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!

Comments

Arrest them

[totalnubee]

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"

Seems somewhat easy to overcome

[Dimensio]

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.

So...

[UberOogie]

... in the course of a week, our frinds at the RIAA have advocated cracking systems and DOS attacks?

If this doesn't prove a mentality of being above the laws of "regular people," I have no idea what does.

RIAA - Pursue by any means illegal?

[!Squalus]

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.

combating privacy

[frknfrk]

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.

Re:DoS proxy

[knick]

..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

Re:Offer a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well.

[mindstrm]

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.

Just a bluff

[DeadPrez]

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.

Freenet is immune

[kindbud]

It seems to me that Freenet is immune to the tactic described in the article:

The software technology, according to industry sources, would essentially act as a downloader, repeatedly requesting the same file and downloading it very slowly, essentially preventing others from accessing the file. While stopping short of a full denial-of-service attack, the method could substantially clog the target computer's Internet connection.

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.

Re:Civil Liberties?

[coats]

It sickens me to see the publishing industry, Congress, the Executive Branch, and the courts ignoring the Constitution's demand that copyright protection must have limited duration.

• 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.