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!
... does that mean I can respond with a Smurf attack? I mean, they started it...
...hilarity will surly ensue.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
How can they be sure that theyre hitting a user that falls under the laws theyre enforcing by themselves? What if the user is in a country not covered by those laws?
Could they themselves could be hunted for performing terrorist actions under terrorism laws?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
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"
That the RIAA see their own interests as being more important than the civil liberties of their *customers*. Should this vigilante BS be responded to in kind?
I think we need to keep a very close eye on the RIAA right now. We (/. users) have the same capabilities as the US govt because of our large distributed nature. I advocate the foundation of a group to watch the RIAA. Email me if you think it's a good idea.
Oh, and check out the RIAA-watching stuff already on http://www.cryptome.org.
Mattcelt out
"And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those lousy k1dd13z!"
This will work about as well as if the 'pirates' decided to circumvent copy protection by singing the desired songs themselves.
Amazing magic tricks
Those guys were a bunch of terrorists. Maybe the fed can detain them indefinitely. Put Valenti and Rosen in the cell next to Sklyarov...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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!!!
before users figure out the IP's of the RIAA's smothering servers and firewall connections from those machines to /dev/null?
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Note to those who will say that I'm a dirty rotten no good pirate: I don't pirate music. I simply buy from indie labels. At least then, I'm sure that the artist gets most of my money.
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
And Usenet will immediately be filled with posts of RIAA IP addresses to filter..
Yeah that's a Good Idea(tm). Bring the pirate music industry closer together, then raise prices for the rest of us.
Well duh. It's not a move to combat piracy, it's an excuse to claim 'more pirated works exist than we thought..', and ensure prices stay high, or go up.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
First they want to be a hacker with no recourse.
Now they want to be a "script kiddie".
What's next, they'll want to be an MSCE?
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.
Look for a lot of spoofed IP attacks in which the "attacker" appears to be the RIAA. This will be great cover for malicious crackers.
Amazing magic tricks
The subject is a quote from the article. And it's quite true.
It's license to committing a criminal act. People who conduct this sort of activity can be prosecuted.
It's like feeding your neighbor's dog antifreeze when it poops on your lawn. Definitely not the right thing to do, and just another way that the RIAA will piss off the public.
OR, they can simply DoS the swappers. Unfortunately for them, they are relying on TCP, so they need to disclose their source addresses for the attack to work. And if they do that, we traders can make a database listing all of their IP addresses (kind of like MAPS/ORBS) and block their asses. We will find ways to thwart this approach and we will continue trading.
So, in a nutshell, I am very pleased with their latest strategy. I haven't been so gleeful since they announced copy-protected CDs (which also have done little to discourage swapping).
-CT
If I as an individual decided to write a client for a distributed system such as Gnutella that took an innordinate amount of bandwidth from users it connected to it'd be considered a bad or malicious client, but not illegal.
All the RIAA is asking for here is to play on the same level as us. I have difficulty counting the number of times I've read posts following an RIAA announcement saying "We'll just crack/hack this/that until their systems can't handle it," and yet the assembled masses get all self righteous as soon as the RIAA suggests they be allowed to do the same.
I liken this struggle to the one surrounding the hacked satellite cards. The legality of hacking those cards has been accepted, so the company fights on a technological level. I find this completely acceptable, and perhaps the best/right reaction to a sitation such as this.
I think we should encourage the RIAA to try to slow down file trading systems, and save the real fight for when they try to pollute our laws with amendments that will affect us far more comprehensively than the availability of the latest Spears track.
So who do you think can do a better job of DoS? The RIAA or a bunch of 31337 5kr1p7 k1dd135? Not that I condone DoS attacks (*ahem*slashdoteffect*ahem*), but it seems like a terribly stupid battle front for the RIAA to choose.
If you want the best marksmen in the world dead, why would you challenge him to a pistol duel of all things?
-Ted
Oh man!
Already a potentially contentious plan, the recording industry inadvertently sparked a further wave of criticism last week with plans to protect its strategy from being undermined by a pending antiterrorism bill.
Ha! Gee, looks like someone clued up and realized this DoS-type of technique would count as "hacking" and leave them open to prosecution under the Anti-terrorism bill. Ah... that's just too classic!
Hey, wasn't Bush mouthing off about "ridding the world of evil-doers" the other week?
When the US government going to solve all our problems by dropping RIAA executives and lawyers on the Afghans?
[but, then, most of the Afghans don't deserve that much punishment!]
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The RIAA is now guilty of a conspiracy to commit a criminal act. Please notify your local congress critter, hope they aren't a paid lacky of the RIAA, and maybe something will happen.
Then again...maybe not.
It would be more devious to make a site look like it's swapping music, then let the RIAA do your DoSsing for you.
I think that instead of just writing to my congressmen, I will CC: it to John Ashcroft. This is clearly a criminal act no matter how much the RIAA tries to disguise it. I put faith in the community to stop this from materializing.
The article quotes in reference to the RIAA's last attempt to stop filesharing: "We referred to it as the 'license to virus,'" said one congressional staffer. "It would have given them the incentive to employ lots of hackers trying to figure out how to stop (MusicCity), Morpheus or Audiogalaxy."
So now the RIAA wants a 'license to DoS'. Give me a break.. This is by far more criminal than ripping some MP3s!
But, hey, I don't see people making that much of an effort to set up an alternative system, either. If there was a realistic alternative, there wouldn't be an issue, because there wouldn't be an RIAA to create one.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
First off, its not a normal denial of service, they're not swamping you with connection attempts and consuming all your bandwidth. What they're doing is downloading your file, repeatedly, very slowly. This is actually fine, and not at all questionable ethically in my mind. Its not going to work however. How long until the various file sharing software products implement blacklists? All you'd need is for somebody to set up a database of IP addresses to block. If they do the denial of service attack from corporate WAN then it'll be easy. If they lease IP addresses from the internet service providers it'll be a bit more tedious but still easily defeatable. Regexps are your friend.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
"Oh great, my router just got fried by a freaking script fogey!"
The article also states: While stopping short of a full denial-of-service attack, the method could substantially clog the target computer's Internet connection.
Could someone please clarify how this stops short of a DoS in any way??
Something we did in football... line the long snapper up all alone... and all the other people further down the line. This caused the team to respect the move and move there line down as well... or else we had an 8 man screen.
... match name, and size... and they do any form of attack to our system, wouldn't they be liable?
Following this idea... if we have songs that seem to be copyrighted
They would have to respect this possibility and react to it... or else they would get some potentialy large lawsuits.
Just an idea....
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
...I've become angry enough about the RIAA bullshit that I'm now actively interested in pirating music.
IIRC, Napster is pretty much toast.
What's a good place to start to begin tracking down jazz, blues, world music, and seventies/eighties pop?
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I don't run gnutella or any other fileswap program. But my dial-up line was almost saturated for about 3 hours last night by attempts from multiple machines to connect to port 6346 - That's gnutella, isn't it?
How are these people going to make sure that the machines that they are trying to DDOS aren't somebody who just happened to be assigned the same dynamic IP address as somebody they actually targeting?
And for that matter, how are they targeting them? The variety of IP addresses the 'attack' came from was high and seemed to be all private users. Are they doing some sort of 'cache poisoning' to the gnutella database so that all requests for certain files are routed to a single slow dialup or something? So that they can effectively turn every gnutella user into a DDoS zombie machine?
It would certainly explain my logs from last night.
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
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.
