×

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!

Pirate Bay Criticizes Anonymous' Attack On Virgin

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the leave-that-virgin-alone! dept.

Music 89

judgecorp writes "Anonymous launched a DDoS attack on Virgin Media, apparently in protest at Virgin's decision to block the Pirate Bay. Now the Pirate Bay has criticized Anonymous, saying it doesn't support DDoS as a form of protest. The statement is interesting, given that Anonymous has been attacking music industry sites and other targets for some years, saying it is in support of the Pirate Bay."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

89 comments

It's not interesting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39952941)

The statement is interesting, given that Anonymous has been attacking music industry sites and other targets for some years, saying it is in support of the Pirate Bay.

How is that "interesting"? 'Anonymous' are a bunch of cyberthugs which is not the crowd of people The Pirate Bay want to be associated with and they have never wanted to be associated with. The Pirate Bay is trying to legitimately fight for copyright reform and having a bunch of script kiddies attach people in their name undermines that effort.

Re:It's not interesting (4, Insightful)

Requiem18th (742389) | about 2 years ago | (#39953677)

More to the point. TPB's goal is freedom of speech and access to information. They are not about to punish someone for what the say by trashing their website.

Re:It's not interesting (-1)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 2 years ago | (#39959241)

BZZZZZZZ-t

Wrong answer -5. IF TPB was about "freedom of speech and access to information" they would have long ago stopped pointing people to places where they could steal the work product of legitimate businesses eg: Music companies, Movie companies, Software companies, et. all.

Re:It's not interesting (2)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#39959445)

Pointing people in the direction of things they might be interested in is clearly exercising freedom of speech.

However, if you're prepared to obfuscate and charge the issue by calling copying "stealing" you clearly have no interest in the accurate representation of things in this matter.

Re:It's not interesting (0)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 2 years ago | (#40006851)

BZZZZZZZ-t

Wrong Answer -5. If TPB was a database of pointers to great articles, great proponents of free speech everywhere, databases full of public information, etc. then I would have no problem with them wrapping themselves in the flag of "freedom of speech and access to information" and I would be cheering for them.

If they did not point to, cracked software program repositories that are for sale NOW, Copies of Movies that are for sale NOW they would not exist, period.

The best example of this is that their main page lists: Audio - Video - Applications - Games as their search categories. NOTHING there about looking for great speeches about freedom. Look under audio for Martin Luther King and you see a grand total of 6 entries. Search for The Beatles and there are thousands. Search under Video for Martin Luther King and there are 7 entries, search for the Beatles there are over 160.

TPB about "freedom of speech and access to information"? Really? No, TPB is about a bunch of fucking free loaders who think they don't have to pay for anything because they have a fucking internet connection.

Re:It's not interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39954633)

Anonymous is anyone and everyone, don't label them so quickly.

Re:It's not interesting (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | about 2 years ago | (#39959951)

Anonymous is anyone and everyone, don't label them so quickly.

Yeah... but the culture tends to attract the script kiddies. Most of the "hackers" I know could care less about a totally 1337 circle jerk, like Anonymous tends to identify as on a whole. I think it's pretty safe to say if someone identifies themselves as a "member of Anonymous", they are probably a script kiddie. Real hackers just don't care about labels like that. They are more interested in what they are doing than what people think about what they are doing.

Re:It's not interesting (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#39954841)

How is that "interesting"?

Has TPB publicly criticized Anonymous before? It's not like this is new behavior for them. If TPB is just now starting to speak against Anonymous, that is interesting. Why now? Why not before? Will they continue to take this stand?

Re:It's not interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39957131)

You should realize that similar to Anonymous, TPB is not a group with one single mindset : some of us have always supported Anonymous, others have always criticized them.

Just go to the forums, and you will find both sides.

And yes, TPB is more than just the people who run the website. It's a community, with differing opinions on lots of topics.

Re:It's not interesting (1, Informative)

bky1701 (979071) | about 2 years ago | (#39955345)

The cluelessness is spreading!

