industries interests.

But hey... I'm sure you scored big points among the same crowd that justifies their theft, opps, sorry, their sharing in the name of protest (cough-cough) of the unrighteous copyright laws (haha).

Re:Common thuggery (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361386)

The United States wouldn't exist without the murderous terrorism of men like George Washington and his followers. Change can be effected without violence but sometimes it ends up happening anyway.

Yes it serves a purpose (4, Insightful)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361324)

It seems many here are quick to criticize the immaturity or pointlessness of launching a DOS on some arbitrary website no one ever visits, which is their right. However, I think launching an assault on a website (especially as Anonymous) serves a very important purpose, both functionally and symbolically. It conveys a very direct voice of opposition against companies shutting down websites like TPB or (as we've seen just this week) other torrent domains without due process. It is very clear that those companies and politicians have no idea how these websites function. Rightly so, they are made in a tiered and complex fashion so as to spread, eliminate, or avoid liability, as is the case in the OP (e.g. i-frames, torrents with no trackers, using only links to other sites but not actually hosting any illegal content). However, this isn’t an excuse for the judicial system to say that merely because a system is too complex to understand that those who are genuinely innocent should be lumped in with the guilty. That is ridiculous and I’m sure no one would agree with such a verdict. So while many people on Slashdot might complain about the point of DOS’ing a website, it says very loud and clear to those ignorant parties that people won’t stand for this kind of tyranny. Good for them, I say.

Re:Yes it serves a purpose (1)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361474)

What the companies and politicians know, and piracy apologists are repeatedly failing to grasp, is that it doesn't matter how the websites function.

If the end result of visiting a certain URL is that the visitor is assisted in acquiring copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder, and the site at said URL has been designed with that goal in mind, then it really doesn't matter how many iframes and trackerless torrents and mere links and so forth there are.

The end result is the same. The intent is the same. The courts have declared again and again that the person who set up the URL with that intent has broken the law. And the law-abiding majority of people look at the judgement and say "yeah, that's fair, they even called it The Pirate Bay, do they think we're stupid or something?"

Re:Yes it serves a purpose (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361562)

It does indeed matter a great deal. What you're proposing is the ends justify the means. After all the piracy wouldn't happen if the ISP cut them off, now would it?

If you think that the piracy apologists are bad, just look at folks like you that will go to any length to justify placing the blame on the middle man, that doesn't even possess or transmit the copyrighted materials in the first place. And you end up with all sorts of constitutional problems in doing so. Violations of due process and privacy amongst other things. Along with the use of tax payer dollars to enforce private parties properties rights that were deemed previously to be a civil matter.

Re:Yes it serves a purpose (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361486)

So while many people on Slashdot might complain about the point of DOS’ing a website, it says very loud and clear to those ignorant parties

ur setting up straw men, no one would say that, ever

protest? (2, Insightful)

sletraBydnaR (1491469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361326)

Nice move. Protest the loss in court by doing something illegal.

not uncommon (2, Insightful)

plaukas pyragely (1630517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361420)

I'd say it's not very different from demonstrations and riots. While in most cases it's questionable - sometimes it's the only way to be noticed.

Re:protest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361458)

Why not? The court has showed that the law is worth less than water to them, why should it matter to anyone else?

Re:protest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361506)

The court failed. What the fuck else do you do? Give up?

Re:protest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361636)

Justice is not only blind but also mostly deaf, so unless you carry a lot of gold they won't hear you.

long live the protest (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361328)

not that i care much for sweden law
keep going

Parasites? (3, Insightful)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361404)

I know that many of the corporations are pretty sleezy and they make money off the backs of the artists, but the pirate sites do exactly the same thing. At least the corporate suits give a few percent to the artists. The pirate sites keep it all for themselves. If you're going to do this thing, study the masters like Richard Stallman and write something intellectually coherent about intellectual property. Make a solid argument and it's more likely to be respected.

Re:Parasites? (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361572)

Unfortunately there's a lot of people out there that aren't capable of comprehending that copyright infringement is anything other than theft. Even on /. you see an embarrassingly large number of posts that claim that copying is theft. In no jurisdiction that I know of is copyright infringement a form of theft.

Beyond that people, in the US atleast, aren't educated in rhetoric, logic or debate. Which tends to make such discussions a waste of time as the only way of winning an audience like that is to scare them worse than the opponent.

Re:Parasites? (0, Troll)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361652)

i`d rather "take" a cent from the artists then add a dollar to the corruption wallets, u throw out a loaf of bread if theres a tiny bit of black(i mean the mold) on the edge

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34361564)

I mean, really. Anyone who didn't see more of these attacks because the RIAA and MPAA will not back down is just not paying attention. It's a vicious cycle, and at the end of the day, it's likely that Anonymous will not do enough damage to be considered a real threat, and the MAFIAA will still be far more unethical. But hoping for a real change is pretty pointless too. Hell, it's likely we won't even have Net Neutrality soon, since it doesn't serve the interests of our politicians and their corporate masters. At this point, this might as well be considered fires before the end, as this will certainly not get better by posting on Slashdot about this. People here already know. We should all go out and educate others about this, the non-destructive way. An informed public is a strong public.

Pathetic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361588)

I'm starting to get tired of this anti-copyright rhetoric that permeates Slashdot and the internet in general. You act as if you're some sort of freedom fighters working toward a noble cause, when you're really just self-serving, petulant children that want to download episodes of Dexter or The Dark Knight or the latest Queens of the Stone Age album without having to pay for it. Drop the pretense, it's pathetic. You're not part of a revolution; you're not fighting the evil empire; you're not being oppressed.

Copyright law is what enables content creation (whether it be film production, music, literature, video games, etc.) to be a viable business model and career path. I don't judge people who pirate content, and can't claim to be completely innocent of it myself, but this righteous indignation is really starting to get irritating. You're wrong, you know you're wrong, DEAL WITH IT. When I get a speeding ticket, or underpay on my income taxes and owe back taxes the next year, I don't throw a tantrum and launch DDoS attacks on city hall; I know I'm in the wrong, so I pay the fine and move on. That's the cost of living in a society.

hulu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34361612)

Drop hulu, then you get attention.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?