If that wording had become law, then anyone would be able to legally DoS anyone, for any reason. That's good if you want a Terrorism bill, bad if you want Anti-Terrorism bill.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Couldn't this easily backfire on the RIAA? If I noticed a lot of DoS traffic coming to my site, couldn't I call their ISP and get them to shut down their internet connection since it's the source of a DoS attack? This idea would probably work better if they were DoSing a corporate firewall than the average joes computer. After all, if I was a network admin at a company and I noticed a lot of DoS traffic coming in from a specific ip address, I would try and contact the ISP and get them to turn them off temporarily, but maybe that's just me.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Well, they couldn't hack us, so they'll dDoS us. Oh great. Now we'll have to unplug our Ethernet before listening to the mp3. That'll stop 'em! I can see the synergy meeting at the RIAA:
:)
Person A: Let's hack 'em!
Person B: Yeah!
Computer Guy: telnet leet.mp3.trader
Debian GNU/Linux testing/unstable
leet login:
Computer Guy: I r0073d their b0x0r3. I r0x0r!
Person A: Yay! We stopped them!
Person B: Cool!
leet.mp3.trader: PAM_unix: Login timed out. Failure from box.riaa.com logged.
Computer Guy: What does that mean?
~Later that day~
leet.mp3.trader's ISP: Stop hacking our network. The FBI has been notified. Thank you.
Person A: Cool! The FBI's gonna help us do illegal stuff!
Computer Guy: Oh shit.
FBI Agent: All of you are under arrest, please come this way
~Tomorrow~
Person C: Well, our little plan failed! We'll show them! Boys, turn on the dDoS
Oh great. How creative guys
My other car is first.
You know, if the MPAA & RIAA put half as much creativity into creating new entertainment as they do trying to stop piracy, we wouldn't all be stuck with Brtney Spears and N'Sync. Perhaps, we would even have had better "blockbusters" than Tomb Raider and Planet of the Apes this summer! What a concept, eh?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Wouldn't this backfire? They're suggesting that they intend to kill these servers by downloading content very slowly ... in effect clogging the available ports. So serves will simply be configured to dump these slow transfers, and users with slow connections will be more inclined to spend money on broadband connections so that they can access this content, in effect making it easier for them to retrieve larger quantities of content faster. I say go for it RIAA!
If I DoS attack someone I go to Jail? This is a CyberCrime after all, isn't it? But if the RIAA does this its somehow legal? And their, and MY ISP are ok with this? Somehow I think not? Where do they come up with these schemes, they will never work, because of the Physical separation of the networks, and machines, and the dependancy on things inbetween they don't control.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Going by a democratic system, that's two sayings for the Nays, versus one for the Eyes. The Nays have it, by a majority of one vote.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How is it reasonable for a private industry group to want carte blanche to blackice you in the name of protecting a copyright?
/Brian
Sounds like this new "Attack" it is an attack after all could easly be worked around in software. To many hits, or to slow a download, DROP, BLOCK, BAN!
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
If gnutella is the service, and if the attack denies said service, then by definition, the RIAA is engaging in a DoS. What I want to know is what if the RIAA downloads a song from my computer for which *I* own the copyright? Can I sue them for copyright infringment? Or even better, if they're legislation had passed, and they downloaded my copyrighted material, would I have the right (nay the obligation) to hack into thier system retrieve my file and if I happen to fdisk their system, whoops!
-Chuck
A DOS attack does not HAVE to be a ping flood.
It's anything that keeps you from being able to offer your service to the net, hence a "Denial of Service" attack.
Exploiting all the bandwidth of an ftp is certainly a DoS attack if it keeps others from being able to download those files, same as having thousands repeatedly hit a web site to take it down is a DoS.
Typcially DoS's are accomplished through pingfloods and the like, but that's not the only definition.
RIAA officials will be sending groups of up to 2000 teenagers to any house party, block event, or apartment get-together where so-called "DJs" (i.e., pirates) are illegally performing protected works. By filling the space with RIAA agents, the hackers and pirates can't get in, thus protecting the vital intellectual property from misuse.
Also, the RIAA and MPAA are continuing their plans to merge and become the fourth branch of US government, overseeing the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Especially the judicial branch. Look for the RIAA seal in a courtroom near you! You PIRATE!
the article states the the RIAA will use a program which will attempt to open multiple, slow speed, downloads to a computer holding a copyrighted file ...
how long until someone adds a "download speedlimit" to their program? ie. a user has to be downloading at atleast some-K a second or they get the boot.
for an group with millions at their disposal, this is a pretty weak solution.
_f
Do they legally have the right to download these files? It would be so sweet to sue the RIAA for copyright infringement.
Seems like RIAA is going through evolution at a fast pace. First they knew nothing. Then digital happened, and they still knew nothing. Then the net and digital and p2p happened, but this time they were prepared, armed to the teeth with DMCA.
Then they tried out misc. tecnhological speed bumps, which all turned out to be trash, and when that was revealed, they tried to extort dr felten. And when he yelled "foul", they somehow managed to backpedal in a way that got felten's suit thrown out of court. bastards.
And now they've evolved into script kiddies. I guess the goal justifies the means. However, they're still as dumb as brick. In the aftermath of September 11., the hawks have tightened things so that hacking is considered terrorism.
Cool. Finally there is no need to go through expensive lawsuits to stunt these goons. All we have to do is wrap up the evidence, and hand them over to the feds.
Extortion, cyberterrorism, sounds like a mob thing to me. Time for a grand jury to put these people away.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
How exactly are these people going to identify the song swappers? The article says:
...one method uses software to masquerade as a file-swapper online. Once the software has found a computer offering a certain song, it attempts to block other potential traders from downloading the song.
So, how are they going to define these "certain songs." Think about it: how many bands have played "My Girl" for example? If I have MyGirl.mp3 on my share list, do I get a DoS attack? What if that's an mp3 I actually made using a music production application? How in the world can they accurately say "this person is offering pirated music?" Are we going to be guilty until proven innocent, and at the whims of the RIAA have our sharing shutdown until we justify every song? This will never last, at least I hope it never does.
~ now you know
My advice: Ignore it. These people are technical buffoons. Remember that a lot of press-speak from the RIAA is focused upon manipulating public officials to put through the legislation they require. This press-release is trying to legitimise hacking for them alone.
Actually I've got an idea. If they do try this, how about some of our nastier hackers get together, identify the source IP's of the RIAA machines and simply hack them to death. After all, how secure will their machines be? They still don't understand technology, so I suggest we give them an idea of just how nasty the big wide world can be.
So, who will volunteer a boxen to be a honeypot?
.mp3 file that is a recording of someone chanting, "when the log rolls over, we will die, we will die!" and make a copy of it corresponding to every mp3 song name on your 100GB "archive" partition.
/. in a couple of weeks.
Just use an
Then, publish the results on
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
The Ford Motor Company announced today that if they suspeced you would be speeding while driving one of their cars, they would sneak over to your house and pour sugar into your gas tank.
If their legislation had passed, and if in the course of trying to DoS my gnutella connection they had downloaded my own copyrighted files, I would have had the right, NAY the OBLIGATION, to hack into thier servers, retrieve my files, and if I damaged anything along the way, I'm completely free of blame because of their legislation.
And yet, something tells me that it wouldn't have worked out this way.
Too bad.
-Chuck
Here in the world of the future, 94% of all bandwidth is taken up by these three sets: machines falsely claiming to have resources, other machines falsely claiming to want same, and those two sets of machines pretending to transfer data very very slowly.
-- Jeff Paulsen
... developing their wacky plans?
This plan was deemed only slighty better than the "PC GPS/Abandoned Star
Wars defense laser" and the "Anti-MP3 MP3" plans, the latter failing because
of the obvious development of an Anti-Anti-MP3 MP3.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
I can't imagine that they would be stupid enough to start a war with hackers. They're asking for it.
