Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Smacked by DoS
nekid writes "ZDNet is reporting that the RIAA's website was hit by a denial-of-service (DoS) attack over the weekend, most likely in response to their endorsement of legislation that would give them permission to do the same to personal computers that are pirating music (see earlier article). Seems to me that they are killing themselves with bad public relations..." But it seems to me that they don't care, and are instead
banking on the ignorance of the bulk of the world.
Give the media and the average American more reason to think the people the RIAA are against are little more than immature "hackers."
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
Yup, the best way to convince a large corporation/government office/anyone over the age of 20, is to act like a child.
Immaturity like this only HARMS what we are trying to do.
Grow up kids.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
If the RIAA is allowed to do a DoS attack, I don't see why individuals should be forbidden to do so.
In short: No one should be able to legally commit such a crime.
That'll teach those bastards. I'm going to start copy protecting my CD's, too. Two can play at this game.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The article cites no source for the information, besides the RIAA itself. Can we be sure that it actually happened, and wasn't just a way for the RIAA to make themselves look like the victim in this whole situation?
"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."
That's certainly a nice way to deflect the issue. It's like a mantra with these guys!
" On Thursday, the RIAA endorsed a bill written by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., that would authorize copyright holders to begin "blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing" peer-to-peer networks.
RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."
Call me a skeptic, but that reads a whole lot more like a "Hey, those guys are bad, so side with us" thing than anything else. While I trust in the immaturity of script kiddies, I'm not convinced that this attack even happened. If it did, though...well...come on guys, this isn't helping us any.
Arguing that bad PR will make the RIAA think twice about doing something is like arguing that a fish won't want to get wet.
RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."
what? so who actually owns the copyright? I thought those artists had to sell their souls to work for these companies... and now they own the copyrights? er... unless the riaa actually creates the artistic works... in that case we now know why these new songs and singers are so similar in style and such
But the RIAA might be in for some trouble if the bill is passed.
Think about it: The RIAA has (and still does) sell works created by independant copyright owners. They don't keep perfect track of their signings with artists and are, sometimes, selling records which they don't hold the copyright to. Artists have come forth in the courts and said this.
Given that this is the case, an artist can give a group (in this case the public at large) permission to attack any server network participating in the distribution of their copyrighted works. This is not limited to riaa.org. If CDNow.com is selling the CD that the RIAA is distributing illegally they're open to attack too. I mean, just look at how loose the wording is:
"...use of technologies to prevent infringement of copyrighted works on peer-to-peer computer networks"
Translation: any copyright owner can technologically attack anyone infringing upon their copyrights as long as the target of their attack can be described as a "peer-to-peer computer network."
Besides that, the RIAA is acting no less childish than the people that DoS'ed them. Their current actions in regards to this legislation are equivelant to signing onto a Cult of the Dead Cows message board and proclaiming a hacker war. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not you can't expect them to just sit there and take whatever you throw at them.
It's childish to declare a hacker war.
It's foolish to declare a war on all hackers.
It's pure ignorance to believe you can win.
From riaa.com's "What is Piracy" pages:
"4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet."
Sorry, did I miss a memo? When was streaming declared illegal? Shouldn't someone notify Apple and Real that thier streaming server software is facilitating illegal activities?
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
.... yeah call it immature, call it childish, call it hacker, call it what you want.......but man I would've loved to do it myself...we're all just too legal to get into trouble annoying someone even if they deserve it.
Give the lil script kiddies a break, they were just venting all of our frustration for us.
"Wasn't me! Don't sue me!" (but I'm enjoying watching)
Sigs pose an operational security risk and help the baddies aggregate data. I guess commenting does too, oops.
If the RIAA is allowed to do a DoS attack, I don't see why individuals should be forbidden to do so
Because it's illegal, that's why.
Bullshit.
If a crime of aggression (ie. attack or subversion, physical or informational) is 'legalized' for a special group, but illegalized for another group, there is nothing ethically wrong with the attacked group fighting back using the same means, regardless of what the law might say.
To take an extreme, but historically accurate, example of the same sort of thing, if it is illegal for a black man to shoot a white man, yet legal for a white man to shoot a black man, there is nothing ethically wrong with the affected black man in question defending himself and his family from his attackers, and most certainly not if he is using the same means they are using (projectile weapons in this case), regardless of what some corrupt and morally bankrupt laws might say.
The only real difference in these two cases (cyberattacks allowed by one group against another, but not visa versa, and physical attacks allowed by one group against another, but not visa versa) is the magnitude of atrocity (vastly greater in the second instance), and the fact that, at one time in the United States, the second instance was in fact actually the law at one time, while the first example (cyber DoS attacks) have not (yet) ever been legalized for one group over another.
