Film Industry Hires Cyber Hitmen To Take Down Pirates

thelostagency writes "Girish Kumar, managing director of Aiplex Software says his company is being hired by the film industry to attack online pirates. He says if a provider did not do anything to remove the link or content hosted on its site, his company would launch what is known as a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on the offending computer server. From the article: 'Kumar said that at the moment most of the payment for his company's services came from the film industry in India. "We are tied up with more than 30 companies in Bollywood. They are the major production houses." As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.'"

Comments

Er,

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

Re:Er,

[Zaphod The 42nd]

This was my first thought too. This should be HIGHLY illegal. This is vigilantism, plain and simple, and is completely illegal and immoral.

Re:Er,

[Fluffeh]

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

They are, and I really wonder if Hollywood (FTFA: "As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.") wants to really be poking ANOTHER stick into the hornets nest that the internet can be.

The way I see if, for every hundred thousand cookie cutter P2P users, there will be one who is savvy enough, annoyed enough and has the resources to return in kind to Hollywood. And there will be people like me, who don't fit in either bracket, but would certainly offer both refuge to that one person and buy them drinks for their efforts.

Re:Er,

[Sinesurfer]

So.... does the EFF sue Aiplex, the MPAA or the film owner?

(that's assuming Aiplex is careful not to upset hackers smarter than Aiplex). Do not DDOS Aiplex and if you're caught remember I told you not to do it.

Re:Er,

[Dunderland1]

Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house. Simple solution - stop breaking into houses dummy, and then you don't have to worry about the, actions which are completely illegal and immoral, which follows.

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

Yes, the pirates are breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the **AAs get to respond by breaking it in kind.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Er,

[0123456]

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

Re:Er,

[SCPRedMage]

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

And yet if someone actually did that, everybody would be in agreement that it's deplorable.

There is a very good reason vigilantism is illegal.

Re:Er,

[bm_luethke]

Only if they are prosecuted - indeed we have so many laws out there that it is an unusual person who would *not* violate at least something. Some figure this is by design, personally I figure the old saying of never attributing to malice what can be attributed to stupidity holds true, but YMMV. However things are only truly illegal if you are prosecuted, though they may be against the law to do what good is the law if it isn't enforced?

Further ones needs to note that *at best* this guy is doing something dishonest so we know that honesty isn't a big part of his business. As such, whilst it fits many of our (including mine) idea of something I would expect I also wouldn't get totally worked up until we heard something more substantive. After all this certainly garnered his company a great deal of press.

Re:Er,

[unr3a1]

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

Lol... I see what you did there. The problem people keep forgetting is that the film industry goes after anyone they THINK is pirating their shit. They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.

Re:Er,

[jewishbaconzombies]

Yes it does - it works great in the middle east right now.

Is Hollywood unaware of the cheap availability of gasoline and matches? They are - really.

Re:Er,

[marcello_dl]

Since the shit is stolen from monopoly abusers thieves which then exaggerate the damage to terrorize people and as a consequence keep law enforcement from going after bigger crimes, your argument doesn't hold much water. You are immoral if you pay them because you are supporting an immoral system. Google around, ask artists, see e.g. Courtney Love on piracy.

But, in a sense, I criticize pirates too, even if their immoral behavior makes less damage than the IP terrorists'. Piracy is not the answer. "Just Do Not Buy Their Stuff and consume/create something else and defend the right to access it" is the answer.

They won't bankrupt, as big media is a propaganda machine and will be financed some way or the other.
But you won't forfeit your integrity with piracy. And if you are thinking "The hell with my integrity", I'm beginning to think that your reaction is anticipated and sought after. Making you a criminal means you won't be able to defend your rights if you step on the toes of powerful people, and making you forget about integrity removes barriers to the acceptance of the only law that stands when you remove all other laws: "the most powerful wins".

That's why I think anonymous is a great concept used as a great deception: I prefer to be moral, and piss off the real power.

Re:Er,

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why its impossible to discuss this topic, in any way, on slashdot. No one wants to hear they are wrong and anyone who can explain why everything they say is both complete bullshit and only proves they are hypocrites gets moderated into the ground. The reason is simple, you can't reason with stupid.

Your rebuff means DOSing servers is okay so long as you don't pay for it. So commit fraud by agreeing to use their service by never pay for me. Gotcha! You make complete sense - and obviously have the moral high ground too.

The rest is complete bullshit too. I mean, you're comparing the damage of a couple hundred companies - at most - with theft by tends of millions of people around the world and have the brazen stupidity to claim the companies are doing far more damage. That's the literal definition of stupidity; lacking all critical thinking.

Re:Er,

[TheReaperD]

They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.

Actually, that is the core problem with vigilantism. It is based off of a perceived crime and usually not compared to any unbiased standards. Though how truly unbiased you can be in any case is a discussion for another topic. But the stated goal of the court systems of most developed countries is to give the accused a fair trail in front of either an unbiased judge or jury of their peers. Thus, hopefully, preventing the innocent from being punished and the guilty to be punished fairly.

What this is and many other actions of the copyright cartels, says is that they have seen the results of fair trials and don't like the results. So they have decided that they are going to write their own rules to get what they want. This is perhaps one of the better objective standards to determine when an group has gone from a lawful organization to a criminal institution.

Re:Er,

[halowolf]

Just ask "What would Batman do?".

Re:Er,

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a very good reason vigilantism is illegal.

And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism - they don't like the pricing, ignoring that pricing has long met their demands, so they seek their own justice by stealing.

would be in agreement that it's deplorable.

And yet piracy is cheered on as a god given right to steal because of a glorified sense of self entitlement which is all too often disguised behind dumb, inept, and hypocritical excuses.

To pirate anything and be against what the article is about means you are a hypocrite; not specifically you. To date, I've never met a pirate that wasn't a complete hypocrite. Never. Not once. Not ever. And I've met lots and discussed on-line with countless.

Where is your outrage for the people behind all the stealing? Morale people do consider piracy deplorable.

Re:Er,

[Dr Max]

Its arguable that the pirates don't steal anything. personaly i see it as closer to some one taking pictures of a painting and the gallary sending some one to there house to burn down the walls, saying "lets see you hang your photo now".

you wouldn't download a car

Re:Er,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

No, it's more like they are tracking them down and setting fire to every car in the parking lot. A DOS attack causes congestion and problems for more than just the person at the end of the "series of tubes".

Re:Er,

[0111 1110]

And when millions of downloaders decide to DDOS Aiplex Software you will have no problem with that either. Remember Make Love Not Spam? All we need is a nice screensaver like that and we can DDOS Aiplex right of the internet. The copyright infringers outnumber the copyright holders by millions to one. I'm not sure if what they want is an all out war. DDOS attacks aren't going to solve anyone's problems. All they will do is shut down the internet for everyone. Of course there are some corporations that would love to see that happen.