I guarantee that the large portion of the people that use these systems are people who know their way around networks and systems, at least to some degree.
-X
Welcome to the Recording Industry Association of America. We provide services for citizens who wish to protect their copyrights with might, instead of right.
Has someone been pirating you're music and putting it on the web? We understand how you feel. Because of that big bad idea called liberty, you can't stop it, can you? Well enter the IP address of the offending site, and we'll blow them to smithereens!
FAQ:
1. Isn't DoS illegal?
Not any more. We're the good guys, so it's ok.
2. Will you DoS any server that's entered on this page?
Discrimination is wrong. Always. You name it, we bomb it.
3. I hate my brother. Can you beat him up?
Watch for version 2.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
I use gnutella and other peer-to-peer systems to distribute many homemade mp3s that I compose, perform, and record myself. I am not a member of the RIAA. On my peer-to-peer systems I don't serve a single mp3 that is under the authority of the RIAA.
If I see any evidence that the RIAA is disrupting my ability to distribute my own songs, they are going to be bitch-slapped with a lawsuit so quickly...
_______
2B1ASK1
With Freenet's model, the documents would merely migrate closer to the nodes making the specious requests -- indeed, the extra requests would simply result in *more copies* being available throughout the network!
I sincerely hope that a Freenet-based music search system (such as Espra) becomes consumer-ready soon; we may soon need one.
#!/bin/sh
while true; do wget www.riaa.com; done
Wait for 0.2.. It's threaded.
One day, the RIAA is going to set up a few hundred nodes full of files which look like pirated music. Instead they will contain anti-piracy messages. The RIAA will keep up with p2p tools which try to verify checksums and signatures of music. After a while, it will be difficult to find music as 10%, 20%, 50%, 70% of the files available are actually anti-piracy messages instead of the song you think they are.
How are we going to stop this?
there are 2 kinds of people. those who divide people into 2 kinds, and those who don't.
l337 h@X0rZ needed immediately for a position in the entertainment industry. 401K, Benefits, and Bad Karma included in employment package. Must have own h@X0r \/\/areZ. Apply on-line at www.riaa.org.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
If there are N music traders, they may need as many as N^N systems in order to smack them all down. How economical!
Why bother.
Minimum average download speed > 3K/sec (sorry 14.4 modem users!)
Maximum connections per IP series (correct me if there is a better term for XXX.XXX.XXX.*)=2
Also, put a sign up at P2P software homepage of choice that says "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Any IP Series Through Our Software".
Doesn't seem to be a problem to me.
I've read through the statute, and I think that the RIAA is attempting an enormous bluff.
... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
It seems to me that for the RIAA to attempt to hack into someone's internet-connected computer and disable it is clearly illegal under current law:
18 USC 1030(a)(5)(C)
(a) Whoever - (5)(C) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage;
An internet-connected server would appear to be a "Protected computer" under the definition in 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B)
(e) As used in this section - (2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer - (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;"
"Damage" is defined in 18 USC 1030(e)(8)(A):
(e) As used in this section - (8) the term ''damage'' means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information, that - (A) causes loss aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or more individuals;
If the RIAA really thinks that it is legal for them to hack into and disable other people's computers, then why aren't they doing it already? Answer, because they know that it's really
illegal -- if they were to do more then $5,000 in cumulative damage, they could be charged with a felony, but they're hoping that they can fool Congress into making it legal for them to attack and destroy other people's computers by claiming that they currently have that right, and that the antiterrorism bill is going to take that right away from them.
The RIAA appears to have adopted the strategy of making a completely false claim, then taking advantage of the runaway-train-antiterrorism bill to attempt to insert a brand new exemption for themselves, allowing them and only them to practice cyberterrorism under the guise of "protecting their copyrights."
Dirty tricks as usual.
From the article:
"Lawsuits filed against Napster, Scour, Aimster, MusicCity, Kazaa and Grokster have shut down some of these file-swapping gathering points, but the practice remains as popular as ever."
I can't imagine what this list is going to look like in a year. Somewhere, sometime, there will be a breaking point, where either the RIAA gives up, or something happens whereby music piracy is stopped completely. This cat-and-mouse game cannot continue forever. How many more networks are we going to shuttle people to before the RIAA wins because music piracy is impossible? Remember, every time the RIAA shuts one service down and there is a mad rush to tell people to just use client XYZ to connect to a new network, more and more people just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I guess I'm just going to have to buy that Pink Floyd CD now."
I think the future has to be that the RIAA allows music for download at relatively cheap prices. Enough people have already gotten fed up with downloading the client-of-the-week and finding a server that is a) open and b) has lots of good stuff on it. Right now, the RIAA is slowly strangling "piracy" with their endless lawsuits, but it can never be completely stopped until they offer a competing service. Until then, the lawsuits are going to continue, and that list is going to become ridiculously long.
will only be bleasing in descise for the P2P
Jesus, it sure is scary when you have a seizure right in the middle of a sentence isn't it?
=)
Do a google search before posting.
terms incorrectly. They seem to think that someone downloading a song from me is uploading, and that I download only from others...strange but that is why you see the mis-use so many times.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
So the incoming traffic is slowed down. You're still just sending out a little packet to the RIAA, while your legitimate users are barely affected once they manage to connect. I agree, though, your service provider (and all others) should ban traffic originating from anything controlled by the RIAA/MPAA/whatever. Just think how nice it'd be to globally block verbal and written communication from them too.
Sure, you're 31337 & you have already programmed your router to drop their packets, or you've set up an auto-smurfer. Good for you! Back up a second & try this on your Win* box instead:
copy *.exe *.mp3copy *.vxd *.mp3
copy *.dll *.mp3
Just write a short
I think Hillary Rosen will shit live goats the moment her techies tell her that there are suddenly 6.02e23 mp3 files being shared on Morpheus. Didn't Sun Tzu specify a similar strategy centuries ago?
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
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...
You're right, the purpose of the RIAA in this matter cannot be denied.
Fair-use quote from the article:
Record labels hope to make the point that subscription services such as MusicNet or Pressplay, which will launch on Yahoo, America Online, MSN and RealNetworks by year's end, will not be subject to the same doubtful quality of service.
So basically they are saying that they will degrade quality of peer-to-peer services in order to show that their services are of higher quality. This is called unfair competition, and under the new laws adopted, would probably qualify as an act of terrorism for financial gain...
I don't know what they smoked to think that they were allowed to do this with the current law. Probably they figured that nobody who was sharing their music would sue them for damages, since they'd bring attention to themselves...
"I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT: Request NSync crap song
GNUTELLA_SERVER: Sending...
RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT: Request NSync crap song
GNUTELLA_SERVER: Sending...
RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT: Request NSync crap song
GNUTELLA_SERVER: Sorry, too many clients
RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT: Request NSync crap song
GNUTELLA_SERVER [sending to other GNUTELLA servers]: HAX0R found: RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT
GNUTELLA_SERVER_A [to RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT]: Request Nsync another crap song
GNUTELLA_SERVER_A [to RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT]: Request Nsync another crap song
GNUTELLA_SERVER_B [to RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT]: Request Nsync another crap song
...
GNUTELLA_SERVER_ZZ [to RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT]: Request Nsync another crap song
RIAA_HAX0R_CLIENT crashes.
There's simply no way that they could afford to be able to do this. Assume that there are just 250,000 illegal distribution points, and that a single $2000 client machine can tie up, say, 10 of these machines at a time. They would need 25,000 machines running to take down those 250,000 "pirates". Add in their bandwidth costs, which would be sky high, and you've got a solution that costs way more than the problem. Now you could try and do it with fewer bigger machines ( E450's come to mind ), but you still need multiple nic's and a sh!tload of bandwidth, and e450's aren't exactly cheap either. For a task like this it could actually cost more to go with the larger machines, since they're going to need tons of bandwidth.