Anonymous is not an organization of any kind. Saying you are anonymous and using anonymous-ish symbolism (which is actually all /b/ in nature) are the modern equivalent of flying a jolly roger. That you can so easily ignore this and say they are "a bunch of cyberthugs" shows you have no idea what you are talking about and really should not be speaking on the matter.

Re:It's not interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39955515)

In theory yes, but in practice?

Re:It's not interesting (1)

bky1701 (979071) | about 2 years ago | (#39957959)

What the hell are you talking about "in practice"? Are you implying there is actually some kind of shadowy organization making use of an unusual combination of software pirates, furries, and bronies to accomplish their evil ends, and if you are, are you actually taking yourself seriously while doing so? As someone who has actually been kind of connected to the whole "anonymous" thing, back to when it was about blocking the entrance to the pool in habbo hotel, I can tell you, you're insane if you think it's anything much more organized than a handful of people with some clue posting crap telling a huge number of idiots to do random things for amusement. Really; go to /b/ sometime, be enlightened to the TRUE "anonymous". It isn't quite al qaeda.

Re:It's not interesting (2)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 2 years ago | (#39956499)

Find and replace "Anonymous member" with "self-identifying Anonymous member."
 
There, are all you whiny twats happy yet?

Re:It's not interesting (1)

bky1701 (979071) | about 2 years ago | (#39957985)

It is about the process of, "hey, someone did something we don't like, let's blame it on anonymous!" Considering "anonymous", which doesn't exist, is not that far away from being labeled a terrorist organization, you should be a little more alarmed that than to call people pointing out the truth "whiny twats". But I suppose, ignorance is bliss. Those scary internet people are out to get us.

Re:It's not interesting (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 2 years ago | (#39959195)

You just can't win whenever an article comes up about them. Either somebody refers to them as an entity and you instantly have a dozen ACs screaming "ANONYMOUS DOESN'T EXIST FEAR US!", or you dismiss them and someone like you complains that they're a real thing and we should pay attention.

As usual for /., the only winning move is not to play.

Re:It's not interesting (0)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 2 years ago | (#39955497)

You underestimate Anonymous.

Anonymous is chaos. It's the true consequence of freedom. It's anarchy.

Anonymous is weather and piratebay a butterfly in NY. The comments will have an impact but you won't know what particular impact until after the hurricane has already passed.

Re:It's not interesting (3, Funny)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 2 years ago | (#39957273)

You underestimate Anonymous.

Anonymous is chaos. It's the true consequence of freedom. It's anarchy.

Anonymous is weather and piratebay a butterfly in NY. The comments will have an impact but you won't know what particular impact until after the hurricane has already passed.

That is so profound </rolls eyes>

Re:It's not interesting (1)

bipbop (1144919) | about 2 years ago | (#39959783)

You underestimate Anonymous. Anonymous is chaos. It's the true consequence of freedom. It's anarchy. Anonymous is weather and piratebay a butterfly in NY. The comments will have an impact but you won't know what particular impact until after the hurricane has already passed.

Anonymous is, apparently, trying to sound cool. Seriously, did you manage to keep a straight face while typing this stuff?

Re:It's not interesting (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 2 years ago | (#39957257)

The statement is interesting, given that Anonymous has been attacking music industry sites and other targets for some years, saying it is in support of the Pirate Bay.

How is that "interesting"? 'Anonymous' are a bunch of cyberthugs which is not the crowd of people The Pirate Bay want to be associated with and they have never wanted to be associated with. The Pirate Bay is trying to legitimately fight for copyright reform and having a bunch of script kiddies attach people in their name undermines that effort.

Exactly. Anonymous is all about the LOLs, latching to all and any cause, like a parasite, to the detriment of whatever cause they supposedly support. It's like a terrorist claiming support for Palestinians while blowing innocent people up halfway across the world, or a Christian Fundamentalist blowing up a clinic because God told him to support pro-life POVs that way.

Anonymous poisons every cause it latches to, robbing legitimacy in the process.