Re:Er,

[gringer]

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

Or attacking them with a crowbar (I couldn't find the uncensored version on the tube).

Re:Er,

[Nursie]

"And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism - they don't like the pricing, ignoring that pricing has long met their demands, so they seek their own justice by stealing."

And copyright infringement is ... wait for it ... also an illegal activity!

What pirates, or this company, have to say about the ethics of their actions is completely irrelevant. vigilante justice is not allowed because it gets disproportionate and results in feuds and wars and collateral damage, much like DoS.

"And yet piracy is cheered on as a god given right to steal because of a glorified sense of self entitlement which is all too often disguised behind dumb, inept, and hypocritical excuses."

By whom? Most people I know that pirate wholesale don't think of it as a god given right, just something they can get away with so they will. Your mistake is in trying to engage people who copy stuff by attacking their characters, which will inevitably result in irrational argument and a lot of hypocritical self justification as they still like to think of themselves as "good people". Exactly the same as what happens if you raise the environment issue.

And when it comes down to it people still find it hard to believe that swapping a few bits around from in front of your screen either has a victim or could possibly be anything illegal. It's not like you went out and shot someone.

"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.

You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?

Re:Er,

[CarpetShark]

Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house.

In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.

NONE of which is to say that I think private copyright infringement is theft, or should even exist as a crime.

Re:Er,

[CarpetShark]

Just ask "What would Batman do?".

Get tied up by catwoman? ;)

Re:Er,

[metacell]

Actually, I would object severely to murdering someone who broke into your house. The word "murder" seems to imply that it is done in cold blood, not in panic or as a response to a direct threat.

A question for you: If the cyberattack targeted a server which hosted both legal and illegal services, and my legal business was among them, would I be in my rights to launch a counter-attack against Aiplex? Against the film industry?

Re:Er,

[kahless62003]

A punch to the face can under some circumstances cause the death of the victim. Therefore a response up-to and including deadly force is entirely proportionate tyvm.
If someone chooses to violate your domicile and steal your TV, they may or may not choose to silence the witness and empty the house.
OTOH downloading a freely offered, absolutely valueless number from the internet is not stealing anything.

Re:Er,

[Thanshin]

Just ask "What would Batman do?".

I don't think the RIAA has that kind of interest in Robin.

Re:Er,

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I'm a pretty moral guy, but i do pirate dvd's (and cd's for the same reasons) every now & then, for several reasons:

1) I already have the dvd but it got damaged
2) It's no longer available
3) They refuse to sell it in my country (or i have to wait 6 months before the European release, fuck that)
4) I'm not sure if it's worth any money yet

Basicly, if the dvd is any good, and the price is good, then i'll buy it, sadly, i haven't had to buy many dvd's these days, most of what comes out is crap.
Is this legal? No.
Is it immoral? No

Re:Er,

[Thanshin]

The way I see if, for every hundred thousand cookie cutter P2P users, there will be one who is savvy enough, annoyed enough and has the resources to return in kind to Hollywood.

And for every million there may be one who directly goes to Airplex and sets the building on fire.

Vigilantism is never the solution but when you've decided your enemy is the general population, it's idiotic.

Re:Er,

[silentcoder]

>No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

It's worse than that. This is sears fighting shoplifting by nuking the neighbourhoods of shoplifters.

Remember the vast majority of servers out there are co-located hosting, often with multiple servers on the same physical machine.

DoS attack one of them and by default you are attacking all the others.

So somebody else hosting a server at my ISP is hosting copyrighted material of some sort - now MY server goes down because it happens to be on the same physical machine at the ISP - it's not like I have any way of knowing who the ISP's other customers are or how legal their content is do I ?

Re:Er,

[captainpanic]

Let me get this straight. Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.

Let me get this straight. You say that it's ok to commit a crime to prevent a crime. So... how far shall we take this? What if we now get a company that attacks the company that attacks the pirates?

What if someone is suspected of murder? Can you shoot him on the spot if you personally think that evidence is good enough?
What if you're certain someone will commit a murder, but hasn't done so yet... can you shoot him on the spot then, if the evidence is good enough?

It's never ok to commit a crime to prevent a crime. In our modern world, we have separated the powers: executive, a legislature, and a judiciary. Where in those 3 are the "companies that hold up their own laws to protect the movie industry"?
What you're suggesting is a sort of Wild West where the biggest gun has the most rights. No thanks.

Besides, where's the line? When automated, I can see these companies do attacks on every person who accidentally watches the wrong Youtube video, or reads the wrong article, or has interest in the wrong political party.

Re:Er,

[Moraelin]

I guess a way to summarize my previous post is that this seems to be more like terrorism than just vigilantism.

Re:Er,

[IRWolfie-]

Copying is not theft

Re:Er,

[mcvos]

Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.

You might claim that, but that's not what GP said. He just said that DoS attacks are immoral and should be highly illegal.

You seem to claim that two wrongs will make a right, whereas GP says that wrong = wrong.

Re:Er,

[paiute]

Is this legal? No.

Is it immoral? No

We all (within a given jurisdiction) have the same laws, but we each have different morals.

Re:Er,

[paiute]

Just ask "What would Batman do?".

Don't get your hopes up. Bruce Wayne is a billionare industrialist with an interest in protecting his IP. He is on the side of the *AA. Remember - his crusade is against violent crime.

Re:Er,

[mcvos]

And yet, that's EXACTLY what pirates claim justifies their vigilantism

Piracy isn't vigilantism. They're not punishing people, they're robbing people. On the high seas. (That is what we're talking about, isn't it?) It would only be vigilantism if the Somalian former fishermen focused their attention completely on the super trawlers that are emptying their seas. They don't.

More to the point: your point seems to be that vigilantism is okay because there are people who do bad stuff. I consider vigilantism bad stuff, and therefore not okay. In my book, crime doesn't justify more crime. To you, apparently it does.

Re:Er,

[selven]

"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare. Most people bend the rules in their favour, especially when there's little to no chance of being caught and they don't perceive anything bad happening from their actions.

You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road?

I have to slightly disagree on this point. Breaking the law is not automatically immoral - it's just a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else and 51% popular support. What is immoral is violating other people's rights. Laws are usually made so that their infringement constitutes the violation of other people's rights, and those laws should be followed. However, when a law is defective in that you're not doing anything wrong by violating it (as in the case of a speed limit on an empty road), there's nothing morally wrong with violating it - it's just a pragmatic cost-benefit analysis with the fine. Immoral people are people who don't particularly care about other people's rights (eg. people who swerve their way through traffic twice as fast as everyone else as if the road is some kind of video game, endangering everyone's safety).

Re:Er,

[mcvos]

Its arguable that the pirates don't steal anything. personaly i see it as closer to some one taking pictures of a painting and the gallary sending some one to there house to burn down the walls, saying "lets see you hang your photo now".

This is a remarkably good analogy.

