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!

LulzSec, Anonymous Reason For PROTECT IP Act, Says RIAA

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the totally-clutchable-strawman dept.

Censorship 228

Dangerous_Minds writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that the RIAA is using the latest activities of hacktivists to bolster its claim that America needs the PROTECT IP Act, the act that would place a layer of censorship on the internet in the U.S."

cancel ×

228 comments

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

al qaeda (2, Interesting)

Titan1080 (1328519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628502)

please select the RIAA HQ as your next target.

Re:al qaeda (5, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628522)

Why would they target an organization that is helping them towards their goal of making America so unlivable that the people will accept Sharia Law as a lateral move?

Re:al qaeda (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628756)

Woosh to you, sir. The RIAA and other enemies of freedom look at LulzSec as worse than al quaida. As Mr. Leghorn says, "it's a joke, son." Peace on you, and lulz.

Re:al qaeda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629040)

Is this guy's first name Foghorn?

Re:al qaeda (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629304)

LulzSec, like Alkaida, is a CIA creation. Both are excuses manufactured by the *ministry of truth*. Politics of fear at best.

Re:al qaeda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629592)

We need a search going.

Re:al qaeda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628540)

please select the RIAA HQ as your next target.

If they want to destroy America, that's the last thing they want to target.

Re:al qaeda (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628550)

They obviously can't choose specific target to hack, they don't know shit. They just try common SQL injection test on sites, then try to map the databases of those with weak protection from nefarious input.

Re:al qaeda (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628800)

Why shoot your ally in the battle against liberty?

I Think It's Time To Hack (5, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628514)

And expose the sordid details of RIAA exec's child prostitution activities on their Thailand "business trips".

What do you mean "expose"? (5, Insightful)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628718)

Their child prostitution is right out there leading their marketing pushes. Check out the "teen seen" music sources and Disney Channel fare. 13 year old girls in bustiers?

MAFIAA is _proud_ of their rampant selling of child sex and sexuality to the public. That it is more "child porn" than direct prostitution is the only possible argument.

Re:What do you mean "expose"? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628844)

I highly doubt they're proud of it. After all, they can't monopolize and cash in on it, I kinda wonder why they didn't try to buy a law for it yet. I mean, there is a market for it, isn't there? And all that money going to someone without a cut for the MAFIAA, that can't be!

Re:I Think It's Time To Hack (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628860)

I love the reasoning of why the Protect IP act is being pushed...make using stuff that's already been made against the law to use unless one is using it in accordance with an industry, and THEN people will stop using it because it will be against TWO laws. That'll work. Forget about the collateral damage to law abiding American citizens.

Re:I Think It's Time To Hack (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629622)

The frist rule is blah blah blah. The second rule is the same as the first one about it is stated louder! That mean you are break both first rules.

Make perfect sense...

Of Course (5, Insightful)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628526)

It makes perfect sense to me, seeing as how it is a known fact that all members of Anonymous and Lulzsec are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Law.

Re:Of Course (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628704)

First you get it into US law, then you convince the rest of the world to "harmonize" their laws. Almost a SOP for megacorps.

Re:Of Course (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629278)

It makes perfect sense to me, seeing as how it is a known fact that all members of Anonymous and Lulzsec are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Law.

Most developed countries have diplomatic relations and signed Treaties with the US which allow varying degrees of legal pressure or extradition. Just look at how Gary McKinnon was pursued for hacking US military sites even though he lived in the UK.

Re:Of Course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629946)

Yes, your tiny palm tree and grass hut and Xperion are belong to us. I make myself laugh here. That is all that matters. Screw your always down modding me and I can never read my comments on your site. Its a matter of record that is all. It goes into my world profile folder(GFY). I know some things. Sum 10 wong here.