Bystanders (4, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39952949)

I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

Re:Bystanders (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#39952993)

It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

That's very true, but it may well be that Anonymous doesn't have many other weapons. If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole :)

Re:Bystanders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39956055)

And if Anonymous keeps it up, pretty soon every member of Anonymous will look like a Butthole. Oh wait... too late.

Re:Bystanders (4, Interesting)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 2 years ago | (#39953031)

Especially being how Anonymous only do extremely inefficient ICMP flood attack, the least they could do is learn to pull off a DDoS properly.

Re:Bystanders (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#39953737)

Really? I'd be interested in hearing how about you would go about improving their attacks. Please, do continue.

</FBI>

Re:Bystanders (3, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39954195)

In one of my security classes in college, each student was assigned a different type of attack and asked to demonstrate both the attack and countermeasures. I was assigned DoS/DDoS. Although I ran through the typical DoS/DDoS attacks, I also took one of my older PCs (a 186MHz Cyrix processor if that's any indication) to the backstage of the campus theater and beat the hell out of it - threw it off ladders, raised it on a pulley and smacked it around with a 2x4, took a grinder to it, etc. There's plenty of effective DoS/DDoS attacks if one is creative enough (and physical access always helps). Professor loved the demo. I later donated some of the parts to the PC hardware class.

Re:Bystanders (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39956119)

I don't get your point? Physically destroying a machine as a form of DoS attack?

Re:Bystanders (0)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39957855)

I don't get your point? Physically destroying a machine as a form of DoS attack?

I believe the point he was trying to make with this example was that a DoS attack doesn't always have to be electronic.

I would agree that the demonstration was rather primitive, as one could have simply used the power button to prove a point of physical access.

It's always more fun though when you get to literally destroy stuff.

Re:Bystanders (4, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#39956045)

Especially being how Anonymous only do extremely inefficient ICMP flood attack, the least they could do is learn to pull off a DDoS properly.

That's so ... ancient information. Anonymous and LOIC do NOT do ICMP Echo floods by default anymore. They do HTTP requests. The latest version of LOIC even makes the HTTP requests non-cachable (using various tricks that force a caching service to pass the request upstream so you'd need a really good CDN).

Re:Bystanders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953033)

It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

No.

I think that your comment is hyberbole, DDoS is not like using a grenade on a bus.

Re:Bystanders (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | about 2 years ago | (#39953051)

I Anonymous' case, it is a grenade they use.

Re:Bystanders (5, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#39953821)

I think it's less like a grenade and more like a shitload of spitballs. I mean, get hit with enough of those and it's going to be pretty unpleasant, plus a few are bound to miss and hit some other poor sod to the point where he's going to fell grossed out and maybe want to wipe his face a bit. But er....yeah I'm not really sure where I'm going with this analogy but I think the point I'm trying to make is that it's crude, only somewhat effective and those it "harms" aren't really harmed in a particularly dangerous way - it's more an irritant.

Re:Bystanders (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39954167)

The other ones that are harmed are the only companies completely unrelated to the targeted sites who happen to share a data center to host their webpage. DDoS Virgin/RIAA/MPAA/etc's server and it's sure as hell going to affect other machines in the same facility as their shared bandwidth gets eaten up. Sure, there's ways around it but it's still going to hurt other websites hosted there - including many that do online commerce and thus will be hurt far more than the targeted company.

Re:Bystanders (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#39954523)

A spitball is a very effective weapon if it is travelling fast enough'
Like .99c

I think it was a quote from the Forever War...

Captain Obvious To The Rescue (2)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 2 years ago | (#39957549)

It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

No.

I think that your comment is hyberbole

No shit! Stop the presses!!!((1<<3)|3)

hyperbole /hprbl/:
Noun:Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
Synonyms: exaggeration - hyperbola - overstatement

DDoS is not like using a grenade on a bus.

</sigh> http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-01-05/ [dilbert.com]

Fine, let's spell it out for you:

Definition for figure of speech:
trope: language used in a figurative or nonliteral sense.

trope /trp/

Noun:A figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression.
Verb:Create a trope.
Synonyms:metaphor

metaphor /metfôr/
Noun:A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.
A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, esp. something abstract.