Re:Er,

[HungryHobo]

"as in the case of a speed limit on an empty road"

Assuming of course you don't spin off the road and through someones front window and that the debris from the wreck of your car on a dark road doesn't kill someone who was 10 minutes behind you on the road.

personally I think the way speed limits are chosen is poor and some roads should be treated like the high quality sections of autoban in Germany with no speed limits but I wanted to point out that even if there's nobody else near you on a stretch of road when you do something risky you can still kill people.

Re:Er,

[Nursie]

I suppose it was a bad example, but the thinking behind it was more that breaking the speed limit in some places puts you in more risk of injuring or killing a pedestrian, even if the road seems empty.

I agree that if you're really only endangering yourself then the law shouldn't have much of a say.

Re:Er,

[Mhtsos]

That's what laws are theoretically, a shared model to approximate the consensus on morality.

Re:Er,

[HungryHobo]

Since the shit is stolen from monopoly abusers thieves which then exaggerate the damage to terrorize people and as a consequence keep law enforcement from going after bigger crimes, your argument doesn't hold much water. You are immoral if you pay them because you are supporting an immoral system.

Actually this is a fairly valid point if you're talking about moral/immoral behaviour.
If you consider the way certain companies have manipulated legislation to give themselves an unfair monopoly (SoundExchange anyone) and consider their business practices immoral then it could indeed be considered immoral to support them with money.
So paying them could be immoral.
But then the most "moral" choice would be to simply not buy anything from them or violate their copyrigths.
There's no shortage of good free legal music out there.

Now that could be considered a separate issue to the creation of copies without the permission of the person who created the original of what you're copying which it could be fair to say can also be immoral .

Re:Er,

[uxbn_kuribo]

In all of the examples you've cited, you're depriving a person of the actual physical property. Your analogy is flawed. 1) Shoplifting a couch deprives the store of property in the form of a sale that the store would have potentially made. For piracy to apply to this analogy, you would have to assume that the pirate would buy the software, when in fact he may only be getting it because it's there and free. 2) Again, you're depriving another person of this vehicle. For piracy to apply here, the pirate would have to steal the software off of someone's computer, and then delete it, and THEN seed the machine in such a way that it can never be put back onto the machine. 3 & 4) Now you're just comparing piracy to violent crime.

Re:Er,

[Jaysyn]

So.... does the EFF sue Aiplex, the MPAA or the film owner?

D.) All of the above.

Re:Er,

[Bayoudegradeable]

Don't know about India, but in the US most of us consider due process pretty damned important.

Re:Er,

[couchslug]

Nothing else is likely to work, and the internet negates most practical law enforcement,

Re:Er,

[ewanm89]

As far as I can tell, a better analogy is this: A person enters a shop looking to buy a particular item, now the shopkeeper doesn't have any in stock so he suggests another shop run by a friend which happens to sell fenced goods (not that the shopkeeper knows that). So a person who had one of their goods fenced by the second shop after they were robbed goes and smashes up the first shop so the owner has to close for repairs and so can't tell any more customers about the shop that sells fenced goods shop.

Re:Er,

[Dr_Barnowl]

or I have to wait 6 months

You lost my sympathy right there. I've downloaded ISOs to replace lost or damaged game CDs (my pirate copy of Halo is right there in the case next to the original which you still need for the DRM, since I haven't risked cracking it). I'm quite comfortable with recording hundreds of GB of films from TV because when it comes down to it, I just paid to see them a different way. I can even see your point of view about regional availability, although when it comes down to it, there is this thing called the postal system.

But impatience? The rate of new stuff arriving is constant anyway - enjoy the stuff arriving now, wait your 6 months, and remain entertained. It's not like it's a frickin' vaccine. You can do without it for a while, and meanwhile, there's the vast influx of other stuff that was released 6 months ago.

Re:Er,

[delinear]

The difference is, if corporations commit these acts they'll get a slap on the wrists, if individual users do the same in kind they'll probably face at the least unfairly disproportionate fines if not jail time - yet another way our laws have been restructured to protect the interests of big business at the cost of society.

Re:Er,

[delinear]

A punch to the face can under some circumstances cause the death of the victim. Therefore a response up-to and including deadly force is entirely proportionate tyvm.

No, you're confusing the issue, there is already sufficient precedent to show that if your response is reasonable but there were unintended consequences that you were unaware of at the time (the "circumstances" you mention, for instance, some guy starts a fight with you and you don't know he has a severe brain condition) then you will not be liable, but that doesn't justify instantly going for the extreme response ("Oh, well I knew some people could die from a punch so I thought there was no real difference if I just shot the guy in the head" is not likely to hold up in court).

Re:Er,

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Impatience? It's the principe of the thing, there is no justification for not releasing a movie (or cd) globally.

Re:Er,

[warGod3]

They are illegal, in the US and a bunch of other countries, don't know about India.

In the US, you are dealing with the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996, making it a Federal crime. Here is a link to the DoJ's web site. Virus creators fall into this same category.

However, AiPlex is based in India. Couldn't tell you about their laws... however, I'm sure that there may be a few people who take down their site.... from the AiPlex web site: "Aiplex Software Pvt. Ltd. is one of the leading providers of healthcare (Medical Transcription), Net Vigilance (Anti movie piracy) and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) services to clients across the globe."

Re:Er,

[f3rret]

Or are you to chicken to do all this and does it only aply to stuff you can steal without leaving your house?

.

Pretty much, yes. I'm thief but I'm also a lazy thief.

Re:Er,

[delinear]

On the other hand, if the labels wish to do away with the laws in this area and have a vigilante free-for-all, I'm sure the "pirates" wouldn't mind one bit. The labels have already demonstrated their technical incompetence, the reason they're having to resort to these measures is because the "pirates" run technical rings around them time after time, now the labels think they can fight fire with fire but something tells me they're the ones who will end up burned.

Re:Er,

[f3rret]

Don't know about India, but in the US most of us consider due process pretty damned important.

Not the RIAA and MPAA apparently.

Re:Er,

[Quothz]

It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

If I can stretch that analogy much too far, it's more like a store sending out hundreds of cars to block and harass people who may be shoplifters on the road without regard to the impact on other traffic. DOS attacks use the same infrastructure you're trying t'use to work, play games, read the news, post on /., and such. So in essence they're attacking everyone on the Internet as retaliation for one site ignoring an accusation of piracy.

Given that some, admittedly few, DCMA notices are sent out improperly formatted, in bad faith, or to the wrong people, this becomes particularly irksome. One hopes it opens up all kinds of crazy liability issues for both Kumar and whomever pays him, but we all know that big filmmakers, both in Bollywood and Hollywood, have a war chest larger than some nations' GNPs.

Re:Er,

[mcvos]

Theft leaves someone without something.

This debate is heavily tainted by misuse of words. Piracy means robbing ships on the high seas, theft means depriving someone of his property. Copyright infringement is just that: violating someone's legally granted monopoly.