False Flag Reasoning. (5, Informative)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628548)

Obviously anyone here understands that the Protect Act has NOTHING to do with the stupidity that the RIAA is spewing. But let me restate it for those that don't understand. They are using recent events as a False Flag-like excuse. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/False_flag [wikimedia.org] I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (3, Insightful)

Titan1080 (1328519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628584)

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Anonymous and Lulzsec and others aren't just fabricated excuses to allow the president to enable his internet kill switch.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628882)

Once again, I've been thinking this ever since this all started.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628712)

I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events.

Then it's not "False Flag" or even False Flag-like.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (4, Insightful)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628768)

Political or religious ideologies will sometimes use false flag tactics. This can be done to discredit or implicate rival groups, create the appearance of enemies when none exist, or create the illusion of organized and directed opposition when in truth, the ideology is simply unpopular with society.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (2, Insightful)

music65536 (2309806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629210)

I agree. False Flag is perhaps the most dangerous tactic of all. The government has unlimited pardons to do anything - while hiding it. Given a sufficiently hideous delivery, freedom fighters can be painted as Tin Foil Hats.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628856)

I was actually wondering why they didn't use Fukushima as an excuse to ask for some kind of law, but perhaps they got a little more wary now that a few judges noticed that their excuses aren't even close to resembling sanity.

But this is at least somehow, in some way, .... oh hell, it's on the internet, what else needs to match?

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629898)

Because adding more regulations to what is already one of the most regulated industries in this country doesn't give them any additional control. They already have "authority" to take over in the case of nuclear accidents as well, so what really to they have to gain by making a big deal of this. No new plants are seriously being considered so traditional energy companies aren't concerned with trying to prevent competition.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629082)

The false flag thing just doesn't hold up. The activities of the hackers don't really have any bearing on either the Protect Act or the Internet Kill Switch. Sure, they serve to spook the public about Internet security in general but they were already spooked.

There's been Internet censorship legislation in the works ever since the web hit the big time. The fact that this event coincides with someone's agenda proves nothing.

Is it really so hard to believe that this was all an ego trip by a bunch of misguided kids? If someone else was involved, out them and show me the evidence. I have no time for baseless conspiracy theories.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629512)

ego trip by a bunch of misguided kids

Or a group of kids or adults with a different set of values and morals than other people.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629140)

I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.

Are you or are you not putting forward the claim that lulzsec and anonymous are false-flag operations? You don't get to have it both ways.

I find it amazing that people keep wanting to push around the "false flag" meme. Can't the RIAA simply be opportunistic parasites taking advantage of other's activities? You know. Like record executives.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629244)

I'm referring to the fact they are taking advantage of the fear of the public to push through their political ideology.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629428)

As I noted, that's not "false flag." That's simply being opportunistic.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629500)

Then that is NOT a false flag, but simply an excuse for ramming through an agenda. A false flag is something like 9/11, where you have someone in DC dumping AA stock more than 90 minutes BEFORE the first plane, how the entire MSM told us with a straight face there was nothing to keep an object the size of an airliner from hitting the Pentagon, when we all know DC has been armed to the teeth since the Cold War, or that there was not a single American military aircraft on the Eastern seaboard and not a single one could reach New York in under two hours. The only two logical conclusions is either a false flag or a military so damned incompetent that they couldn't tie their shoes, much less perform even standard military maneuvers. Since that level of inconsistence in performance is simply wholly unbelievable you are left with a single conclusion...false flag. Considering how much $$$ was made by corps like Haliburton, or how the guy that owned the towers suddenly doubled down on insurance for that SPECIFIC kind of attack? yeah bullshit, false flag.

What we have here is a classic "wag the dog" where you use something completely unconnected to what you are trying to do to ram something through. Saudi terrorists attack New York? Blow up Iraq. What does one have to do with the other? Not a fucking thing except the first event was helpful in getting an agenda pushed.That is the difference my friend.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629808)

Your so full of shit. Conspiracies need proof. The bigger the accusation the more proof you need to provide. All you are doing is publishing your theories as facts and then using those "facts" to manufacture conclusions. So adjust your tinfoil hat, take a deep breath, and shut the hell up unless you are prepared to produce hard evidence to back up your non-sense.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (4, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630056)

The AA stocks being shorted just before 9/11 doesn't deserve an explanation nearly as much as the fact that the SEC and FBI did not investigate it.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (3, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629836)

A false flag is something like 9/11...