Hypothesis time:
.5kps...that's 10kps you've eaten up. Gee, I'm not gonna notice that on my screen and kill the requests. If you keep at it, I ban you from downloading anything. Ok, then you spoof IDs or hit me from multiple sources. Fine, I report you to the company for a violation of terms of service. You're now banned from getting on that network.
Ok, assuming the software allows multiple downloads of the same file (why wouldn't it, it's not writing the file, just reading it), how could this have an effect? You start 20 downloads at
Or let's say I'm on Gnutella, which you can't be banned from. I still see your IP you're coming from, and even if you use multiple systems I can still see which net you're on. Spoof an IP? No biggie, I still got a log on you. I'll just keep blocking IPs for each multiple attack that comes in. Eventually, you'll find you can't hit my system.
All legality aside, cause we know this is really walking the dark side, this plan of the RIAA is going to have two neat effects. One, it's gonna make the P2P networks stronger as they adapt to defeat the threat. Two, it makes the RIAA look like the cartel bullies they are. When are they gonna quit fighting the customer and start working with us to find a solution that makes everyone happy?
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
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
Hrm. I don't think they mean DoS in terms of swamping trading communities with requests. And I don't think we should talk about this in the future tense; it's happening now. A few weeks ago, I fired up Limewire and spent some time poking around in a couple of communities.
What did I find? Searching for songs from certain artists/labels returned *hundreds* of hits on essentially identical audio files with slight filename changes and incrementally varied byte sizes. Any attempt to download the songs would be successful -- until the server killed the session at precisely 80%.
Then I noticed that *all* of the files were being hosted on three IP's. A quick look showed the IPs in a range belonging to a major commercial hosting operation. Nice. A honeypot of sorts. And of course, they have my home IP (fixed) logged as requesting the same songs over and over until the lightbulb went off over my head.
Oh, well, back to anon-ftp for me...
I think not...(*poof*)
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.
DoS me, I've been upgraded to BSOD'ing since '95, that won't change much in my life :)
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
And I have a few good friends who are, so I have a basic idea about how they think...
I would start banning IP's and entire Class C's at the edge or backbone level that I knew belonged to record companies or the people who worked for them to distribute this kind of attack^H^H^H^H^H^Htechnology. This is the same kind of tactic that sysadmins use against DOS attacks, but in this case there's likely to be no distribution since there is no way to get around that legally, and no ability to spoof ip's since they are planning to act like they're really downloading a track. They have to negotiate a connection and send ack's back and forth, right?
It's a very simple argument if you look at it from a financial or a resource usage point-of-view. It is in an ISP's best interest to keep as much of its network resources free for its customers. If my customers are subject to frequent DOS attacks, then I may ban certain services, such as Ping or Telnet and refuse those packets at my edge router or on my backbone connection if I have a decent backbone provider.
It's the same deal here. It's in an ISP's best interest to keep the RIAA from using up their network resources as well, because the number one reason people leave an ISP (at least when I worked at one) was a perceived 'slow connection'. If a joe sixpack-type customer knows he's going to get online to find music, and if he has heard from his buddies who got him hooked up in the first place that one ISP is worse than another when it comes to having RIAA related problems, then he's not going to sign up for service with that ISP.
This war of words and technology isn't just confined to the elite circles of geekdom, as most of you know. The RIAA has made a big enough a deal out of it that they're starting to build a Microsoft-like reputation for evil and greed. Joe-sixpack *does* know that the industry wants to keep him from trading music online.
By the same token, even a marginally experienced user is going to be picky about his service when he has better luck running his file-sharing apps with one ISP than a another, and we do know that ISP's are starting to refuse to TOS their users more and more often, just so they don't get negative reputations.
In the long run, this is going to be just another class of people who are routinely denied network access for their actions, via organizations similiar to MAPS RBL or the like. I've already seena few posts by people who plan to 'collect' offending IP's. Again, you can't spoof IP's if you have to send Ack's or do any sort of encyrption negotiation for your attack to work.
A humourous side-effect of what I beleive is going to happen will be the fact that the RIAA companies and 'attack dogs' will by able to claim 'success' because they'll perceive a drop in file-trading because of the network blocks that will no doubt be up hours after this sort of thing gets off the ground.
Good try, Hillary, but you're playing with boys who have been doing this sort of thing for a very long time now. Why don't you try again later.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The most interesting thing about this whole "We'll DoS'em to the stone age!" statement is not so much what they said but what is implied. The RIAA is basically admitting that they can't sue _everyone_ that they need to in order to shut down file sharing services. They can't shut down the services in a litigious manner so they're going to try another route (DoS attacks). The RIAA may have bucket loads of money but their cash reserves are not without end and lawyers don't come cheap. The RIAA must see this and is exploring other avenues.
The only way for the RIAA to benefit from the internet music sharing phenomenon is if they stop trying to be the phone company and monopolize the market. If they just charged everyone a nominal fee for downloading the music that they _don't_ own then they'd be raking in the cash. Instead they spend all of their time, money and resources suing anyone who _dares_ oppose them.
The RIAA is becoming more desperate with their latest actions. It's about time people said no to thugs like the RIAA and the Harry Fox agency who attack our fair use rights at every corner. Now, if we could only come up with a file sharing system to share OLGA tablature then we'd really be on to something!
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Let me get this straight. The RIAA just has to think that you are a pirate to try to DOS you? So what if I can make Joe over there look like he's a pirate?
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
how come the retarded people get to be in charge?
I really don't get it sometimes. like do they seek them out? are they the only ones applying for these positions?
I imagine the interview process must be interesting - "well, george here does have two legs but can barely walk, drools, and babbles incessantly about bugs 'eating his skull' - sounds like the perfect canidate to lead this deal"
I on the other hand am obviously perfect. and handsome.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
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
on morpheus, which is at this point windows only I think, but 600,000 users gievs a great shot at finding anything :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
All that sounds good, but in the long term there is nothing the music industry can do to solve the problem of piracy without fundamentally changing their business model. Right now it looks like this: 1) Manufacture flashy new act 2) Market the product like it's going out of style 3) Milk it, milk it, milk it 4) When it goes out of style, go to step 1.
The problem is that a model that is so driven by marketing is especially vulnerable to piracy. Why?
The music labels have pretty much stopped telling people to buy their stuff because it's good, but because it's popular, and at some level their customers realize this. People will buy a product because it's the hot thing, but if that is its sole source of appeal, at the end of the day the buyers won't feel obligated to support the people behind it.
If you have an act that's good but undermarketed, MP3-trading will function like free marketing, resulting in increased sales. But if you have an act that's well-marketed but crappy, MP3-trading will function like lost sales, as people say, "Okay, I've been told by Mr. Television that I should have this; well, now I have it."
No one is going to "discover" Limp Bizkit by hearing an MP3. The product is the marketing and vice versa. Similarly, in tend years, that Limp Bizkit CD isn't going to be on the shelves waiting for the next generation of music fans; if you want to make money off it, you have to make money now.
Take a look at the publishing industry. The book world is also driven by marketing, but to a much lesser extent. If you publish a book, you can expect that it will provide revenue independent of the amount of money you spend to hype it. That's because the book industry is actually about selling the content instead of the hype.
Furthermore, the publishing houses have stayed alive by acting as finders and screeners of content. Instead of riding one or two major cash cows, they cast their nets wide, trying to get everything that has some quality. There are tons of great music albums that never get major label release, but there aren't that many great novels out there haven't been published in one form or another. Conversely, I know that anything published by a major house will be better in quality than 90% of what I could get for free.