Copyright is a legally granted monopoly on the copying and distribution of a particular presentation. Violating that is illegal, but not identical to theft.

Re:Er,

[adamGX]

The reason why DoS attacks may not be illegal , is that it is very difficult to define why connecting to a site too many times from a single server is an attack, just look at the number of times your browser connects to slashdot to read a single page. By advertising the site through the routing system you are inviting traffic, which leads to you giving permission to be connected too, there is no way for you to say you shall only connect X times per second too me, which is one of the positive benefits behind the network capabilities systems proposed in the research work. Co-ordinating the attacks from multiple sources to form a DDoS is much easier to define and shows a level of intent to cause harm which is difficult to prove for the standard DoS from a single source without making normal operations illegal.

Re:Er,

[flyneye]

No one is stealing shit. They're copying shit. I figure ALL these people copying shit should be enough for a moron to figure out that copyright is broken, abused and should be returned to a length of about 4 years. Further if you don't want something copied,don't digitize it. If you don't want a candle to melt ,don't light it. If you want to have your cake, don't eat it.

          When the climate and environment shift suddenly, as computers and networks have provided over the LAST 2 DECADES, a dinosaur should adapt quickly or die, as evident in the square business models these industry "intellectual giants" are currently trying to drive into round holes lubed by their own drool.

          I have no sympathy for moron dinosaurs and would suggest to stay the course with a world modeling of IP by force. The moral thing to do is admit IP is a stupid waste of time and continue life in a productive manner. Will things change, yes, some good, some bad, but Music ,film, code, etc. aren't going to dissappear anytime soon or later. There will be need and there will be product. The clever will make money, the ignorant will lose money, the world goes round and round.

Re:Er,

[Drakkenmensch]

So we finally have evidence of what we knew all along: the movie industry is a snake nest of outright criminals. Not just figuratively, but of people who commit actual crimes.

Re:Er,

[Anonymous Coward]

And copyright infringement is ... wait for it ... also an illegal activity!

They've going after civil offenders with criminal actions!

With copyright, the *worst* that could happen to you (theoretically), is you end up paying money to someone forever and ever. They, on the other hand, could end up in jail (theoretically). e.g. what if their DoS disrupts a fire department voip network and causes a school bus of children to burn to death? (in reality, such a thing would never be pinned on them, but, eh, this is theory).

Re:Er,

[tophermeyer]

Remember - his crusade is against violent crime.

...in his own backyard. He only cared about what was going down in Gotham.

Re:Er,

[jedidiah]

> (1) I wonder how you shoplift a new couch and then not pay for it because your old couch was damaged.

I don't have to. For real objects, consumer protection laws actually work.

Re:Er,

[Dorkmaster Flek]

I have a confession, Hank. I only like ze Batman because he has ze best villains!

Re:Er,

[Attila Dimedici]

Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house.

In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.

NONE of which is to say that I think private copyright infringement is theft, or should even exist as a crime.

That is insane. If someone breaks into your house, how does anyone else determine that you did not have a reasonable expectation that your life was in danger?
Personally, I think that if you initiate force in a confrontation, you should expect that the other person will escalate to using lethal force. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to expect that someone who initiates force against me will escalate to using lethal force. Additionally, why should I be forced to allow someone to beat me up just because they are bigger and stronger than me?

Re:Er,

[jedidiah]

Violating someone's copyright isn't even strictly speaking illegal.

It's a tort, but that's not exactly a crime. It's much like the distinction between theft and copying.

The law has made petty copyright infringement something that is not worthwhile to persue. Despite having
a law that is bought and paid for, the RIAA and MPAA are unsatisfied with it and want to abuse it further
still. They aren't content to corrupting the old laws for their personal profit. They want to ignore the
new ones too.

This all boils down to how society really doesn't think piracy is all that bad.

FBI agents don't want to be bothered with it.
Local law enforcement don't care about it.
The civil courts aren't going to give you any "satisfaction".

The "system" really has better things to worry about (like bank robbers and shoplifters and drug dealers).

Vigilantism usually arises from this indifference from law enforcement to the
plight of individual victims. However, it's usually real people being violently
abused that creates a vigilante backlash. It's generally not about kids copying
yesterday's top 40 pop hits.

I can't see either Batman or the Guardian Angels getting too excited about non-commercial pirates.

Re:Er,

[Attila Dimedici]

It does not require some "special circumstance" for a punch to the face to kill someone, it just requires the blow to be landed to the right portion of the face with sufficient force (which is well within the ability of most adult men to deliver).

Re:Er,

[jedidiah]

>> A punch to the face can under some circumstances cause the death of the victim. Therefore
>> a response up-to and including deadly force is entirely proportionate tyvm.
>
> No, you're confusing the issue,

No. He probably just has something resembling a clue.

It is VERY easy to kill a person. Infact, it's probably a lot harder to NOT kill a person by accident and sheer CLUE-LESS-NESS.

On the other hand: Burglary is traditionally considered a violent crime and a deep personal violation of the victim.

Anyone that speaks of burglary as if it's just a "mere property" crime really is speaking from their posterior.

Re:Er,

[stevenh2]

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

If they attacked me they would be attacked right back.

Re:Er,

[halfEvilTech]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but three lefts do.

Re:Er,

[jedidiah]

People like you should be forever cursed to live in the sort of constant state of fear created by the crime of burglary.

Re:Er,

[AltairDusk]

Don't know about India, but in the US most of us consider due process pretty damned important.

Not the RIAA and MPAA apparently.

One of the main reasons why they don't get my money.

Re:Er,

[2obvious4u]

No it was a fine example. The same person could have an airplane land on their house and the person swerving from debris from your wreck could have just as easily had to swerve from an animal or piece of tire from a semi truck. Speed and safe driving do not exclude each other. It is amazing how even though more people are driving traffic accidents and fatalities are dramatically decreasing year after year.

If you want a better example, try growing one marijuana plant in your back yard, using a vaporiser to ingest it on the first day of a holiday where you will be home, not driving anywhere for a week and tell me how that is wrong? If you can tell me that is wrong then I hope you've never had any alcoholic beverages ever in your life.

Re:Er,

[mcgrew]

"Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare.

On the coontrary, most people are moral. It's just that nobody agrees on what's "moral". For instance, some think violence is always immoral, others think that violence in defense of self or property is moral, and some think punching someone in the face because they've been verbally insulted it moral.

The Muslims and Baptists think drinking alcohol is immoral. Some people think any kind of sex except the missionary position is immoral. Some people* think dancing is immoral.

Some think brealing the law is immoral. I think some of the laws themselves are immoral.

Someone who you consider to be immoral simply has a different version of morality than you.

* Q: Why won't baptists have sex standing up?
  A: They're afraid someone will see them and think they're dancing!