However, should DoS attacks by media cartels be legalized, there will be absolutely nothing ethically wrong with those attacked retaliating in kind. Indeed, the ethical breakdown appears to be almost entirely on the side of the copyright cartels, who have just been given a taste of things to come if these foolish laws should be passed.
I will not participate in such activities, but I will excercize my dwindling freedom of speech to openly cheer those who do.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The... flood started on Friday
I think it's more likely that Illiad caught news of this from somewhere other than ZD and thought it was funny enough to make into a comic.
I don't think it was just a coincidence.
Thought this was kinda interesting:
Untouchables leaked on the Internet before its release, and the band didn't mind at all.
"It's a different age," Davis says. "Kids are gonna get that stuff. It's not a problem for us. We don't make money off of selling albums. Our income is touring and merchandise. We make our records for people to hear. And if they're gonna hear them that way, so be it."
Even with multiplatinum sales, the record industry is so skewed that the band doesn't make money off those sales.
"The industry is a total wreck," Davis says. "It's messed up. It's wrong. But they make us famous and fulfill our dreams. So I just deal with it."
Musical succotash
Korn's recipe proves elusive to slew of copycats
(they'll go against congress with a "see? This is what we are trying to stop!" attitude, and congress will agree).
No. . . this is what the RIAA was attempting to legalize, albeit only for their own benefit. If they can't take what they want to dish out, maybe they should reconsider their attempt at legislation.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Do you complain that thugs don't get the same firepower, communications, and transportation support that police do?
If the police were allowed to break into my house, guns blazing, and mow myself and my family down (they are not allowed to do this) with no due process of law (analogous to the vigilatism inherent in the DoS law the copymonopoly cartels have proposed), then, yes, there would be nothing unethical about me defending myself and my family in kind, by doing unto the cops what they would do unto me, and doing it first. Regardless of what the law might say.
Now do you begin to grasp why vigilanti justice is such a profoundly bad idea?
As for file traders, since when is trading files illegal? I trade files of my vacation pictures with friends and relatives all the time. I even use P2P services to trade ISOs of GNU/Linux with friends all the time (P2P in the form of FreeNet reduces my own bandwidth requirements drastically over a client-server setup like ftp or http).
Your 'solution' is tantamount to saying "if you don't like it, get off the internet or become a passive user of our Approved(tm) Content."
The comparison with similarly unbalanced, historical laws holds. An unjust law such as the one proposed demands to be violated, and violating such a law is in no way unethical. Indeed, doing so as an act of defense against an attack by another, DoS or otherwise, is really quite unimpeachable in any reasonable ethical framework.
Your entire "cop" example underscores exactly why vigilante justice is such a bad idea, and the DoS attack against the RIAA, by whoever these people were, underscored very well exactly why this law is such an appallingly bad idea. It will, in all liklihood, destroy the internet's usability for some time, perhaps a very long time. Interestingly enough, those that are promoting such legislation have everything to gain, and nothing to do, by destroying the internet, and it is really a stretch to believe they are really so stupid as to not realize that.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
And there was me thinking that .org was for _non profit_ organisations.
This is actually an incredibly interesting way of looking at the situation. While the war for independence itself was perfectly "legal" as far as things go, the initial revolts did not fit within the framework of then ruling government laws. The tea party was done as a sign of direct protest against the ridiculous taxes and excises being collected, so the people attacked an icon of the grievance.
However, this was done after several attempts to smooth things over employing legal methods. Have we done this yet? People are calling for us to contact our congressmen... have we? As citizens, we must follow the established legal means first, then pursue other possibilities only if those channels were unrightfully blocked. Yes, even if we try the legal ways, and it doesn't accomplish our goals, it still doesn't give us to right to illegally protest. Only when our right to legally protest is infringed can we in good conscience use other methods.
The DoS is an example of knee-jerk, immature reactions that come from people who don't oppose this legislation due to it's possible implications and precedents, but rather because they want to continue in their illegal activities... which is wrong.
The whole "don't bring yourselves down to their level" cliche is one that you can count on to be trotted out each and every time someone counter-attacks a person, group of people, or corporate or govt. entity using something other than journalism.
In reality, most wars get fought on many levels. The teen hacker who takes down a web site is that person's way of protesting the situation. Nobody said it has to be *everybody's* way of protesting. If you have the "clout" and the intelligence to write constructive critism of the RIAA and get it published - then do it! That's your own personal "trump card" against them. If you happen to be a teacher, then teach your students about what's going on. You're the one who can give them education on the rights and freedoms they're losing. But if you're a young hacker who has nothing else to offer but your hacking skills (and can use your age as an advantage to avoid getting caught/getting in serious trouble), then maybe defacing or DoSing their web site is your own best method of protest.
Yep, it's too much trouble to go after the ones actually causing the "problem".
Therefore, you'd put pressure on the creators of all email client software to check for a special cryptographic signature/watermark in every message, so that only "authorized" messages could be received and read?
When _all_ of authors those authors refuse, or at least take a "let's think this through carefully" approach, you'd use your lobby with congress to fast-track legislation to mandate these "security" measures in all "devices" devices capable of touching email in any way? You'd press as hard as possible, with zero regard for what impact it might have for email in general for everybody else.
You wouldn't stop there, you'd also get is worked into "open" standard, such as DVD-R, IDE (ATA-6) hard drives, flash memory modules, etc, so that it would be impossible to use the actual storage devices to store spam messages?
Maybe somewhere along the way, you'd lobby for a tax on all transport of messages (aka sales of blank recordable media), on the assumption that much of is it used for inappropriate spam despite the security measures?
And to top it all off, failing all these other approachs, you'd lobby for vigilante justice, so you could send your thugs directly to the homes/operations of those spammers to shut them down (no due process, little to zero liability for yourself for making mistakes).
What next? Forced spying on users to see what they're doing (Replay4000 case, admittedly the movie studios, not the RIAA) ???
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Is everything looking like a nail to you, cuz you're sure hitting them on the head...
I agree with damn near every point you bring up. I got tired of paying premium for a song with one hit and the rest filler. I got tired of using the same ol 20 per track CD format when I could have 100's of songs of nearly the same quality on one disk and I got tired of the labels raping you on every purchase.
And since you brought it up, I'll pose an interesting question, using myself as an example, though it'd apply to anybody. It's generally accepted that if you own the copywrited material, you can make as many copies as you want for personal use, right? So let's say I buy a DVD (as per parent's supposition). Tomb Raider. It obviously has the same music that the audio CD will come out with. Some DVD even have a seperate option to listen to the soundtrack seperately. Now, especially in the latter case, don't I own the rights to the content of the DVD (keeping the studios EULA in mind), including all features, music and "bonus material"? And since I now effectively own the soundtrack on the DVD, in many cases the same music, I shouldn't be violating any clause prohibting "illegle use". One copy is as good as another, right?
That's where the fun begins >:)
As to customer service, that only flies with companies who care. Most of the labels have proven they are nothing more than parasites. And the DoS? Heh. You could see that one happening 50 miles out. If they are going to use an easily availible "script kiddie" hacker tool to deny service, then they should have seen the consequences. I mean really. But then, maybe this is what they were hoping for... (Cue Twilight Zone music). Can we now associate illegle music downloads with "hackers"!? OMG!! Ahem. Either way they're idiots.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." -- Robert Heinlein
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini
""I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson 1812
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." --Abraham Lincoln 1865
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." --President Franklin D. Roosevelt
"The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It's unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it's undesirable -- if they see too much of reality they may set themselves to change it." --Noam Chomsky
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
That'll help, however it won't stop them from making it illegal for you to create and distribute your own music. Nor will it stop them from getting your money.
Everytime their sales slip (or everyone in the country doesn't buy the latest "pop sensation"), they insist it is because of piracy, not the economy or the public refusing to buy from RIAA companies. They may do a similar thing that Microsoft did. (section E) The feds didn't even try to prosecute MS for this, even though I think it is their worst anti-trust violation!
In fact, if you live in the US (and some other countries), you pay "royalties" to them on every CD writing drive you buy and every blank music CD you burn. It doesn't matter if it is your own music, or music you are legally allowed to copy--they still take it.
RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."
And all this time I thought musical artists were the ones creating music and not the RIAA. Now we see what Hilary really thinks of the people she's supposed to be representing... Lets not forget that when you sell your soul to the RIAA, you no longer own any music you've created. Here's the proof. Or is Lars readying to "pilfer the grabasses"?
What if this thing gets passed and all of the RIAA stuff gets put up on foreign sites? Are they going to DoS those too? The EU might really get pissed at that.
BTW, assuming their new proposed legislation gets passed, does the RIAA plan to do their own denial of service only on USA machines, or internationally also? Although the RIAA will feel all smug about it, other countrys may call it terrorism. If a company from a country currently in USA disfavour did that to the RIAA, that's what it would be called.
Demonstrant's Open Source Tools
This episode clearly shows we are up against a gang of thugs who care nothing for anyone's moral sensibilities, if there's a dollar (or a bit of control) to be squeezed out.
As engineers we are used to dealing with people who can be won over, if we can only logicaly explain why our position is the Right Thing. We can't deal with these racketeers that way. They don't care what the Right Thing is, so there's no point in arguing it with them.
We have to recognize that we are in an all out brawl, and act accordingly.