Re:Bystanders (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953071)

It's like using a grenade to take out a guy on a bus and hitting the wrong bus.
The actual bus the guy is on is behind the one you nailed, and all you did was get him stuck in traffic.

Re:Bystanders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953227)

^THIS^ Thank you!

Re:Bystanders (2)

halcyon1234 (834388) | about 2 years ago | (#39955259)

They took out the company's website, not the service itself. So...

It's more like tossing a grenade at a parked bus with the company's name on it, that no one was using, when the real guy you wanted was taking the underground, high-speed, heavily armoured and inaccessible train to and from the comapny's skyscraper headquarters, and business goes on as usual.

Re:Bystanders (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#39953091)

I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

Yes, Anonymous are the Muslims of the cyber-world

Re:Bystanders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953237)

I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

Yes, Anonymous are the Muslims of the cyber-world

How about this?

It's using a drone launched Hellfire missile to take out a single guy at a wedding.

Yes, Anonymous are the US of the cyber-world

See what I did there?

Re:Bystanders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953937)

I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

Yes, Anonymous are the Muslims of the cyber-world

How about this?

It's using a drone launched Hellfire missile to take out a single guy at a wedding.

Yes, Anonymous are the US of the cyber-world

See what I did there?

The difference is that taking out a few extra of those child-raping murderous loonies would just be a bonus

Re:Bystanders (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39954119)

We're taking out Halliburton?

Re:Bystanders (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | about 2 years ago | (#39954929)

The difference is that taking out a few extra of those child-raping murderous loonies would just be a bonus

The sad part is, given the current state of /. comments, I can't be sure who you're talking about.

Re:Bystanders (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 2 years ago | (#39957687)

I'd have to agree with TPB on this - DDoS has a tendency to affect a lot more than just the target. It's using a grenade to take out a single guy on a bus.

Yes, Anonymous are the Muslims of the cyber-world

That is an imbecile comment. You could have said they were the Islamic Terrorists, or Abortion Clinic bombers of the cyber-world. Instead, you decided to use an already tiring and inaccurate generalization. Well done.

Re:Bystanders (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 2 years ago | (#39953587)

Beyond that, attacking the forward-facing sites of the RIAA and MPAA has no impact on their business - pretty much zero. It's like spray painting a mean saying on a door to get a business to close.

When you attack an ISP's servers, it's very possible for it to translate into service delay and interruption, depending on which servers are attacked, how badly, and what their function is.

Plus, if you're not a noob, it is completely trivial to circumvent the block. TOR works fine, even at a slow long-packet-trip speed, because you only have to load the site and find the page you want via TOR. Once you have the magnet link from the site, you no longer need TPB for any other part of the transfer.

Re:Bystanders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39955321)

Your metaphor is terrible. A grenade is destructive, a DDOS is only a temporary blockade. The Virgin website was just down for a while.

  It's more like the sit-in protests of the 60s, where people gathered around and sat in front of segregated businesses, blocking customers from getting in for the duration of the protest. A DDOS is the internet equivalent, where people block websites instead of buildings.

Re:Bystanders (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39955619)

Ok, so it's people blocking off an entire street (the bandwidth for that co-lo) to protest a single customer (Virgin).

Re:Bystanders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39961737)

It's more like the sit-in protests of the 60s, where people gathered around and sat in front of segregated businesses, blocking customers from getting in for the duration of the protest. A DDOS is the internet equivalent, where people block websites instead of buildings.

Ok, so it's people blocking off an entire street (the bandwidth for that co-lo) to protest a single customer (Virgin).

Yep. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and you can't hold a sit-in without inconveniencing the folks walking by.

Re:Bystanders (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#39957095)

That and Virgin Media didn't exactly choose to block pirate bay so even if it only affected them it would still be the wrong target.

Distance (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 2 years ago | (#39952953)

TPB has come under increased scrutiny and attack by ISP's & governments lately. They want to distance themselves from these attacks by Anonymous to try to save any face they may have left.

