Slashdot Mirror
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
_Chainsaw sent an article running at ZD that talks about the RIAAs latest plan to stop pirates: " We'll smother song swappers " is the quote, but it basically amounts to a Denial of Service. Way to go guys! Brilliant strategy!
Wouldn't that qualify as a terrorist act now?
"Even when I say nothing it's a beautiful use of negative space."
- Indelible, "Fire In Which You Burn"
"Even when I say nothing it's a beautiful use of negative space." - Indelible, "Fire In Which You Burn"
I'm glad to see internet battles being fought on internet terms. Technological problems need technological solutions (ie, MAPS RBL but NOT spam legislation). Now, it's up to you to decide whether file sharing / piracy is a "problem", but if they do try this, then it's likely that we will see improved technology to deal with it (freenet?).
Bring it on, I say!
Doesn't sound like a typical DoS attack. From the article it looks more like the RIAA would have machines set up to look for copyrighted material and make repeated download requests, then download very very slowly to keep servers with connection limits filled up. How hard would it be to require a minimum transfer rate -- that is, for the servers that do not already offer such a setting -- and then code in a setting to allow banning of IPs that engage in suspect behaviour consistently.
The scarier RIAA attempt IMO is their attempt to make themselves exempt from liability if they damage a system while looking for copyright. The wording alone allowing for immunity to any prosecution provided that the break-in was by a copyright holder (in the article) appears so utterly vague as to be used as a carte blanche for anyone to break into a system (Honestly, your honor, I was trying to make sure that they weren't pirating a Star Trek TNG Fanfic that I wrote nine years ago!). What's scarier is the quotes suggesting that not only have they considered it legal in the past, but they have already been engaging in such activity.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
If this doesn't prove a mentality of being above the laws of "regular people," I have no idea what does.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Just when did anyone vote for the RIAA?
I wasn't aware that they had dictatorial powers over the Internet. This seems highly illegal, and should be stopped immediately.
I guess it's time to step up and hurt them where it counts. Boycott the music industry.
This is either a) bogus or b) an example of the fascist thinking going on at the RIAA. Somebody really needs to explain the principles of fair use to those people, or maybe we should just stop buying music altogether.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
HELLO! Who are their customers?? Nope, not the listners, nope not the performers. Keep guessing!
the RIAA talks on and on about 'fighting piracy', etc, etc. they think the way to fight privacy is to break CD standards with 'security' measures, and issue DOS against users suspected in trafficking their 'property'.
my suggestion is that these two strategies have never worked, and will never work, so maybe, just MAYBE they should try something new, something that has a chance to work.
let me explain.
they should look at the reasons piracy exists and see what they can do about them. (1) CDs are too expensive, (2) CDs are usually one or two good songs mixed with a lot of crap, and (3) downloading a song is SOOO much easier than fighting traffic to and from some shopping mall or waiting 3-5 days for shipping.
(1) CDs are too expensive. LOWER THE PRICE OF CDs. Why does it cost 15 bucks for a burnt piece of plastic, which is debatably more valuable than a 50 cent blank piece of plastic? Bring the price down to 9.99 and a large chunk of piracy goes away.
(2) CDs are usually one or two good songs mixed with a lot of crap. I don't really know what to do about this one. How about stop manufacturing boy bands and nurture the real artists out there?
(3) downloading a song is SOOO much easier than fighting traffic to and from some shopping mall or waiting 3-5 days for shipping. Either build great new perfect highways between everyone's house and the mall, or build a store next to everyone's house, or perhaps (please) provide individual songs for download at a VERY reasonable price in a format i can use (a) on my computer, (b) in my RIO, (c) burned to a CD for my car.
Fix it, or watch your empires crumble. You can't fight piracy with technology.
The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
How do you figure?
If the RIAA tries to DOS me, they'll be DOS-ing my ISP (a baby bell.)
If the RIAA tries to DOS some college student, they'll be DOS-ing that college.
Likewise, the RIAA is connected to the internet via some ISP, and I don't know of a single ISP that doesn't have a rule/contract clause/etc. against launching DOS attacks (or other forms of network abuse.)
Even if directed at a single IP#, the attack is still interfering with the normal operation of that network to which that IP# belongs.
Apparentally no one told the RIAA that two wrongs do not make a right.