Thanks for showing us just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

What we have here is a classic "wag the dog" where you use something completely unconnected to what you are trying to do to ram something through. Saudi terrorists attack New York? Blow up Iraq. What does one have to do with the other? Not a fucking thing except the first event was helpful in getting an agenda pushed.That is the difference my friend.

No - Wag the Dog is when you generate an event to distract from another event. Have you actually seen the movie?

I can see why people like to toss around phrases like "false flag" and "wag the dog". They're emotionally charged statements that invoke a lot of passion without much requirement to actually understand the concept, much less think about the application thereof. One can invoke "false flag" and get a lot of riders to jump on your bandwagon even though this situation has absolutely nothing to do with a "false flag" tactic. Kind of like what the RIAA is doing in invoking lulzsec, et al. Wait a second. I see what you did there...

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629312)

I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.

Oh, you mean a "true flag," otherwise known as a "reason" for doing something.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629400)

I find your refusal to accept the provided definitions interesting. I can cite a false flag event similar to the one RIAA is using. The cold war was started because ideological claims of events that had no bearing on reality. There was no "reason" for the cold war to exist other than those in power feared outcomes that were contrary to their political beliefs. Now, If you continue to insist on a different definition, I'll accept that your opinion differs from mine. But the point still stands that a false flag can be purely political in nature.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629652)

Here is the provided definition from your own link:

"False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities."

It means what it says, one party pretending to be another. And yet, the RIAA is not disguising itself here.

Moreover, the RIAA's logic is basically correct: the only way to limit people from using the Internet to break laws would be for the government to have ultimate control. The Internet doesn't know whether a blob of data is national security secrets or kiddie porn or copyright violations or home movies of kittens; it's all the same. So they're trying to enlist other people who are their natural allies in trying to restrict the Internet. There is no question that doing so would benefit the RIAA's immediate interests.

So let's dismiss the weak arguments and focus on the real issue: should narrow special interests trump those of the general public? I agree with most people here that we must be extremely careful and limited in doing that.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630072)

No it's NOT all the same.

National security secrets, kiddie porn, and copyright violations are illegal. Home movies of kittens are not.

And unless the feds have probable cause, they've got no business snooping the wires enough to find out which of the above my traffic is.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36630088)

RIAA's logic is basically correct: the only way to limit people from using the Internet to break laws would be for the government to have ultimate control.

That is false. One counterexample would be to repeal all laws that can be broken by people using the Internet.

Re:False Flag Reasoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36630104)

It should be obvious to someone by now that these hackers' activities are tools in someone's hands. Testing waters and creating small chaos at different levels of security and truste, expecting to see the resultant changes to different important systems, caring nothing for the panic that has ensued. This is war.

It was inevitable.. (2)

Ross R. Smith (2225686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628598)

The RIAA required a scapegoat and the Lulzsec/Anon attacks were just what they needed to push this crap.

Re:It was inevitable.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628734)

The RIAA required a scapegoat and the Lulzsec/Anon attacks were just what they needed to push this crap.

Annon attacks et al have been going on forever. Its the media hype that is just what they needed to push this crap.

Re:It was inevitable.. (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628870)

Is it possible that this press release is a fake? A dupe? Evidence of an Anonymous attack on the RIAA?

Re:It was inevitable.. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629160)

Annon attacks et al have been going on forever. Its the media hype that is just what they needed to push this crap.

And where did the media companies get the media hype? It's the biggest fortuitous coincidence in history!