Re:Distance (2)

lambent (234167) | about 2 years ago | (#39953059)

I don't think so. They've been under attack for a long time, and have always had an irreverent attitude to the Powers That Be. They've always seemed indifferent to how they are viewed by ISP's and governments.

I don't believe there's anything ulterior to this, they probably just don't like DDoS's. No reason not to take them at face value on this.

Re:Distance (2)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#39953921)

I don't believe there's anything ulterior to this, they probably just don't like DDoS's.

Indeed. I'm sure they've been hit more than their fair share of times and probably loath it.

Just like it war, you may wish to kill the enemy, but a lot of folks are against torture. There's a right way and a wrong way to achieve the goal.

Nothing to be worry about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39952961)

Evidently, different bait groups of government agents posing as hackers got some divergence factor.

Not Virgin's fault (5, Informative)

iB1 (837987) | about 2 years ago | (#39952999)

Virgin had no option but to comply with the court order that was issued. If they had ignored it, they would've been fined hundreds of thousands of pounds - probably even more than that.

I'm not a Virgin Media customer, but I understand that the block is trivial to swerve around, so Virgin Media have obeyed the letter of the law, but haven't made it particularly difficult to get around. Anyhow, DDosing a web-site is just lame.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#39953135)

I am a virgin customer and there are loads of ways round it [slashdot.org].

Re:Not Virgin's fault (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953863)

I think a lot of people on slashdot are virgin customers; we all know geeks don't get laid.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (1)

Inda (580031) | about 2 years ago | (#39964623)

I had this issue last night. Why none of the family had spoken up before, I don't know.

Armed with a huge list of scene bookmarks and contacts I began.

But first a Google search "how do I access the pirate bay using virgin media". The first result was the news, as were the 2nd and 3rd. The 4th result was a list of mirrors; a big list of mirrors. I have never been so disapointed. Years of knowledge gained on IRC, Usenet and the scene all wasted.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (1)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#39954969)

Virgin had no option but to comply with the court order that was issued. If they had ignored it, they would've been fined hundreds of thousands of pounds - probably even more than that.

BT haven't blocked it (yet), neither have O2.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 2 years ago | (#39957193)

Virgin had no option but to comply with the court order that was issued. If they had ignored it, they would've been fined hundreds of thousands of pounds - probably even more than that.

BT haven't blocked it (yet), neither have O2.

BT haven't been on the receiving end of a court order yet. When they are they will. They have actually been given more time for some reason.

http://www.ion.icaew.com/itcounts/24534 [icaew.com]

O2 have been given instruction to by the courts so are probably just pissing about for as long as possible before they implement it. This may mean that they actually implement a more effective block than the trivial to bypass joke that Virgin have apparently implemented. Of course anything the try is probably just going to be akin to big game of a whack-a-mole anyway.

Most PLC's exist to make money so have to obey the law in case they get fined. If they don't they the shareholders get antsy and boot the directors out replacing them with people who will toe the line. The only way this doesn't happen is if the company thinks it is in the their financial interest to pay the fines rather than comply.

The upshot of all this is that trying to take revenge on a company for doing what they are required to do by law is childish and most likely ineffective at getting anything changed anyway. If you want to stop this, then you need to get the UK government to pass laws abolishing copyright or whatever in order to make what the piratebay provide within the letter and spirit of the law. The best way to go about this is to convince a majority of the british public that copyright is no longer needed or useful in digital age.

The best people to start with are probably your parents, or their friends as they are most likely to vote (young people vote less so politicians listen to them less). If we cannot convince the older generation that copyright needs to be abolished than we have to live with it as this is what democracy is all about.

I have just searched on the web and cannot find a single meaningful survey of public opinion on whether we should abolish copyright law. My personal opinion though is that most people would actually support some kind of copyright law, even if they did want it changed to allow consumers more freedom to use works they had paid for.

The problem DDOS attacks on a legitimate business is that it actually makes people associate the people who support copyright reform with vandalism when they do not get their way. In a democracy that is not useful at all.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (1)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#39958479)

The best people to start with are probably your parents, or their friends as they are most likely to vote (young people vote less so politicians listen to them less).