So why don't the record companies adopt a model like the publishing industry, where they nurture a variety of intrinsically good acts that will provide more modest but longer-lasting and more stable cash flows? Simple: the quality-based model doesn't make nearly as much cash as the marketing-based model.
The fact is that there is no way for the record companies to make a "fair" profit doing what they do now. Nothing less that the survival of their way of doing business is at stake; it's no surprise that they're going down swinging.
I work as a volunteer Sys Admin (BOFH) for my apartment block; 300 users, on a 2mbit leased line, so we are a small time ISP of sorts. /firewall, and our commonly shared bandwith.
Our users are dynamically assigned private IP numbers, so we use NAT on our gateway.
As I see it, any kind of DoS attack on one of our users, will effectively be an attack on our gateway
If such an indiscriminate DoS praxis was instigated by the RIAA against us, we would excersise our legal options to retaliate and defend ourself:
Eg. even though such DoS'ing may become legal in the US, it would still be a criminal activity by my countrys laws (Denmark). Since RIAA has presence in Denmark, it may be possible to persecute them.
Also, perhaps such DoS'ing from the US to other countries, may be illegal even by US law, since it is likely to conflict with international law.
And our humble organisation, might just be politically so well connected, that we could make it an EU case. Certainly we could make it a case in our own parlament, since we occasionally negotiate with high level civil servants, regarding various laws for community(?) based ISPs.
A huge amount of all Danish Internet traffic, goes through the so called DIX. So permanent choke points for RIAA IP numbers there, (and on our backbone providers routers), could also be an option.
We would also bitch and complain to RIAAs backbone provider, suggesting that harbouring DoS script kiddies like RIAA, might be a bad buisness idea, that perhaps could mean trouble for the overseas connectivity for the rest of their costumers (filtering on the DIX, RBL-style, peering agreements, perhaps even lawsuits).
In short, if such a law became a reality in the US, I would strongly advise the RIAA, to individually check the national identity of their DoS-targets IP, before commencing any attack.
I promise, next time I sign onto the gnutella network I won't trade any music! I promise, I promise, I promise! Just please, please, please don't take my P2P porn source away.
*Rushes out to buy a copy of the latest Britney Spears and NSync CDs to help appease the RIAA. Holds them up over his head.* See! I'm not hurting your business model! Leave my P2P network alone, please?
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
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.
I'd like to see what happens when the RIAA is swamped in complaints and threats of lawsuits from ISPs of their "target" customers.
Imagine this: If the RIAA were to actually make a move on this threat, there could be some serious side-effects. RIAA systems causing major traffic congestion at the offending customer's ISP, possible equipment failures, and overall rise in tech support costs when customers begin to complain about these problems are a few examples.
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
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. You meant people who violate copyrights, not pirates. That's quite different. Carry on, then, with the flame fest.
LaBrea to trap the RIAA
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.
Note to those who will say that I'm a dirty rotten no good pirate: I don't pirate music. I simply buy from indie labels. At least then, I'm sure that the artist gets most of my money.
I grew up on college radio (Rutgers and Princeton). Here is an article about my one of my favorite labels, Touch 'n Go Records. Current or past home of Steve Albini (Big Black, Rapeman, Jesus Lizard, Shellac), Butthole Surfers, Wedding Present and more. Apparently the Butthole Surfers tried to take over the distribution rights to their old albums (mmmm... Locust Abortion Technician) and the Touch n Go said "no way, I own the distro rights forever. that's how I make money." Made me think twice even about indie labels.
For a diatribe by "the greatest songwriter of all time"(tm) Steve Albini, visit Negativland's website.
In classic Big Black style, the liner notes for the Rapeman album "Two Nuns and a Pack Mule" contained descriptions of the songs instead of the lyrics. For "Steak and Black Onions", he wrote "We don't hate vegetarians. We just think they're funny."
Intelligent Life on Earth
Someone needs to start something that allows artists to promote themselves online and sell music and make it profitable for the service and the artists but also so it helps consumers. MP3.com was like this at one time, now its to commercialized I think. If you want your music you will have to pay but we need to work out the evil middleman that eats all of our money and doesn't pay the artist.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
If the fight moves to technology, that's a fight that the individual can win.
I see, in the future, most Gnutella clients having a CPS minimum on files, just like most decent IRC file clients do. This is quite easy to route around.
Dishonesty in such a network can temporarily harm it, but just as in the case of spam, we make do and live.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I think I'm going to go to work for RIAA as a developer for anti-piracy. Chrage High dollar to be on a neverending development p[roject, shweet.(plus I could download music from server that I choose to ignore... for a price.MUAHAhahahahah)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hey, someone on /. must know - are there any unbiased news sources left online ?
>|<*:=
"We have a legitimate concern that the measure currently being debated could unintentionally take away a remedy currently available to us under law that helps us combat piracy," said RIAA spokesman Jano Cabrera.
Your concern is noted, but I'm afraid that just now, we're a little busy trying to figure out how to keep crazy people from crashing airplanes into buildings, while not giving the Homeland away to the FBI in the process.
So if you'd kindly put a sock in it, we'd be grateful. Really.
Edith Keeler Must Die
And aside from the fact that that is exactly the way it works, we shouldn't have any problems, right?
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
DoS.mp3.exe...
DoS.mp3.mdb...
DoS.mp3.doc...
Come to think of it, they can't be doing THAT good of a job as far as shielding where they are coming from. How about a target virus that seems to be what they are looking for sitting officially inaccessible on an unsecured server waiting for them to "find" it. I wonder if this would be legal.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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
http://66.96.196.244/john/misc/britney_bikini/03.j pg
Look at the CD she's taking out. Look at the case she's taking it out of.
Hopefully, the RIAA will stop people like this pirating music, so that music artists can get the money they deserve.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Number of napster/gnutella/imesh/audiogalaxy/etc/etc users : well over 10,000,000 (on at one time? easily well over 1,000,000)
... A PRETTY FAT PIPE if they hope to DoS anyone. And with the technology (ideas?) that have been created in order to fight the spreading of virii, there's no way they could possibly hope to do anything.
Assuming a bandwidth of 50kb/s avg per user, they're going to need
They're truly grasping at straws.
But you have to give them merit for one thing:
They are finally going after the source of the problem instead of trying to introduce legislation to hurt everyone. Yes yes yes you do hurt some of the indy artists who are legitimately trading online, but you can't deny that well over 90% of online trading through any sort of mp3 sharing service is going to be pirated.
It's a futile attempt, just like all of their other ones, but finally they've gotten their heads out of their asses long enough to come up for air to see that maybe they're headed down the wrong path. The question is to see how far they put them back up once they're done.
If God gave us curiosity
- 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!"
You make the assumption that they would be using DDoS. That is unlikely. Why would they waiste their own bandwidth using this?
No. They will be trying other less brute-force methods. If they do, I would call up my ISP and complain, firewall logs in hand.
I wrote a little log analysis tool. A good PERL hacker could do a lot with it in terms of mining data from firewall logs. Write me if you are interested.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Lets start with the easy stuff!!!
;-)
Peers to support multiple downloads and rate limit the over all bandwidth going out on all the connections, so if they don't want the data someone else can have it! Rate limit the connections to no one connection can Hog all the bandwidth.
A quick IP ban on subnets that look like they are playing the system this could be distributed accross the system. There are only a limited number of subnets they can use. They need a leased line to do this, which would have a static IP, which is easy to find, if they used dsl or modem to get a dynamic one, they could not do enough damage, unless they had lots of lines, which would be a bulk buy from an ISP which could then be banned, customers would then leave that ISP which would lose money, and kick the RIAA from their net.
ban any host that has riaa.org reverse look up
Do not allow the same subnet to download stuff from any one peer to much.