Re:Er,

[rtb61]

No more accurately, you walk into a shop and see a big screen TV, more than you can afford, so you don't buy it. Now as you leave the store a magician notes that you wanted the big screen TV and offers to wave his wand and create a copy as long as you pay for the cost of the raw materials that constitute the TV the IP will be free.

Now let's be honest and morally sound, who would deny the financially disadvantaged fellow a cheap copy of a big screen TV or a car, or even a house, if your going to call it intellectual property you might as well compare it to that, seriously who would deny anyone person a quick cheap copy of a home.

Re:Er,

[kyrio]

If I was able to make a copy of that couch using my own resources and then take it home with me, while the original still sits in the store available for purchase, I would.

Re:Er,

[CarpetShark]

Burglary is a crime against property, UNLESS someone is specifically threatened or attacked. You may be thinking of robbery, which is not the same thing (robbery is specifically stealing in someone's presence, by force or threat)

Re:Er,

[hairyfeet]

Hi Mr AC! I notice you ain't got the guts to post under a real account, no matter. The problem you and everybody else seem to be missing is this: There is a hell of a lot more than one guy at a server IP address nowadays. So to give a better analogy, this would be like saying "Somebody on this block stole something. Lets napalm the entire street!".

You see bubba there is a reason why DoS is illegal, and that is because it can cause whole sections of the Internet to fall down if you hit a weak spot. In fact this would most likely get labeled an act of cyber-terrorism, since it does have the potential to cause wide scale damage. Trying to fix a law breaker by going vigilante is pretty much never a good idea, unless of course you simply want to be his prison buddy or something.

Re:Er,

[u-235-sentinel]

This was my first thought too. This should be HIGHLY illegal. This is vigilantism, plain and simple, and is completely illegal and immoral.

Do I hear a liable case coming to a court near us?

Re:Er,

[mcgrew]

I'm quite comfortable with recording hundreds of GB of films from TV because when it comes down to it, I just paid to see them a different way. I can even see your point of view about regional availability, although when it comes down to it, there is this thing called the postal system.

There's also a thing called regional coding.

But impatience?

What's wrong with seeing it now and paying for it when it's released?

Re:Er,

[Burz]

Making you a criminal means you won't be able to defend your rights if you step on the toes of powerful people, and making you forget about integrity removes barriers to the acceptance of the only law that stands when you remove all other laws: "the most powerful wins".

However, a number of invalid/immoral laws have been overcome by the widespread breaking of them.

This issue is like many others these days and has more to do with how perceptions are influenced by corporate PR. If you don't want their power law to keep winning out, and if you want to make lasting progress, then media reform must be undertaken.

Re:Er,

[TheoMurpse]

In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.

You assume the guy living in the house has 100% knowledge of the intruder's intent. Thank God you aren't my government rep or a Supreme Court justice.

If someone breaks into my house at night, they're getting shot. I have a family to take care of, and I don't need some liberal "this is disproportionate" feelgood bullshit giving the intruder (who may be a serial rapist or murderer for all I know) to murder my wife or rape my daughter.

Re:Er,

[fluffernutter]

I like the example. I would just like to help it along by proposing that pirating a movie is more like going 10-15 km/h over the speed limit, as opposed to 80 over.

Re:Er,

[HermMunster]

They are illegal. Those behind the attacks will be arrested. All that has to be proven is that the denial of service attack is occurring. The police authorities will have to pursue. If the denial of service attack is done outside the US then the US companies that hired them will have the responsible employees arrested. Not to mention that they'll be unmasked and the general public will understand their criminal activities.

Denial of service attacks can work both ways. Say Disney partnered to have this done. Once unmasked the alleged pirates would most certainly take down and keep down servers under the control of Disney & ABC.

Re:Er,

[HermMunster]

Copyright infringement is a civil violation and not considered criminal, as nothing is actually stolen from the owner. And, most of the laws regarding copyright infringement govern distribution (and for a profit). DDoS is a criminal act. A person downloading a movie while not distributing it to anyone else is simply violating copyright laws the way you would be if you were to make copies of something on a copier machine years ago. And yes, those same people were pursuing copier machine copies as pirates.

Re:Er,

[sheddd]

An unfortunate by-product of universal health care is the fact that the temporary couch potato in your example should be out exercising to minimize their medical bills which are shared with everyone else (assuming they don't take advantage of the subsidized insurance).

Re:Er,

[Locke2005]

You never exceeded the speed limit on an empty road? I don't consider it to be really speeding unless you're going at least twice the posted limit.

Re:Er,

[farble1670]

you: "if it's any good, i pay for it".

to find out if it's "good enough" for you to pay for it, why don't you read one of the multitudinous reviews you can find online for any movie / music on the face of the earth?

also, you might want to consider why the rest of the world doesn't work on this "if i think it's good i'll pay for it" model. because almost everyone, like you, would decide that almost all of their consumption isn't good enough, and they'd forgo compensating the producer. the producer will then stop producing, and you won't even have the option of paying for it if you wanted to.

your consumption model relies on a bunch of other people with different morals than yourself that will pay for the content. if those people all operated on your morals, the content wouldn't exist. those people support your habit.

don't get me wrong i think most movies / music are crap and not worth paying for either. but i understand that my option as a consumer is to consume that content, or not. or, if i steal the content (i don't deny doing this at one time or another in my life) i don't sit around and rationalize it.

Re:Er,

[pyrosine]

Possibly not in India? Regardless, with media moguls backing them, the Indian government is unlikely to be willing to investigate claims as from what I understand, bollywood films are a booming industry in India.

Re:Er,

[V!NCENT]

Yes! That's it, folks. I am going to download a commercial movie!

I buy most of my stuff legaly in stores, and downloading small amount of movies each month is not even ilegal where I live, but I'm going to download and watch ten good movies from the MPAA just because of these extremely unethical practises. If corporate fsckups want to go to war with humanity, they can get it!

What are the top-10-selling titles made by members of the RIAA that are selling now? Who's with me?

Re:Er,

[Grumbleduke]

Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

They are (by my understanding) in the US!

This company seems to be based in India, working for Bollywood companies and is threatening to DoS websites that I'm guessing mostly aren't based in the US either. I know this is /., but it is still worth remembering that (in theory, at least) US law does not apply to the rest of the world. There is no reason why it being illegal in the US should automatically make it illegal anywhere else.

That said, IANAIL so I don't know what the law on this in India - although if the website has T&Cs there might be a "breach of contract" case (assuming India still has that; iirc its legal system is based on the English one due to being an ex-colony, so most of the common law stuff should apply) but we all know how legally shaky those things are.

Re:Er,

[LifesABeach]

This could be an interesting plot line for a Comedy script. I believe that Girish Kumar has just confessed to committing a felony. Is the DHS done eating dinner?

Re:Er,

[The Hatchet]

Very illegal, but who gives a shit when they pretty much own the legal system. What ya gonna do, sue them? Good luck getting past a wall of lawyers bigger than the wall of china.