Ahh to be young. If anything, young people do vote a lot, they then give up when they reach the mid-20s as they realise nothing changes. When they become grey haired they haven't got anything better to do.

I didn't vote last week as I left for a train to London before 7am, and didn't get back til after 10pm. First election I've missed.

My personal opinion though is that most people would actually support some kind of copyright law, even if they did want it changed to allow consumers more freedom to use works they had paid for.

I imagine so, remember it's always been illegal to rip your CD onto your ipod in the UK, only changing very recently. People don't care about the law, they care about the impact the law has on them.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 2 years ago | (#39964879)

I didn't vote last week as I left for a train to London before 7am, and didn't get back til after 10pm. First election I've missed.

]

Wow, me too. I was in London for the whole week though due to work. Why don't we have our elections on Sundays like France does? It is such a pain in the arse having them during the week for people who work away from home a lot.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (2)

bky1701 (979071) | about 2 years ago | (#39955417)

Funny how corporations always get away with the stuff that hurts consumers and yet end up being totally powerless against those darn governments trying to do the same. Almost makes you wonder if corporations are not paragons of virtue.

Re:Not Virgin's fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39957935)

...and? Corporations like Virgin Media, from what I keep seeing, own our politicians. You've vastly better luck of inconveniencing a corporation and having them pass laws than you do /voting/. Of course, inconveniencing a corporation that way is just going to get them to buy laws to stop you and ignore the actual problem entirely.

Headline (4, Funny)

necro81 (917438) | about 2 years ago | (#39953053)

Pirate Bay Criticizes Anonymous' Attack On Virgin

Although Pirate Bay and Anonymous are regular /. fodder, you know this story got approved only for the headline. Let the jokes commence!

the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about 2 years ago | (#39953121)

does Pirate Bay strive for legitimacy, and fear government-sponsored takedowns if they're linked to Anonymous?

Re:the enemy of my enemy may not be my friend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953219)

I think that the pirate bay is taking an ethical stance yes, I do believe pirates have ethics).
It is not because a company follows a court order (and avoids being fined), that it is ok to retaliate against a company who is doing nothing wrong what soever.

Might have been more appropriate is Anonymous crippled the court networks or the party requesting the blockage of TPB.

Makes sense to me.

Virgin has nothing to do with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953131)

Hell, why do you think they blatantly have an error page saying that the website was blocked? So that people get up in arms and start complaining to the government.

The government are at fault for caving to the media industry when it has been proved countless times that the so-called pirate industry doesn't even dent the main industry.
I think the only time I can seriously think of it ever causing any sort of dent was Dreamcast. But it could have also been because Sega was just becoming less important as a hardware vendor and it was going to happen, piracy or not.

Case in point that the new Avengers film sold a lot regardless of "efforts" of those damned dirty pirates to kill and steal every ticket for the show and burn them while drinking rum!
This is just one of the more recent large cases of things selling so well.
Then of course there are the cases where terrible films do terribly, and the directors end up blaming the pirates despite the downloads pretty much being around the same as a typical film that sells well!

I go to see films all the time. I even buy them on the occasion. But recently with all this DRM nonsense I have been turned off from buying things.
You are at fault, industry. You. You are the one turning such a stupidly small case in to something big.
The internet isn't even close to ruining any industry. Not even newspapers like some idiots were claiming last year was it?
Evolve or die. Valve did. Apple did, EA are (doing it horribly), Microsoft did, Sony did. Nintendo are moving to it, pretty much every indie party are because they can't afford sending crap around the world. Why can't you guys?
You give a better product than a free one, PEOPLE WILL BUY IT. Better yet, they will respect you!
You give someone a worse time than having to deal with viruses, rogue keygens and broken games, damn, you better believe they will deal with that over being labelled a criminal for wanting to copy their film or song to a PSP or whatever else.

PR (4, Insightful)

davegravy (1019182) | about 2 years ago | (#39953185)

Wow... The Pirate Bay is making public relations announcements. If that isn't a sign that the site now exists more for political reasons than to be complicit in piracy, I don't know what is.

but theres more to this message (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 2 years ago | (#39953289)

I've read the whole article and they do say in other words that they don't support their types of attack... they didn't say to stop it. :)

Re:but theres more to this message (2)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | about 2 years ago | (#39953377)

I've read the whole article and they do say in other words that they don't support their types of attack... they didn't say to stop it. :)

Then you have lousy reading comprehension. FTFA:

“We believe in the open and free Internet, where anyone can express their views. Even if we strongly disagree with them and even if they hate us,” the group said.

So don’t fight them using their ugly methods. DDOS and blocks are both forms of censorship.

“If you want to help; start a tracker, arrange a manifestation, join or start a pirate party, teach your friends the art of bittorrent, set up a proxy, write your political representatives, develop a new p2p protocol, print some pro piracy posters and decorate your town with, support our promo bay artists.”

Re:but theres more to this message (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953923)

So don’t fight them using their ugly methods. DDOS and blocks are both forms of censorship

Well ain't that cute. But they're wrong.

Censorship is a weapon used by the government against its people. Even if some people would be performing the exact same act (null-routing ip ranges, or nx'ing a domain name), it still wouldn't be censorship.

Re:but theres more to this message (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | about 2 years ago | (#39954353)

Well ain't that cute. But they're wrong.

Censorship is a weapon used by the government against its people. Even if some people would be performing the exact same act (null-routing ip ranges, or nx'ing a domain name), it still wouldn't be censorship.

You can (arguably incorrectly) fight over semantics all you want. There's still no rational defense in fighting for a free and unrestricted internet by silencing the voice of anyone who disagrees with you. No matter what word you use to describe the act, the spirit of that tactic's still the same. It's cartoonishly hyprocritical, counter-productive since it causes more crackdowns on privacy, and typically misdirected because you aren't actually doing anything to fight the laws or policies that caused the problem. Not only is silencing people completely and entirely contradictory to the idea of a free internet, but widespread, quick-on-the-draw DDoS attacks and the like are a threat to being able to have one.

Much more interesting comment... (5, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#39953331)

From TFA:

“As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders but we strongly believe that tackling the issue of copyright infringement needs compelling legal alternatives, giving consumers access to great content at the right price, to help change consumer behaviour.

I find that far more interesting than TPB distancing themselves from Anonymous.

Re:Much more interesting comment... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953423)

I think

“If you want to help; start a tracker, arrange a manifestation, join or start a pirate party, teach your friends the art of bittorrent, set up a proxy, write your political representatives, develop a new p2p protocol, print some pro piracy posters and decorate your town with, support our promo bay artists.”

is a much much more interesting comment.

Re:Much more interesting comment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39953841)

Why do you find that interesting? ALL ISPs would prefer the MAFIAA to find other methods to keep themselves viable in the 21st century.. the alternative? a very dystopian internet, not a good choice. and the ISPs would have to finance it, you do the math.

Clarification (3, Interesting)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#39953873)

From reading the comments, some people seem to misunderstand what actually happened. Yes, Anonymous DDoS'd Virgin Media, an ISP in the UK. However what they did was take down the main website, www.virginmedia.com - customer's broadband connections were NOT affected in any way. I know this as I am one of their customers.

Incidentally, despite being an ISP their website is pretty shoddy. I shared the link about the attack with a friend of mine who used to work for them, her response? "Well that doesn't surprise me, the bloody web site goes down if there's a stiff breeze or a bank holiday". Slight exaggeration, yes, but the point is clear.

Not what it seams. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39954721)

Thie Pirate Bay is only trying to save face, because they have been partially blocked but have not come under full attack yet, but it's coming.

Virgin Media, by going along with the court order, are contributing to the problem and a clear signal needs to be sent that those that do not support freedom, need to close their doors and leave the country.

The Hand Grenade example is a poor one. Anonymous hitting Virgin Media is not hitting other companies, just Virgin Media.

Anonymous fights for freedom, and if any of you do not agree, then don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Attacking who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39954731)

The article title made me think TPB was criticizing anonymous attacks against Slashdotters.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...