Monitor the network for repeated downloads of the same track from the same subnet communicate this info to others.
Use the "Mojo" system, so if you don't share and get downloads you don't get to do any downloads!
(Now that would be amusing the RIAA would have to provide songs that people wanted to download!)
Use the freenet system, so as data is being requested from one node so much, the data can be buffered on other nodes.
I can just see it... The RIAA are dosing me, clickery click IP banned, day later, they got a new net connection, repeat.... repeat 100 times, they get bored and go away.
the method could substantially clog the target computer's Internet connection.
I dont think they understand, no matter how you ubstruct my usage of my computer or the net its a DoS. They can smurf me, they can ping-flood me, or do this - whatever - its all a Denial of Service Attack.
Sheesh, these people want to argue semantics... give me a break.
The american revolution was about british control of our every day life. The RIAA is about getting total control of their business investments.
:-)
No, the RIAA is about controlling what, when and how you can use your computer and your media.
The British were about controlling what, when and how you can use your life.
The RIAA are about taxing your media (they already do this in America, and successfully duped our idiot "heritage" minister Sheila Copps into charging Canadians for media. As if protecting Eminem were important to Canadian Heritage).
The British were about taxing your life (boston tea tax anyone?).
I'm very surprised you don't see the exact parallels between the two. I'm not even American and I understand what the basis of the war was about.
>People swapping music is kind of like the terrorists that bombed the world trade towers they HATE america
You really don't have any clue about what the Revolution was about, do you?
It was about your freedom. This freedom includes the freedom to use your computer in any manner that doesn't harm anyone else. They were so clear about this they made sure even the thickest man on the US could understand how important this fact is to America -- they even made sure that you can own guns, the only purpose of which is to kill.
Canada, however, was a little less extereme. Our guaranteed freedoms pale in comparison to yours, yet strangely we have more digital freedoms! I can even hack your satellite TV services without fear of reprisal! Heck, the Canadian government even allows me to walk over to my neighbours house and burn copies of any of their original CDs I like! Really!
Why does America accept having less freedoms than the country they fought against so long ago? Don't you want to be the freest country in the world again? Or do you let the RIAA destroy what your forefathers gave their lives to protect?
>People swapping music HATE the RIAA, yet continue to "steal" the music. Why? because it's sounds great! If the music wasn't worth something, why steal it?
I fail to see how making a copy of someone elses copy takes money out of the RIAAs pocket. That is, unless you come up with a hypothetical situation, which is quite a faux-pas fallacy as far as debating the issue goes. You'll find using hypothetical situations a no-no in any speech making textbook. They guarantee someone in your audience will attempt to out-think you. [INT(J/P) s will exist in your audience]
Just mentioning that since the usual rhetoric is "But you would have bought it if you would have copied it!". Proof again is in the fact Canadians can hack DirecTV yet again can't pay for it. If they can't pay for it then they obviously would have done without if they couldn't hack it. Same thing with MP3, except in that case you can (not will) pay for it.
Besides that, the RIAA doesn't make the music! Find out who our enemy is before you support them with your vitriol. I want to pay the artists more than they have ever made through the pathetic rotting carcass of a business the RIAA is. They won't let me. Whenever an artist tries to let me pay them more than the RIAA would the RIAA shoves a contract up the musician's ass.
That and most have better things to do than seek out every single artist (however, I suppose I don't -- but I get my music for free legally -- read lower). But that seriously cannot cost the majority of my money put down on the CD.
>if you really think the RIAA is raping you, stop buying/sharing their music.
It isn't their friggin music (except in a weak legal sense)! They didn't make it, they didn't encourage it (unless you count shitty fabricated groups like NSync) and their only business is a mob-like racket to get a product from point A to point A.1
They do virtually nothing (apart from hyping up shitty boybands) yet recieve the largest part of your dollar spent on music.
As a volunteer radio DJ I'll even let you in on a secret: As far as I'm concerned, the RIAA does jack-squat for getting artists on the radio. When I want promo CDs on an artist from a company I simply whip off an email to the label (or the musician themselves, if they are independant) and they send me a copy of whatever it is I asked for. I don't even pay postage!
>I guess people who did a job 2 weeks ago shouldn't get paid either.
If you worked like the RIAA does, I'd sue the hell out of you for doing nothing and then overcharging for your non-product. If you work as hard as a good full time musician does I'd pay you very well.
If you ran a cartel on your service just to ensure that I had to pay you (and you only) to get through to your "suppliers" I'd say you work like a drug dealer (or a diamond dealer) and I'd get the government on your ass [Thanks EU! Now can you do something about DeBeers?].
>Let me just say that I think that all the laws that the RIAA has or has tried to get passed are wrong,
Then why do you appear to defend them so wholeheartedly?
Personally I think I'd be cool with them using reverse hacks and/or DOS techniques to shut down people "pirating" their service. Of course they have no experience at it, and are at the same stage (as far as preventing hacking) GE was with the VideoCipher (actually their anti-CD ripping technology is much more pathetic -- its worse than 80's scrambled cable PPVs!), and just look how far anti-hacking Satellite technology has come (In Canada I can just open the classified ads and have no trouble finding a dealer less than 5 minutes away. I can be setup with a full TV hacking solution and have set up working faster than actually paying the money to Dave himself! [if paying for DSS were legal here, which it is not]).
The RIAA is almost two decades behind on ECM technologies and they will never catch up. I, for one, am not afraid, especially since unlike satellite technology I can actually try to hack them back.
>It's kinda like a "forced" gnu license for music, except you're not getting the owner's permission.
The legal owner or the rightful owner? If it were the rightful owner, well, things between me and them would be very different than the currently wretched situation between myself and the RIAA. As a DJ I very much appreciate the efforts that go into making music (even if all I do is flip CDs at a radio station). Also, as a DJ, I'd be angry as hell if I thought I had to make everyone buy RIAA approved radios to listen to my show, which is what digitally encrypted music and "hackpoof" CDs are all about.
If I were a musician I'd be angry that I can't release music myself and expect to "make it". The RIAA has the market so monopolized artists are pawns to their practices.
How many of the artists at Universal are happy about their CDs being degraded? If I were an artist I'd see it as being forced to take the RIAAs license at the cost of your livelyhood.
Sorry for the long post, but there just seems to be a lot of points on which you are uninformed. I'm planning on cleaning this up and posting it to a website at somepoint so I don't have to keep typing it up all the time.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Let's say I attempt to download some music over a peer-to-peer file-sharing system. One of the keen, young whizkids from the RIAA's l33t anti-theft squad spots me and begins hosing me down with ultra-large packets. Who pays for the bandwidth? The RIAA? Or me? IF I start downloading and leave my computer on over the weekend the RIAA terrorist could, in theory, feed me 10-20 gig of meaningless 'data'. At my cable provider's rates that's AU$1700-3400 (US$850-1700). Since that would instantly bankrupt me, causing my bank to foreclose and me to lose my house, would I have some recourse against the RIAA? Bear in mind that I live in Australia and so this would constitute a violation of even the meagre 'jurisdiction' that the RIAA claims in the US these days...
I invite responses
This is a bit off topic, but regarding the RIAA and DoS attacks, and the recent /. article about the RIAA trying indemnify themselves from damages resulting from hacking into computers.. I query whether anyone has been out on Gnutella lately and noticed all the 1k files, the names of which exactly match the query entered. I always assumed that these were viruses, porn site ads, etc. I wonder if the RIAA have gnutella servers out there trying to cripple, create security breaches, etc on the machines of people violating copyright by trading mp3s, movies, etc. Does anyone wanna load up gnut and do some detective work???