..or even create RIAA Honeypots. Machines that will act like they have all of the hotest songs, and unlimited connections. Bog the RIAA machines down by trying to download 1000's of songs off a Honeypot server, and let the server throttle down the RIAA machine even slower then it's trying to get the songs.
A couple of these could probably eat up the RIAA machine resources. A RIAA tarpit.
--knick
Why not follow our own advice and look for a technological solution? It would be an interesting project to combine something like Advogato's trust metric with cryptographic signatures and connection quotas. In such a system, the hosers that are trying to screw things up would quickly end up locked out of most hosts.
The downside of needing someone on the system to "vouch" for you to start would be relatively minor for the overall gains, methinks.
The bigger downside might be the lessening of anonymity on a transfer; if you have to prove who you are before starting a transfer, then there's the potential for someone to put together a client that logs who you are and what you've downloaded. There would have to be a strict seperation between identity information and digital signature...
Look.
Up until now the RIAA's sole method of business has been suing people and trying to get fascist legislation passed, and nothing else. As I'm sure we all know, the massive civil disobedience of file sharing doesn't bat an eye at the law, in fact kind of snickers at it, so that hasn't worked.
What this means is, the RIAA is finally getting with the program. They're finally employing a technological solution to a technological problem. Some might claim they already had with SDMI but that was a joke, plus it wasn't aimed at going after the file sharers. Now, with this plan, even though there are ways around it, it looks like it could be semi-successful, especially if their online music services are attractive enough. Picture: J Random Musiclover, uses WinMX and KaZaA, until they bog down terribly slowly. He doesn't know it's the RIAA attacking, and he should "damn the man" and keep on truckin'. He just thinks they've become lame and it's time to move on. And then he sees one of the RIAA offerings, and if they're smart enough to finally go for some sort of cheap subscription or micropayment, he might very well be sold.
And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. The RIAA has been an ogre in the past, but if it goes the way of micropayments and accepts the fact of filesharing (and that it will never, never, never go away), then perhaps the RIAA will find itself able to move into the future as, if not a friend, then at least an ally of humanity. I would hope so. Otherwise, let's destroy the fuckers.
But let's give them a little respect, because they're finally starting to get with the program.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
So....... they intend to DoS attack every college campus in the united states? riiiiight.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
The answer is that technology cannot solve the problem, because copyright is a social contract, not a set of absolute rights of control.
There are NO technological methods to distinguish piracy from fair use. In the end, that is a legal distinction, and is based on a number of factors. In fact, quite often, the same, identical act can be either infringement or fair use, based on nothing more then the intent of the person committing the act.
If I record a television show off the air so I can watch it later, when I'm home, that's fair use. If I record the same television show off the air so I can sell the videotape on ebay, that's piracy. There is absolutely no technology that can determine what I'm going to do with that videotape. The idea that technology offers a "solution" to the problem is a fallacy.
The real "problem" is that copyright law is completely out of sync with the reality of how people use, and want to use, copyrighted works. The problem is that copyright holders have grown far too powerful, and have convinced Congress that they, and they alone, are the only "interested party" in matters of copyright, when in fact, the real purpose of copyright is not to protect them, but to serve the public by increasing access to and the availability of creative and useful works.
The copyright industry is struggling to reduce and control access to and to limit the availability of copyrighted works -- the exact opposite of the constitutional purpose of copyright.
The "solution" is for Congress to change the laws to maximize the availability and access to copyrighted works, through such methods as statutory royalties, and eliminating the "right" of copyright holders to control who may use and distribute their work.
The problem is that unlike the recording and motion picture industries, which pay individual Congressmen directly through campaign contributions, the rest of the country -- the citizens at large, pay Congress indirectly through taxes. We've created a system where no one can get elected without selling out to the media corporations, then we wonder why Congress keeps repealing our freedoms, but leaving exemptions open for the recording and motion picture industries.
I don't think the RIAA's new on-line music distribution systems are going to fair very well, when all the rogue file swapping DoS-etteers target the Pressplay and MusicNet servers, bringing them to their knees. In an all out DoS war, my money is on the seedy underbelly of the internet versus a collection of music corporations intent on seeing thier profit margins increase.
They RIAA might be able to DoS a few file swappers out there, and knock them off the net for a few days at a time...but they are going to be placing a huge target on themselves for every script kiddie out there with an army of @home windows zombies just waiting for a reason to unleash them.