Re:It was inevitable.. (2)

Gripp (1969738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630058)

i think you missed something. hacking groups like this have been active for as long as it's been possible. so the question you should be asking is why is the media all of a sudden paying attention.

i would be prone to say that it is because these hackers have been very vocal and begging for this attention. but that is actually not really new either. so something else seems to be going on. i suppose its the mixture of them being politically motivated and massively successful in their hacking efforts (sony, the CIA, FBI, various gov's, HBGary, etc) or, it is simply because it focuses on an already hot topic - how can the gov control the internet, and how can the users stop them.

back to the direct point of the article; these attempts at our liberty are the very thing fueling this movement. i'm not sure the RIAA realizes what effects this may have. besides that, to me these hacks show that we CAN'T actually protect individuals from hackers via goverment policy - considering how we can't even manage protect individual sites - which would mean the crimes would still happen and the only thing left would be the side effect of " liberties lost. "
which doesn't sound like a *solution* to me.

Re:It was inevitable.. (1)

transami (202700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628788)

Makes you wonder who is p(l)aying who?

Raise your hand if this surprised you. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628606)

...What? No one? Really? Huh.

We need to stop these Nazis... (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628612)

...by signing into law the National Socialism Does All Possibilities (NSDAP) Act of 1933!

Is this true of ProtectIP (2)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628648)

I've heard ProtectIP bans any site that links to copyrighted material.
Is it true that ProtectIP could shut down every single forum on the Internet if they wished?
Afterall, someone only needs to post a link to copyrighted material

Re:Is this true of ProtectIP (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628688)

or a link to a link of copyrighted material
such as saying the word google

Re:Is this true of ProtectIP (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628714)

This act could be used to shutdown google, bing, yahoo, (insert any search engine here) since you type in a word it will come back with copyrighted material. heck even sites like cnn etc

Re:Is this true of ProtectIP (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628876)

But rest assured it won't. That would expose how flawed the law is. I didn't read it, but I am fairly sure there is some safeguard against someone just carpet bombing high profile sites with lawsuits, something like "has to be done by the rights owner". And of course they will not risk their precious tool.

Re:Is this true of ProtectIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629708)

1. Draw a stick figure.
2. Send it to your friend.
3. Your friend post it on Facebook.
4. Demand Facebook remove the picture. (They won't do it)
5. Try to shutdown Facebook by invoking the new cool law, hoping to finally kill that monster.
6. Get dismissed as you are just a little guy and not a billion dollars corporation.

Opps i am pretty sure there was a 'Profit!!!' step some where here...

No need for any safeguards, law never worked for the individual citizen.

Re:Is this true of ProtectIP (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628820)

LOL, since everything published is now under copyright, linking to anything violates the ProtectIP act! Google and Bing are the prime examples, they're violating slashdot's copyright by linking to it!

Re:Is this true of ProtectIP (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629292)

Thank you. I wrote my Senator again. I think everyone should write their senators who live in the US and explain it.

Re:Link to Copyrighted Material (1)

music65536 (2309806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629332)

I am uncertain how Creative Commons fits into this bill. Which is stronger, Permissions to Share or "Don't Link to Copyrighted Material". Suppose then that we make haste to develop an archive of public domain material?

Re:Link to Copyrighted Material (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629784)

Quite obviously, the law actually talks about linking to copyright material that is redistributed illegaly.

Maybe it's time to tax the Internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628680)

If you think about it, most of us pay a flat rate for cable television and receive a stream of content. The only difference between that and the Internet is that we can select the content we're interested in.

The infrastructure is already in place to allow massive consumption of TV, movies, and music over the Internet -- the only part that's missing is the payment for the content. Instead of labeling people as pirates, building this massive apparatus for surveillance, punitively restricting access to a medium essential to most of our livelihoods, and chucking a whole new bunch of nonviolent offenders in jail... couldn't we just throw a modest surcharge on the Internet to compensate the content providers and let everything else work as it has?