Re:Er,

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I have over 300 legally purchased DVDs and lost count of my cd's, back to you.

Re:Er,

[The Hatchet]

Law doesn't imply immorality. For example, breaking the speed limit on a long, flat, strait, empty road is not going to kill anyone, or even damage anything. The only problem with it is that it violates the law.

Taking those who do all the real work, making them work for shit wages and then making billions off of their work while you do virtually as little as possible is by no means moral, despite its legality. Pirating these things is immoral. But is it still immoral if you donate your estimated worth of the product anonymously to the developers? Of course not. Is paying for a game practically immoral? Almost, as you are supporting sharecropping. Most people are moral, but few people can follow the law perfectly, as it is ridiculous.

Re:Er,

[EdIII]

Which is why I believe the missing D was just a typo. DoS attacks are much easier to defend against at the ISP level, and even the server level. You can throttle them or just blackhole them.

DDos attacks on the other hand are more difficult to defend against. This "service" that was being provided was more than likely DDoS, otherwise I just can't see it as all that valuable.

As for intent to cause harm, you would only need to prove the communications came from this business. After all, the business model itself and advertised service being provided is by definition, to cause harm to another party.

Re:Er,

[Nursie]

No, that's not wrong (IMHO), but it doesn't really illustrate the point that people bend the rules *even when the effect is deleterious to others* if they don't perceive the (potential)harm as being very close to them or the possibility of being caught as low.

Your weed example there is a good example of a fucked up law.

Re:Er,

[farble1670]

what's your point? you may also hardly ever dine and dash, or write bad checks, or stick a steak into your shirt at the grocery, but that doesn't make it okay when you do.

silently stealing content, alone in the privacy of your basement, is a pretty poor way of protesting your inability to make legal backup copies, etc. it's called having an ulterior motive. it's hard to take folks like you seriously when your "moral outrage" neatly enables you to consume content for free.

Re:Er,

[Nursie]

Read my other posts - Speeding in, say, a residential area that looks safe as you don't see anyone right now, that's more of a tricky issue. It's also where I was going with the example but it kinda came out wrong.

Re:Er,

[AmonTheMetalhead]

You're comparing apples & oranges, i am not depriving them of sales, unless you expect people to buy content on blind faith?

Besides, i live in Belgium, i already pay 'copy taxes' on empty media and even freaking mp3 players and hard drives, whenever i backup my pictures money floats to the content providers, they already get paid enough, if they or you expect me to actually pay for crap on top of that, well tough cookies.

Re:Er,

[Red Flayer]

You may want to read up on the subject. Burglary is generally considered a violent crime in the US (a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_burglary_of_a_habitat_a_violent_crime">see explanation here. This surprised me when I first read it.

Theft, OTOH, is not a violent crime -- but burglary is a different thing than theft.

Re:Er,

[Sockatume]

If a movie has failed to pick up a distributor in a given region, then a DVD release will immediately remove any possibility of the studio managing to find one. Correspondingly for small studios or indies, who aren't owned by a distribution conglomerate, getting into cinemas is contingent on staggered DVD releases. Similarly TV etc.

That's one scenario. There are plenty of inexplicable staggered releases, but there are plenty of justified ones also.

Re:Er,

[Aighearach]

So.... does the EFF sue Aiplex, the MPAA or the film owner?

s/or/and/

Re:Er,

[Dogtanian]

Now let's be honest and morally sound, who would deny the financially disadvantaged fellow a cheap copy of a big screen TV or a car, or even a house, if your going to call it intellectual property you might as well compare it to that, seriously who would deny anyone person a quick cheap copy of a home.

Have you ever considered becoming a politician? Because that was a *very* slick and seamless shift of the argument from copying a "big screen TV" (a definite non-essential) via a car (borderline essential depending on circumstances) to a house (an essential). (*)

Because anyone who disagrees with copying films (which is what we were originally talking about) is arguing in favour of making people homeless. OMG HOW COULD YOU BE SO HEARTLESS!!!!!!!!11111

Personally, I'm in favour of reasonable IP laws that reward effort and encourage creativity and innovation that wouldn't otherwise take place (which isn't to say that I agree with some of the more excessive IP laws around the world- very far from it). But I'm not going to bore everyone with it beyond that- this is another of the endless IP discussions on Slashdot, same arguments every time, same opportunity for the same people to make the same point backing up the same positions and no minds are changed. Doesn't mean that all these views are wrong, just that they're repeated countless times when everyone can repeat them ad nauseum, just like the GPL vs. BSD licensing debate...

(*) Got the tone right as well, "who would deny the financially disadvantaged fellow a cheap copy", nice and populist without sounding too commie. :-)

Re:Er,

[oldmac31310]

That was my immediate thought. These Aiplex people should be shut down if that is what they are doing. And the Bollywood and Hollywood companies that hired them should be investigated.

Re:Er,

[thetoadwarrior]

Arguably downloading music, movies and software are too so I don't have much sympathy and quite frankly I rather they fight downloaders this rather than doing stuff that takes away the rights of honest people.

Re:Er,

[Zaphod The 42nd]

If you don't understand why vigilantism is wrong, you REALLY shouldn't be talking about law.

Oh yeah, so-and-so did X crime, so I don't need to feel bad that some guys went over to his house and shot him. Due process, right? You know, lets just drop this whole expensive legal system and go back to lynchings.

WRONG.

Re:Er,

[thoromyr]

I have to slightly disagree on this point. Breaking the law is not automatically immoral - it's just a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else and 51% popular support. What is immoral is violating other people's rights.

Those "rights" are just the result of a piece of paper written by people with more hired guns than everyone else, screw the popular support. The original comparison is completely valid. The fact that you aren't comfortable with the obvious conclusion just means you agree with the law granting those rights (imaginary property law).

Feel free to disagree. But it is equivalent and the consequence GP outlined for pretending to take the moral high road is inevitable.

Re:Er,

[Cederic]

watch ten good movies from the MPAA

I may have spotted a small flaw in your plan.

Re:Er,

[The Hatchet]

My point was that Law doesn't equal moral imperative, and that supporting sharecropping and giving anon donations is better than giving money to the bastards living in luxury off of the work of others.

Re:Er,

[spazzmo]

Those are all stealing or aggravted robbery, unlike pirating, which is merely copyright infringement. Funny how the various *aa's have so short-circuited inferior intellects that they cannot tell the difference.

Re:Er,

[box4831]

nobody ever changed their ways after a death sentence, for instance

I beg to differ, how many executed convicts went on to continue committing crimes? ;)

Re:Er,

[Ken V.B. Liar]

After a bit of googling, it appears that it is a civil offence under sect 43 of the IT Act , 2000

Re:Er,

[ewanm89]

Mine is analogy of what this company is doing, not on copyright infringement.

Re:Er,

[flyneye]

Of course no one was taking people to court to fleece them over tape copy either.
        Sharing thoughts aka IP happens the moment the thought makes it out of your head and contacts someones sensory interface. Declaring thoughts as property makes as much sense as declaring people property. Trying to sell IP makes as much sense as selling sno-cones in a blizzard.
      It was a bad business model to begin with. It doesn't improve with age.

Re:Er,

[thetoadwarrior]

Downloading music isn't stealing because you don't deprive anyone of the original. A DoS attack isn't that bad because nothing is actually damaged. ;)

Re:Er,

[Zaphod The 42nd]

What're you trying to say?

Yes, downloading music is copyright infringement, and NOT theft. They're legally distinct, and everybody should know this. The PSAs about "you wouldn't steal a car" purposefully try to blur the lines, but they are separate.

On the other hand, you're saying a DoS attack isn't that bad. Well, you may think so, but it is still definitely illegally tampering and interfering with a secure computer system, which is against the law.

And doing something against the law in order to seek revenge for infringements against your copyrights is vigilantism, and is illegal.

I don't see your point. Its like you're saying the pirates aren't that bad, but the RIAA isn't that bad either. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Er,

[TYH.DataAngel]

It's not particularly a question of impatience however: as someone who participates in a lot of online discussion boards, there's often an issue of community discussion that arises on the Internet pertaining to media that I'm not going to have for another 6 months.

For want of a better example, I keep up with the TV show House quite avidly and I can think of 2 discussion boards that I frequent which both have official threads dedicated to the show. In addition, I have a lot of friends who torrent it as it is released in the US. It would be impractical for me to hypothetically bury my head in the sand any time someone is discussing it around me, so I'm forced to either torrent and keep up with it or subject myself to spoilers left right and centre.

That said, I won't pretend that the convenience I get from torrenting episodes isn't a benefit.

Re:Er,

[rtb61]

Let me remind you of the basis of copyright and patents, "TO PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND THE USEFUL ARTS", not about feeding the power and greed of sociopath producers, not about producing an endless stream of shallow drunken drugged up minstrels, not about marketing as news, not about distorting the basis of society to more closely align with the deranged mores of narcissists and psychopaths that make up the content industry, not about disrupting the psychological growth of children to sell useless rubbish ie. it is not about feeding the greed of a rabid minority.

I don't have a problem with Intellectual 'Property' (the house comparison came from the property exaggeration provided by mass media marketdroids not me), if it sticks to the law. You want the protection of the law to feed your greed than adhere to the law and prove the work created, promotes the progress of science and useful arts, when it fails in that regard, than under law it should not have copyright protection, 'end of line'.

Re:Er,

[HermMunster]

If an American company hires a foreign company to commit a crime in the US then the American company will still have committed a criminal act and can be prosecuted in the US.

Re:Er,

[Grumbleduke]

What if an American company (A) hires a foreign company (B) to do something (1), and in the process of doing (1), (B) commits a crime (2) in the US, even though (A) did not specifically ask (B) to do (2), nor was (2) the only way of achieving (1)?

Also, what if (B) does (2) but not in the US (noting that places like tPB are rarely hosted within the US these days)?

I'm fairly* sure the lawyers behind this knew what they were doing.

*inserted after remembering about ACS:Law

[More interested from a legal point of view than the story here; I agree what they did is probably wrong and should be illegal - but I don't know much about US law and would like to learn ... plus I don't like this automatic assumption that because some company does something that is against the law in the US they are criminals. I know lots of people who do things that are against the law in the US and would hate to have to report them all...]

Re:Er,

[MiniMike]

(1) I wonder how you shoplift a new couch and then not pay for it because your old couch was damaged.

That's because he bought a couch, not a 'license to use couch for sitting activities'. If he already paid for the DVD, why do you have a problem with him also having a digital copy? Usually the moral outrage is reserved for people downloading something they didn't pay for.

Not commenting on the other points.

Re:Er,

[sabt-pestnu]

you wouldn't download a car

Not for lack of trying.

Re:Er,

[ikeman32]

Yup illegal as in felony.

Re:Er,

[vuffi_raa]

Yes, the pirates are breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the **AAs get to respond by breaking it in kind.

actually the pirates aren't breaking the law, they are doing something which can be brought to civil court (I don't want to explain the DMCA again but trust me the criminal portion is clearly lined out to only target counterfeiting and not piracy) and has minimum damages set (though those are still up for debate) whereas the **AA are doing an activity which is actually criminal.

Re:Er,

[duguk]

Read my other posts - Speeding in, say, a residential area that looks safe as you don't see anyone right now, that's more of a tricky issue. It's also where I was going with the example but it kinda came out wrong.

That wouldn't be considered a long, flat, strai(gh)t, empty road though; would it?
I understand your point, but it's totally irrelevant.

Re:Er,

[devnull17]

Is paying for a game practically immoral? Almost, as you are supporting sharecropping.

This is an incredibly arrogant point of view. Just because someone doesn't create content for a living doesn't mean that they're not contributing to a project. In private industry, positions that don't add value to a product tend not to exist for very long.

To use your game development example, I'm assuming you're referring to publishers who fund projects that are developed externally. It's tempting to portray publishing firms as oppressive fat cats working poor, oppressed developers to death, but the fact of the matter is that they play an important role in the process. If development houses could bankroll their own projects and shoulder the risks involved in funding a game without involving a publisher, they would. And most publishers contribute a hell of a lot more than money.

Businesspeople are, by and large, not slavers. Even the highly-compensated ones--especially the highly-compensated ones--generate value commensurate with their paychecks. If they didn't, they wouldn't be receiving those checks for very long. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but not having technical skills doesn't preclude one from doing "real work."

(And before you ask, yes, I write code for a living.)

Re:Er,

[jmcvetta]

try growing one marijuana plant in your back yard, using a vaporiser to ingest it on the first day of a holiday where you will be home, not driving anywhere for a week and tell me how that is wrong?

Damn, that's some strong herb you're planning to grow...

Re:Er,

[The Hatchet]

Yes, they do work. I don't deny that. But they get paid disproportionately much for what they do compared to those that do the real work. If anything they are nothing more than low level service workers untangling beaurocratic knots for the real workers, but they get paid like mother fucking kings while game programs make bullshit ass tiny fucking paychecks in comparison. Its like saying "pay the janitor millions because without clean floors our operation would fail"

Or do you just like being self righteous on the web? The amount of money the publishing houses make is disproportionately enormous compared to the amount of money they should be making on this stuff. Sure then contribute money and dig into risk in the beginning, but good risk management and an initial investment isn't going to kill them, when a good part of the time they make a shit ton of money off the game that you will never see. They make far more than they put into it, and you get moderate returns at best. It is not creative work, it is simply abusing the use of capital funds to enslave those who don't have the raw cash to bankroll their own profit streams.

Really?

[telekon]

If DDOS attacks are suddenly legal, there are a fuckton of servers I want to point at the MPAA right now.

Re:Really?

