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!
...hilarity will surly ensue.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
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!"
Doesn't sound like a typical DoS attack. From the article it looks more like the RIAA would have machines set up to look for copyrighted material and make repeated download requests, then download very very slowly to keep servers with connection limits filled up. How hard would it be to require a minimum transfer rate -- that is, for the servers that do not already offer such a setting -- and then code in a setting to allow banning of IPs that engage in suspect behaviour consistently.
The scarier RIAA attempt IMO is their attempt to make themselves exempt from liability if they damage a system while looking for copyright. The wording alone allowing for immunity to any prosecution provided that the break-in was by a copyright holder (in the article) appears so utterly vague as to be used as a carte blanche for anyone to break into a system (Honestly, your honor, I was trying to make sure that they weren't pirating a Star Trek TNG Fanfic that I wrote nine years ago!). What's scarier is the quotes suggesting that not only have they considered it legal in the past, but they have already been engaging in such activity.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
If this doesn't prove a mentality of being above the laws of "regular people," I have no idea what does.
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
Just when did anyone vote for the RIAA?
I wasn't aware that they had dictatorial powers over the Internet. This seems highly illegal, and should be stopped immediately.
I guess it's time to step up and hurt them where it counts. Boycott the music industry.
This is either a) bogus or b) an example of the fascist thinking going on at the RIAA. Somebody really needs to explain the principles of fair use to those people, or maybe we should just stop buying music altogether.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
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
It would be more devious to make a site look like it's swapping music, then let the RIAA do your DoSsing for you.
Hacking/Cracking is only a terrorist act if you don't have enough money to bribe Washington.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
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!
No, it's not a terrorist act (according to the bizzare logic of the new anti-terrorism bill) unless they're doing it for financial gain....
Oh wait! That's EXACTLY why they're doing it!
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.
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
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'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.
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.
- 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!"