It just seems so much easier than pushing shit uphill as has been done to this point. Everybody uses the Internet, just about everybody will be an infringer if you count things like having RIAA music in the back of Youtube videos or streaming music from websites that haven't got full RIAA approval, so just throw a surcharge on the Internet bill and keep the courts at work on more important things.

Re:Maybe it's time to tax the Internet. (5, Insightful)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629302)

Where do I sign up for my check, I've produced content! ...Oh I see just for the megacorps then is it?

Re:Maybe it's time to tax the Internet. (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629572)

I'd rather them just leave things alone and realize that it's pointless to pass these laws because they are likely easily abused and do no good.

Stupid works (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628684)

So the logic here is the same as it has been for every rights-compromising measure put forth so far this century; "[name of enemy] is going to cause massive amounts of economic/physical/spiritual damage unless [measure] is undertaken immediately. [measure] will of course restrict your rights, but it's all in the name of protecting something greater than you." Of course, that something invariably reduces to somebody else's profit, which is likely already happening at your expense, so why change the status quo now.

Re:Stupid works (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628872)

As long as there's a huge number of bumpkins that fall for it, why bother to stop?

Greed = PROTECT IP = TOR (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628706)

The other day, after reading yet another news story about the censorship moves in Australia and more PROTECT IP stuff, I decided that it was time to try out configuring Privoxy to forward everything via SOCKS5 to Tor. I was expecting a much bigger performance hit than I actual did, though, which was a pleasant surprise. Sure, its annoying having to enter CAPTCHA tags for Google all the time, but that's really not that big of a hassle. For the less technical people, Vidalia + the Tor Button for Firefox are pretty much fool proof. Between advertisers, stories about repression of online descent in the middle east and asia, Facebook and Google tracking people all the damned time, etc, I think (or, at least, I would like to think) that it might only be a matter of time before more and more 'normal' people, even those who really, truely, have nothing to hide, start doing something similar.

When Comcast starts filtering port 9050 like they do with 25, then we'll know we've pretty much lost the Internet once and for all. But hey, at least the Department of State supports Internet freedom in China, right? pffft.

Re:Greed = PROTECT IP = TOR (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629000)

at&t already does similar. I have to use a vpn service to run something simple like a minecraft server. otherwise at&t's systems BLOCK it.

The other way around (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628722)

It's more along the lines of... with the mis-deeds of the RIAA, the Protect IP act which has more potential for mis-use than real use (given how existing tools are already being more mis-used than used), with censorship appearing all over, because of these reasons we need Anonymous, Lulzsec or others like them.

In short, we need a REAL free press.

Re:The other way around (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628918)

Trouble is, the real free press would only be used to create more laws to shut them up. Like, say, THIS.

Of COURSE the MAFIAA hates LulzSec (2)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628724)

Sony is a member of the RIAA, after all. I applaud LulzSec's actions (most of 'em, anyway) and urge them to keep up the good work.

I was the "victim" of a group much like LulzSec before the turn of the century, and it was hilarious (to me, anyway) indeed. My site, the Springfield Fragfest, made fun of everybody (for the lulz before "lulz" was coined). I was kind of the Don Rickles of the Quake world -- I made fun of everybody, and everybody I made fun of became fans (well, almost everybody, some folks have no sense of humor). I'd have folks' pet shamblers pissing on the couch, Thresh taking speed, etc.

There was a group much like LulzSec (for all I know it might have had some of the same members) that was in the nerd news, so I posted a bit about them accompanied by a photo of a group of Down's Syndrome kids as illustration.

They broke into my host's servers and removed the <img> tag and photo... and left the text intact! I was honored as well as amused.

But, you know, the people (and I use that term loosely) LulzSec are targeting have no sense of humor whatever. Again, guys, keep up the good work, and thanks for the lulz. I hope reports of LulSec's death are greatly exaggerated.

Re:Of COURSE the MAFIAA hates LulzSec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629072)

They aren't doing this for vengeance. They're a big business, spending money to make others lose money is not a good idea. LulzSec is nothing but an excuse to the public, their real goal is more control over the flux of information.