A script kiddie knocking down the Pressplay or MusicNet servers for even a few hours at a time is going to hurt the RIAA bottom line more than the handful of file-swappers they will be able to DoS off the net.
-jef
It sickens me to see people refer to listening to stolen music or watching pirated movies as their civil liberties.
Being terrorized and attacked due to their determination of me holding "copyrighted meterial" is violating my civil liberties.
A) They cannot determine with certainty that I actually performed any illegal action, due to the uncertainty that the song/whatever is actually copyrighted, and also due to the fact it is not necessarily illegal to export copyrighted meterial, by accident/etc.
B) If whenever you illegally throw a piece of paper in the street, or whatever, I break into your house and mess it up, I'm breaking your civil liberties. The broken civil liberties are NOT of throwing papers in the street.
If the RIAA take the law into their own hands, and cannot be stopped legally, maybe citizens should take the law into their own hands, and fight back too.
Isn't that like running around selling sugar as cocaine?
Can one charge a drug-dealer selling bunk drugs with fraud?
This is a serious question.. is there a statute that makes the laws against misrepresentation not apply if the intended transaction is illegal?
If they put up lots of 'bogus' files.. can we not sue theM?
Personally, I'm happy to see the RIAA go to war with the common folk.
Oh, I figure it will happen around the same time as Joe Sixpack learns to check and see if he has IIS running on his pre-loaded system from Best Buy and applies the proper patches to keep it secure.
Face it, technophiles are fine with this measure of the RIAA's. It simply won't affect us, but the RIAA, for all their mouthing, doesn't give a damn about us. We're such a small number of people we simply don't matter. It's the Joe Sixpacks they're worried about. If they can make Joe's experience with P2P miserable(and tying up your phone line all night to download a couple of songs will certainly be miserable) then they've done their job. Any action on the part of P2P servant providers to filter these type of connections through a central MAPS-type database would be attacked like all other companies who have had any central architecture to attack have been.
I'm afraid this has a possibility of working in the short term at least. Anyway, everyone knows real pirates use Usenet or IRC.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
I think someone else said it best on the other thread (about RIAA attempting to make it legal to hack copyright infrigers).
Posted by sphealey:
This technique has been honed to perfection in the last 20 years. Pressure group floats a ridiculous and unbelievable trial balloon. Public outcry ensues. Pressure group "retreats" to a "compromise" position, showing its "reasonableness" to legislators and the courts. The so-called "compromise" position is 120% of what the presssure group wanted in the first place, to give them a little more wiggle room.
I think you can be pretty sure this will be followed by a similar proposal, probably slipped under the radar screen by a pet legislator.
This will never work on the Freenet. Attempting to do so will cause each node along the request path to store a copy. Attempting this on Freenet will cause the targeted files to be spread more widely, making them MORE available, not less.
Edith Keeler Must Die
- From a mathematical point of view, if Congress is free to extend the term of copyright at will, then by definition that copyright term is not "limited".
- From an operational point of view, a copyright term that has been extended so that
during my adult entire lifetime, past, present, and future, no work has had nor will have its copyright expire is operationally indistinguishable from an unlimited one (for no experiment I can perform can make the distinction).
- From a human point of view, a copyright term that lasts for multiple human lifetimes is not limited in any meaningful sense.
In the United States, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I say that the fundamental lawbreakers are the RIAA and their cronies in Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Courts."My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Start supporting and frequenting your local bands and musicians. Let them know (while you have their ear) what you think of the larger labels and their tactics. More importantly, find out what the *musicians* think, since not only do they love the music they play, but eventually might like to [GASP!] make a living playing their music! [[insert thunderous silence]]
If it means you go without the next Backstreet Boys [sic] albumn, then so be it. Why not make your own music, then post it to the web for free. Heck, this might even be the predecesor for turning a large portion of the population into the 'artists' they didn't know they were.
"Doesn't this mean that the RIAA are now guilty of attempting to hack,"
The RIAA wouldn't know how to hack. Crack, maybe, anyone can be a skr1pt k1dd1e these days...
However, the implications of someone wantonly DoS-ing a company's connection because of an employee's (or, better, a wandering consultant's) illegally downloaded file, is phenomenal: you piss off a whole company, you get sued, very quickly, for DoS-ing them without good reason. IOW, it's very easy to miss the target...
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn