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.
Userfriendly link for those who didn't see it :)
A tragic irony isn't it?
I wonder if we can start a campaign to keep the RIAA DoSed off the net. Not that I'd ever condone such a thing, but there are times when a little net abuse is so poetic.
wow, didn't they get enough publicity when this story was announced last week...i'm not saying they should have ignored this DOS attack, but it seems to me the RIAA rep had a little too much attitude with quotes like "Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" and especially "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."...talk about antogonizing the masses...couldn't they comment on this story without being blatantly condescending and arrogant???
on the good side, maybe the link to the RIAA website with this story will slashdot their site and bring it down again....
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
If the RIAA downloads illegal MP3s, even to check to see if they're legit illegal copies, this in turn opens THEM of for legit DoS attacks. The person in question that is doing the "checking" for the RIAA better own the right to every single MP3 he downloads. They're going to need to have the artists themselves sit at the cpus and do the DoS's for this to even be legal, it can't be based around "trust". Quite an evil little repurcussion .. If this goes live, it will effectively DESTROY the RIAA.
#!/usr/bin/perl
while (1){
`wget "http://www.riaa.com" -nc -r -l 0 -k -nH -o
}
# one of many many ways to do this...
If anything good comes of this, it will be the publicity. Let's hope an intelligent columnist clues into what's really going on and lets the general public know about it.
"Immaturity like this only HARMS what we are trying to do."
WTF? The music industry just started illegally interfering with computer networks to the detriment of others (hacking, to misuse that word), and people complain that a DDOS on their website is immature?
As immature perhaps, as spending millions in congress to disrupt others' computers, before sarcastically quipping "at least they've stopped stealing for 10 minutes" when someone does the same back to them?
Bring it on. The more this group's website gets attacked, the happier I'll feel laughing at them. They want to legalise hacking? Let's show people what it will mean in practise.
Need I remind anyone here that individuals are copyright-holders too?
The RIAA just bought a bill to legalize DOSs as part of a political disagreement.
These DOS attacks are not justice,
Which is the point that this weekend's perps were trying to illustrate.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
This kind of thing, short of FLYING over to their HQ and having a sit in, is the only means you have of expressing yourself.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Do you think the RIAA would consider being slashdotted a DoS attack?
Can I bum a sig?
I like that the bill requires them to NOTIFY the Attorney General before they do anything... I don't like that they don't have to wait for approval.
So I started to think... "How would I feel if I was faced with 1000's of people scattered covertly across the country violating my rights?" Then I realized that I do... SPAMers. Sure, if I had the time, money, and expertise, I could take them each to court. But the reality is that even if I get SPAM, the best I can do is report the SPAMer to their ISP and hope they're not SPAM-friendly and will shut the account/network connection down.
So either they should allow us to DoS or hack SPAMers' computers, or they should require the RIAA or whomever to get ISPs to shut down illegal file sharing internet connections.. just like the rest of us.
In all of this law making, the RIAA has not realized a few basic facts. Most of these are relative to me, but I'm sure I'm not alone:
1. When Napster was big, I purchased 75-100 CDs in two years and enjoyed about 80% of them. Since then, I have purchased about 10 CDs and enjoyed about 20% of them. I would rather gamble $15 on a blackjack table then buy a $15 CD when I have only heard one song I like on it.
2. I don't own a plain-old CD player. I have a MP3-CD player, a laptop, and a desktop. If I can't listen to or convert the CD I won't buy it.
3. I'm not a fan of the MPAA either, but which would you rather purchase: A soundtrack CD of a given movie for $17.99 or the DVD of the same movie for $14.99? To me, a music CD is worth about $8, and at least 25% of that should go to the people who actually created those sounds(artists, songwriters).
4. I don't believe the DoS on the RIAA last weekend was necessary, but it will be a preview of what will happen if that new law passes. (Just a prediction)
5. What ever happened to "The customer is always right"? All of this copy-protection, "everyone is stealing our music", "we need tougher laws" stuff can't possibly be in the consumer's best interest. Sounds to me that they are trying to maintain a monopoly. (Hmmm... now where have I seen this before?)
Anyway, I dig into my current music collection, books, magazines, and a few select internet sites for my media these days. I've just about had enough. Everything in this post is my opinion based on some facts and is probably in need of some correction. Have a nice day.
That's an interesting concept - if we plan a day in advance to something of the effect of "at 5:00EDT, everyone go to the RIAA site" - that would create a very effective, yet very legal, DoS.
:-)
OK, everyone, tomorrow, July 31, 5:00EDT, attack.
We don't need legislation.
"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."
Yeah. We get it. They're internet hackers on summer break, so they must be stealing music! Sorry I just find the slant on that RIAA quote as half troll/closer to flamebait. Course as someone else said, thats the point of the RIAA- get the people angry at them and not their members.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
from http://www.vigilante.com/inetsecurity/hacktivism_1 .htm
There is an important corresponding technical dimension that reinforces hacktivist claims of populist support. Hacktivist DoS attacks must be executed using client side or individual browser based tools. The prototypical Zapatista Floodnet tool, (which other groups have continued to develop) requires downloading and installing a Java applet. Moreover, these tools need to be consciously scheduled and aimed at a specific web address; actions that presumably demonstrate solidarity and commitment. To some hacktivists this distinction is all-important because it differentiates their activities from the nihilistic and anonymous February DDoS attacks on the CNN, Yahoo, and eBay e-commerce sites. During those assaults, allegedly orchestrated by "mafiaboy" and a few other apolitical participants, DoS "zombie" servers were surreptitiously placed on unwary host systems and triggered en masse. In fact, the utility programs used for swarming attacks, rooted in performance art, are far less powerful than hardcore "smurfing" weapons like Trin00, Stachaldraht and TFN2K.
Flood attacks can be used as a useful form of civil disobedience if used correctly in a *focussed and organised* way.