Re:Of COURSE the MAFIAA hates LulzSec (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629838)

Please give us all a break...

What most likely happened is that you hot linked to some image you found through Google and the host of it noticed your referrers and decided to jerk a knot. You then decided to have a circle-jerk with your cronies over being "hacked" by some techno platoon for no other reason than loneliness. You remind me of this kid I used to work with back in high school who thought the government was watching him just because he knew how to use IRC...

RIAA, another reason for not buying music, period (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628840)

I exchange a hard drive with a group of friends, a few times a year.

There is music on that drive.

Let's see you stop THAT, RIAA, you bunch of Jew moneygrubbing scum.

Re:RIAA, another reason for not buying music, peri (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629200)

I exchange a hard drive with a group of friends, a few times a year. There is music on that drive. Let's see you stop THAT, RIAA

They'll just push for a $0.0X per MB tax on all data storage (even embedded flash RAM).

Re:RIAA, another reason for not buying music, peri (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629692)

Mandatory Public key encryption all the way down to the Intel processor level.

Your data won't work on someone else's CPU, you'll have to exchange computers. Any "unsigned" media (eg: recorded by routing spk to line-in), would either not play, or require a content creator's license.

I seriously hope it doesn't come to that, but I wouldn't doubt it for a moment.

Time to 1) donate to open-source hardware projects and 2) Stop buying Intel or other processors that support such things (to say nothing of the remote kill switch) -- a vote with your wallet will be heard the loudest (oh who am I kidding, no one gives a damn, look at Apple -- MS will have an "app store" soon too).

Re:RIAA, another reason for not buying music, peri (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629760)

Don't we have DRM starting with Vista. I thought trusted computing was support to be out by now that included such a thing. Whatever happened to it?

Re:RIAA, another reason for not buying music, peri (1)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630014)

The support is built into every computer that carries an Intel, IBM, or AMD CPU and has been for almost a decade. Most systems come with it disabled by default - it's left disabled and up to the end user to enable it. Mostly it's for corporate use at the moment.

I know Apple has a "crippled" form of it enabled by default on all of the MacTel machines.

Total Non Sequitor... (3, Insightful)

SirAstral (1349985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628874)

The hacking, compromising, or intrusion of a computer system has nothing to do with the copying/distribution of copy protected works. The unlawful access of a computer system is already against the law and there is nothing this act would do to improve security because security is up to each individual organization and how they implement it.

This is classic politics at work folks, keep your eye on the ball!

I am from Germany (Europe) - Listen to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36628902)

1) Escalation
2) Everything gets suddenly better and not worse

RIAA has reached 1944 on the escalation scala... don't worry...

Re:I am from Germany (Europe) - Listen to me (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629184)

Unless of course they've reached annexation of the Sudetenland levels... In which case it's going to be a looooong decade.

And what will this do? (4, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36628968)

It will treat everyday law abiding citizens as charged criminals under investigation while the people it targets will patch over it in less than a day...

At this point I have trouble weighing out which group is dumber

Re:And what will this do? (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629348)

Seems to me that the protect act violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th sections of the bill of rights.

I'd say that americans should be getting pretty close to the bullet box option by now.

Re:And what will this do? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629756)

Dude Americans do not care.

With everything going on they just take it up the ass and vote for the opposite party every 2 to 4 years who are sponsored by the same companies that are screwing them over time and time again. When the US hits austerity measures (artificially created I may add unlike Greece) I will bet you that no protests will ever come. People will simply starve to death who are out of work and people will just vent in forums like slashdot and CNN and wont do anything about it.

Please.... (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629018)

Don't poke the bear it will come aft......... ahhhhh

Anonymous Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629062)

Fuck you.

Sounds good to me. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629114)

Sure, first we'll just repeal the first amendment. . .