"BadTimes will make you fall in love with a penguin" - Laika
How fast do you think they'd find themselves black-holed if they tried this? One minute, or two?
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
Who VOTED for them?
Better yet...
Which watery tart threw THEM a sword?
Sort of exposes Microsoft's attempt at sophistication, no?
Trouble is they are dinosaurs with lawyers and large bank accounts to feed them
The RIAA represents a bunch of people who'se basic job is being middle men - it used to be that it cost lots of money to get music to people - you had to run an expensive recording studio, have a pressing plant, infrastructure for distribution, payola for marketing, cocaine, etc etc and you got to take a goodly chunk off of the top. The real problem is that now days it costs pennies to make a copy of some music and send it to someone - you don't even need a retail store (there's yet another markup gone) - the whole reason for the existance of these middle men is going away.
We may yet get back to the way things were just 300 years ago when the only way to distribute popular music was free (word of mouth - someone taught you a song and you sang it if you liked it).
However in our world there's still the problem that the artists need (and deserve) paying - we do need to solve that problem in a just and fair way.
Though they may be indirect. Perhaps not a law against it directly, but you are causing me to waste my own time and resources on a lie. Therefore, I can probably sue you for damages.
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.
>> An RIAA spokesman said the group was simply trying to protect its existing tools, not expand them...
So by this way of thinking, banks, convenience stores, etc should be able to do drive-by shootings on houses and neighborhoods they think are housing robbers???
Could the police get several hundred people to drive past street corners where they know drug traffickers hang out so folks who are really looking to buy drugs can't stop to buy???
If you're not on somebody's shit list, you're not doing anything worthwhile.....
Being terrorized and attacked due to their determination of me holding "copyrighted meterial" is violating my civil liberties.
Whoa, big fella. There's two parts here. While RIAA's attempts at lobbying for liability protection is downright bad form, calling this DoS strategy "terrorizing and attacking" is way off the mark.
If RIAA finds you have steal.me.baby.mp3 on your system, RIAA will just "download" it often enough to suck all your bandwidth dry. No other ports, no hacking your hard drive, no providing a virus to scan your subdirectories, no wiretapping your Audrey or even snooping your firewall. You offer the song, they oblige your offer in spades, so nobody else gets a satisfying download.
Terrorism is killing innocent people in the name of a political objective. Abusing that term dishonors those innocent people and trivializes the barbarity in the world.
The RIAA suck. However, they DO have the licenses to distribute music, and Mr. Gnutella user does not. This is a very valid way of combating the issue: suck the bandwidth dry. The RIAA should still be liable for damages incurred, and the artists should still undermine the RIAA's stranglehold by offering their own music instead of signing those contracts.
[
You know what they say, someone is always going to have a bigger pipe then you. Frankly, doesn't self defense come into play if they try this? If I am an ISP, and they are as so brazen to attack my network, why shouldn't I throw everything I have back at them? One good screw deserves another. I hope they rethink this idea - obviously they dont have anyone on staff that was once an EFNet operator. :)
Brielle
R7I7AAHaxor from DHCP-stp.loc-5-1.riaa.superhacker.robin.hood.hq.ri aa.org just entered
#mpthreeWaReZLEET
HotBalls: u got any mixed britney spears tracks?
Bsblvr: i want the new Justin Timerlake solo from the BSB new album!
R7I7AAHaxor: trading MP3's is illegal, u know.
Bsblvr: yeah so what????
BigDisks (3,400 GB of MP3) began sharing.
HotBalls: bigdisk, I missed u! I bet u have the new britney spears mix, huh?
BigDisks: Yes, I do. It's on my third Maxtor 100 gig.
R7I7AAHaxor: Bigdisk, you shall die!
BigDisks: Who is Haxor?
HotBalls: Just one of the lame RIAA goons.
R7I7AAHaxor: I am NOT LAME! I can DoS all of u! I will destroy u cable modems!
Bsblvr: ur gay
R7I7AAHaxor: I AM NOT GAY. I HAPPEN TO WORK FOR THE RIAA AND MP3 TRADING IS ILLEGAL! I HAVE U IP ADDRESS!
BigDisks starts file transfer to HotBalls.
R7I7AAHaxor: I HAVE STARTED DOS ON BIGDISK. I WROTE THE SHELL SCRIPT MYSELF; I AM LEET.
BigDisks exited (ping timeout)
HotBalls: u jerk, u cut my dload off at 53%!
R7I7AAHaxor: I AM MIGHTY RIAA HAXOR I WILL PREVENT ALL MP3! I AM ONLY 14 BUT I CAN KICK YOU, I AM LEET.
Bsblvr: u suck
R7I7AAHaxor: I WILL BE BACK. I HAVE TO STUDY FOR A BIOLOGY TEST TOMORROW, BUT I WILL BE BACK TO STOP ALL OF U FROM TRADING UR MP3s'!
R7I7AAHaxor exited.
BigDisks entered.
BigDisks: Who was that?
Bsblvr: One of the RIAA's employees. He's gone now, he has a biology test tomorrow and has to study for it.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
I write my own music, and upload it as MP3's onto MP3.com. I do this as a hobby, and never felt like paying someone to copyright my music, because, It's a hobby, and I am just doing it for fun. Am I at risk for DoS attacks, from my ISP, because I didn't copywrite my music? (If the RIAA found out about it) Do the RIAA treat all non-copyrighted MP3's as Pirated music? (Even those who where written by Amateur artists on MP3.com?)
Some days I wonder why I still buy music from them -- oh wait, I don't. Haven't ever purchased a GM automobile or recently purchased any MS software either. Don't plan on purchasing any of the above any time soon unless I see a fundamental change of business.
Note to the RIAA, if you are listening: I don't want to pay $20 for a CD, especially when only a dollar or two at best goes back to the artist. I don't appreciate not being able to purchase certain items from your back catalog, even in a medium that costs you no money. I really don't like this new "War on Pirates" thing you're pursuing. I'm not a pirate, but you just might make me one.
-------------------------------------------------
If the RIAA hired Slashdotters to use the Slashdot effect, that would really work!
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
... they have a Rage Against the Machine to me. :)
::ducks::
Do you like German cars?
After all, if they are allowed to break into people's computers and DoS them, can't we DoS her?
"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
Then maybe this is another one of those times where not aving the entire planet under USA law (remember the USA only holds a few percent of the worlds population, it has just a smidge more pollution though). Imagine if they try this on Freenet or something similar, the distributed nature of the beast would mean that it would quickly become in the entire networks interest to fight back, and the best approach IMHO would be to DOS the RIAA machines back. Preferably hunt for exploits and use them to wipe out the networking code (or cripple it so they can't threaten the service) but just plain bombarding them with packets would do. The likes of Freenet has a completely legitimate purpose (off-site backup of non-private data for one) and so if the networks fought back it would be interesting to see if it could ever be taken to court, or even if users of the network could be. Personally I can't imagine the RIAA are going to have employed the staff they need to win a technological battle.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Go do some remedial comprehension. The idea is that they max out peoples' upload connections by not actually downloading the tracks, same as if they just logged into an anonymous ftp server fifty times and sent a keepalive every couple of minutes.
It's utterly pointless though; how long will it take developers to put in a "drop upload if under X kbs" tick box? Five minutes? Then "do not accept connection from IPs that have dropped Y connections for the next Z minutes" box? Another five minutes?
Or hell, just change "number of simultaneous uploads" to "bandwidth available for simultaneous uploads".
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The incomming traffic is mainly getting a directory listings and requesting files, this is by nature small stuff. Look at the top of your web browser you send maybe 100 bytes to request most webpage and the server sends back about 100K.