Re:Sounds good to me. (1)

doubleplusungodly (1929514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629162)

When corporations and the government have pretty much circumvented the way American government is supposed to work, why have a Constitution at all?

Re:Sounds good to me. (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629234)

To protect the idea that individuals have freedoms, duh! People might get really upset if they knew there was nothing protecting them. It's for the greater good.

who wants to bet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629120)

that AnonSec will be getting that RIAA dirt very soon...

Hiatus over, challenge accepted?

Someone tell the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36629130)

To shut up and go back to Hell to do the Devil's bidding and to leave us and the internet alone.

The RIAA has it backwards (2)

mathkicks (895227) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629166)

It seems to me that the RIAA/MPAA/etc is the reason for LulzSec and Anonymous

I am in favor of censorship (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629236)

And the first thing that needs to be censored is the RIAA.

Re:I am in favor of censorship (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629812)

riaa is a terrorist org.

I think their DNS entries should be the first to be blacklisted.

they really are terrorists. I think they should be filtered. their whole concept is unamerican.

filter them first.

So let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629554)

What Anonymous/LulzSec do (a good percentage of the time) is illegal anyways, yes? Why the crap do we need new laws when what they do is already criminal?

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629732)

Nearly every CONgress on the world fails to even understand why you would ask something that obvious.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

krizoitz (1856864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630042)

First, I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion. However I also disagree with your analogy. It is illegal for me to steal from you, yet the fact that it is illegal doesn't mean you should leave your door unlocked. This proposal is more akin to adding extra locked doors to the building your apartment is in to prevent unauthorized or questionable people from getting in. Again I want to point out that I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion, but there is SOME logic involved, only a little.

Fuck LulzSec (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629738)

I knew this was going to happen. Hackers do more harm than good for the rest of us just because they want to stroke their egos. ... of course the egos of executives at Hollywood need to be stroked to at our own expense.

I am just sick of it and people who do not think about the repurcusions of their sensless actions. I am not worried about the RIAA more than I am about the federal government getting involved with more acts to limit liberty and monitor all our data and put caps on our bandwidth so the NSA can monitor everything.

modest much, neil? (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629802)

The ability of our country to lead -- and the ability of U.S. companies to create employment -- will depend upon our continued success.

Neil Turkewitz, Executive Vice President, International, RIAA

this is how the 'letter' on the riaa website ends.

'the ability of our country to lead': well, since engineering and manufacturing of actual goods has gone overseas, I suppose only you, your ilk and fast food workers are what we have left in the US. if the way we 'lead' the world is via your methods, I think we are better off not leading.

'US companies creating employment': lawyers and folks like that. yup. but do we want more of THAT kind of US employment?

and I even question the 'continued success' part. your buying base outright hates you and side-steps you at every turn. you war on them and wonder why they hate you and don't continue paying for your existence?

neil, you are so fucking full of yourself. probably considered a trait of success at the place you work at, though...

A better idea (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629902)

Why dont we do one better and to extend protections to the RIAA and others just flat out ban copyrighted material from the internet...we could go back to the days when "lawlessness" ruled the internet but it was also inherently more useful.

Any Excuse is good as any for Police State tactics (1)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36629948)

The RIAA & MPAA are the reason for Anonymous,Lulzsec,ect

Re:Any Excuse is good as any for Police State tact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36630044)

Care to back that up with a reputable site or are you just one of those fucktards who likes to think anyone who does something you like is just like you in principles?

Well of course... (1)

threeseas (2245516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36630114)

Any argument is good, we already know that. We have seen enough from the RIAA to know they'd even use their own Mother as an excuse to promote their crap, only they ain't got no mother. Here is the only solution for them. Kill off everyone. That way you won't have any piracy claims. For those with half a brain, follow the logic through... Lets pretend everyone is dead cept those who are considered good customers. Would they notice any difference? See problem already solved. They can't claim dead people stole from them... oh wait they probably can and have.
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>