With file sharing Joe Luser is the server, the RIAA-enforcer program sends Luser a couple hundred bytes and he sends back a couple meg. Blocking them at the firewall doesn't stop the couple 100 from slowing down the pipe, but the effect is minimal unless thousands of requests are made a second. Stoping the couple of Meg going back upstream however has a big effect on speed, especialy considering that most pipes are optimised for download not up load.
Since Joe Luser is probably using Windows, and not going to have a real firewall, he's going to get real angry in no time at all. Windows users typicaly expect their 'puter to respond right now, when the computer is servicing a request that he's not aware of and doesn't respond immediatly to his keyboard or mouse, he thinks it's broken. Sooner or later they are going to realise that its the RIAA that "broke" their mmachine and feel attacked.
In order for them to DDoS your 'puter they are going to have to use a whole bunch of IP addresses "attacking". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the next-generation file sharing programs are going to include a throtling mechanism to keep them from sucking up to much bandwidth upstream making the RIAA stratagy un-workable.
Also there is nothing to keep people from putting a small garbage file to attract the RIAA that's only 1 K long, and naming it as if it was a copyright protected work just to confuse them.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Unfortunately, I never made it to a Surfer show. I was born in '70, and really started getting into this stuff when I was 13. Then, as I learned about more bands like Joy Division, New Order, Big Black and Wedding Present, it was always in the context of "That was so-and-so. Too bad broke up last year." I had to resort to seeing things like the Pixies/Love and Rockets/Cure triple-bill and the Peter Murphy Deep tour. I was lucky enough to catch the PIL/Sugarcubes/New Order (Technique) triple-bill in '89, and for the perfect birthday present, my wife and I saw Bauhaus in Philly in 98.
:)
I'm not really pissed off about Touch 'n Go, the guy absolutely does deserve to make money. I was just throwing it out there that indie labels aren't necessarily angels. I closed with Albini's diatribe since it very clearly outlines how badly the recording industry assrapes listed artists. I don't think I could ever be pissed off at Touch 'n Go
Intelligent Life on Earth
I wrote a book called "Harry Potter's Guide to Magic Gardening" don't you think I would have Warner Bros on my case in very short order?
You probably would - Harry Potter is most likely a trademarked term, so unless you could demonstrate that you were talking about a different Hary Potter (like, for example, your uncle), you'd be in some hot water.
Reboot macht Frei.
Yes. But that sale was illegal; it was fraudulent.
I realize that we're getting into splitting hairs over the definition of 'illegal'. I suppose it's not a 'felony' or whatever y'all call it in the US.
In my mind, if I can have someone in court over it, and the courts will punish them, then whatever it's about was ILLEGAL.
YOU TOO can become a copyright holder, and YOU TOO can have the right to break into ANY COMPUTER YOU LIKE to look for evidence of copyright infringement and then DO WHAT YOU LIKE TO THAT COMPUTER! Don't worry about actually FINDING PROOF of copyright infringement - once you've wiped their hard disk, how are they going to prove they DIDN'T have a copy of your data?
Sounds too good to be true? Just follow these simple steps:
- Write some half-baked nonsense and post it on a well-respected weblog. Be sure to include a copyright statement. Hey presto... you're a copyright holder!
- Pick a target computer. Maybe there's a political viewpoint you want to censor, or a business you want to destroy? Perhaps you want to read the personal mail of the head of a recording industry cartel? Or maybe you just want to find out the medical records of a friend or co-worker. These activities would be called "hacking" if they were done by an ordinary person, but remember: you're no ordinary person, you're a copyright holder!
- There's a pretty good chance that someone uses your target computer to browse the web. And there's a fairly good chance that they read the same well-respected weblog where you posted your copyrighted material. Well then, there's a chance that those bastards are infringing your copyright! Better break in and find out. They've probably got a copy of your data in their browser cache RIGHT NOW! (By the way, don't worry too much about the definition of "a fairly good chance" - you don't have to waste time with any of that pesky legal stuff like probable cause. You're not a policeman, you're a copyright holder! Or maybe you ARE a policeman. Well that's OK - policemen can be copyright holders too!)
- Hack into the target computer and look for evidence of copyright infringement. Criminals are devious people so you should look everywhere for evidence:
/etc/passwd is a good place to start. If you find any evidence, or even if you don't, wipe the hard drive to prevent any future infringement. This would be criminal vandalism, or even terrorism, if it was done by an ordinary hacker. But you're no ordinary hacker. That's right... you're a copyright holder!
The copyright in this comment belongs to Sony Music Corporation. Copying and distribution in any form, electronic or otherwise, is strictly prohibited and will one day be retroactively punishable by death. You have been warned.Curiously enough, some people have published full editions of technical books on-line. Bruce Eckel's well-regarded "Thinking in C++" is available in its entire form at his website. He apparently regards this as a great idea, because people like to have a hard copy of a book like that. Having seen that it's actually pretty good, a lot of people go out and buy it. His sales went up when he put it on-line.
Compare and contrast with the music industry, who keep claiming that their sales are down. Gee, why could that be? :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I was about to post the exact same thing.
I don't quite agree with the reasoning, though. People don't just copy the music because they want to. They copy it because they know they're being outrageously ripped off by the record companies' pricing of CDs, and so they treat those companies with the contempt they deserve.
If the record companies were more reasonable -- making a fair profit, but not an insulting one -- then I believe that most people would be prepared to buy CDs. Look at shareware; for all that many people are on the Open Source and/or Free Software bandwagons, many of us are still prepared to pay the small amounts asked for a good bit of shareware.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I know my Israeli history, thank you.
Understand this, that "refugees" from the original israel would be long dead since it had not existed for a very very long time.
How is it relevant? At the time of the creation, many refugees existed, and there was not a single country in the world where Jews were free of all prosecution.
Jews could not trust countries to protect them from the holocaust reoccuring. The only real solution is to create their own country, and the only people they can trust to do this - are themselves.
The Americans and the British, and other countries, did not bomb concentration camps when they could, and could not be trusted with the fight of Jewish prosecution.
Displacing the native people of the region with new settlers that are adverse to them is what brillant?
The native people were not forcably 'displaced'.
The Jewish who came to Israel, before the holocaust, bought lands with money.
After the Jewish people were brutally murdered in the events of 1921, and 1929, the Jews of Israel set up some defensive organizations to protect themselves.
The UN's division plan of 1947 was accepted by the Jews of Israel, and rejected by the Arabs of the region.
They chose to violently attack the new state, instead. Arab leaders around Israel called the native people to leave Israel for reasons of ethnic purification, and because they will surely get rid of Israel soon. The native people left of their own free will, and as part of wars that were initiated by the arab side.
Refugees from eastern europe, russia, and elsewhere would of been welcomed in numerous countries after the war.
Israel was being set up long before the war. It started back in the 19th century. Back in 1927, America officially closed its doors to Jewish immigration, leaving Jews with nowhere to go. In the 30's, the only place Jews could run from the Nazis to, was Israel.
After the holocaust, refugees had other countries to go to, but that is far too late, and Israel was already set up in the region.
Again, the Jews cannot trust their fate to another nation again. Prosecution cannot be stopped by any other, but themselves, and their own state. You must understand that there were times it was the only answer to prosecution, and even now, there is Jewish prosecution all over the world.
Isreal was created out of pity and ignorance and now exists as a state that indiscriminately enforces a policy of revenge and proactive killings.
Israel was created out of the holocaust, as a trusty home for Jews, where they are safe from prosecution, which was unprecedented for thousands of years.
Israel enforces a policy of striking terrorists, under the principle of self-defense, killing people who are known to be involved in acts of killing innocent people.
I wouldn't call that revenge or proactive killing.