[dwywit]

I suspect a certain software company - sort of rhymes with "complex" - might find its own servers suddenly subjected to the same treatment.

Re:Really?

[an00bis]

Exactly. This may slide in India, but MPAA is out of their league if they want to get into a tech battle.

Re:Really?

[telekon]

Are you suggesting that Anonymous never forgives, and Anonymous never forgets? Perhaps that none of us is as cruel as all of us?

The MPAA needs to learn the Rules of the Internet.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Re:Really?

[DigiShaman]

Here's a though. If computers are going to get infected anyways and turned into SPAM spewing zombies, why not modify the virus to host P2P trackers along with it? Let the blackhats and MPAA roll around in the mud and take care of our vexing problem for us =) It would kill two birds with one stone. The SPAM goes away and the MPAA gets busted as an accessory to the crime. If they don't, they still keep taking down the SPAMMERS. Win WIN!!!!!

Re:Really?

[seeker_1us]

Is that an English or Metric fuckton?

Re:Really?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

My guess is that it's legal if you have enough lawyers and lobbyists to whitewash it.

Re:Really?

[ultranova]

If DDOS attacks are suddenly legal, there are a fuckton of servers I want to point at the MPAA right now.

They aren't legal for mere mortal serfs like you. They are legal for the nobility by virtue of their divine property rights. Learn your place and bow to your masters.

Re:Really?

[zdzichu]

They are in third world, like in India.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, and here I was measuring these things in sh*tloads, now I have to rescale them to fucktons? And to think, it all started as only a few dangstroms wide.

Re:Really?

[koiransuklaa]

There's good reason behind moving to fucktons. The relative ambiguity of shitloads made life difficult for everyone: Are we talking imperial shitloads, naval shitloads, long shitloads, short shitloads... measuring loads of crap used to require an expert, now anyone can do it!

Re:Really?

[Thanshin]

Is that an English or Metric fuckton?

Metric.

The imperial equivalency is: 1 metric fuckton = 2204 fuckpounds

Re:Really?

[xorsyst]

Dude, we use metric measurements in England :)

Re:Really?

[gilgoomesh]

I won't believe that until Top Gear stops reporting everything in Miles and Horsepower.

Re:Really?

[dkf]

Is that an English or Metric fuckton?

It must be a Statute fuckton, as a Metric one would be written "fucktonne".

Re:Really?

[daveime]

Yes, the Milk Marketing Board's latest advertising campaign was particularly riveting ...

"Drinka 0.568 litra milka day" ... and who can forget the classic ...

"Watch out watch out there's 0.568 of a Humphrey about"

We might be forced to USE metric, we don't particularly LIKE metric.

Re:Really?

[xorsyst]

You might not, I'd much rather be using metric. I have no idea what adverts your referring to.

Re:Really?

[Nerdfest]

Sadly, I don't think this should be considered a "funny" comment, except maybe in the "It's funny because it's true" sense.

Re:Really?

[sco08y]

I think the metric verision would be putainton, though there are a dozen or so French words for "fuck".

Re:Really?

[delinear]

If it's true that Hollywood have used their services, then the company may be in India but their paymasters certainly are not (and if it's not true, then congrats to the company on making a lot of extra enemies online for no real reason).

Re:Really?

[upside]

I think he's being sarcastic, but a bit misguided. You wouldn't translate my metric pancake recipe to include 1,761 cups of flower.

He's also right - imperial measure is still the norm in common expression. How many stone do you weigh? How many feet and inches are you tall? How many miles is it to the gas station? What's the consumption in MPG on that car? These are questions I get asked in the UK.

Re:Really?

[Doctor Faustus]

I've never heard a British person talk about penis size in anything but inches.

Re:Really?

[oldmac31310]

Obviously if it were metric it would be 'fucktonne'.

Re:Really?

[oldmac31310]

isn't putain whore?

Re:Really?

[Cederic]

That's because we don't talk about penis size. Talking about such matters just isn't British (and we don't appear to have the insecurities in that area exhibited by certain other nations).

Re:Really?

[Doctor Faustus]

It's actually only women I've heard do it.

What could possibly go wrong.

[mirix]

In other news, I've decided I'm going to start shooting out the tires of cars that I witness passing on the right.

or should I be going after Ford?

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[MightyMartian]

No fucking kidding. Why isn't a request being made to Interpol to have this guy and his company dragged in to face American justice for violating anti-tampering laws?

Oh that's right, it's for Big Media. Whatever they do is perfectly fine.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[bloodhawk]

not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[digitallife]

Just ask Canada to extradite him... They've never refused an extradition request from the US. They'll probably even get him out of another country just to extradite him.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[exomondo]

not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.

IANAL but surely the american companies hiring his company would be somewhat accountable wouldn't they?

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[jvillain]

That isn't true. If the packets cross though American controlled territory any where they are violating American laws. And America makes sure as much traffic as possible crosses their territory in order to be able to tap it.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[aaron552]

Oh that's right, it's for Big Media. Whatever they do is perfectly fine.

A classic case of "Screw the rules; I have money!"

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[X0563511]

Which is great, because most places I've lived that's entirely legal and never seems to cause a problem.

The only time it wouldn't is should you randomly decide to shift right without LOOKING first.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[exomondo]

That isn't true. If the packets cross though American controlled territory any where they are violating American laws. And America makes sure as much traffic as possible crosses their territory in order to be able to tap it.

Do you have a source for that? Wouldn't that mean that if you were to do something illegal then you would be charged in every country that your traffic was routed through?

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[XanC]

Exactly correct. If anything along those lines should be illegal, it would be BEING PASSED on the right. If you're being passed on the right, move to the right!

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[John Hasler]

Do you have any evidence that any US companies have actually hired him to do DOS attacks?

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[John Hasler]

> Do you have a source for that?

It isn't true.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[exomondo]

Do you have any evidence that any US companies have actually hired him to do DOS attacks?

FTFA:

As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.

"We are tied up with Fox STAR Studios - Star TV and 20th Century Fox - who are a joint venture company in India."

Fox Star is of course owned by News Corp. But by all means take my above comment as a hypothetical if you prefer.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[lgw]

not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country

I believe that would be a case of "screw the rules, I have money" being trumped by "screw your money, I have nuclear weapons". More seriously, India and the US have friendly relations and very strong commercial ties, I doubt they'd refuse an extradition request any more than Canada would (and have they ever?).

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[lgw]

If you're being passed on the right, move to the right!

Ahh, Boston driving! Better advice would be "after being passed on the right, move to the right!".

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[0111 1110]

In other news, I've decided I'm going to start shooting out the tires of cars that I witness passing on the right.

You do realize that the left lane is supposed to be the passing lane. That means if you want to drive like a little old lady you are supposed to do it in the right lane. I wish we could shoot out the tires of every person who deems it his god given right to drive at half the speed limit in the left lane, just chugging along while creating massive and dangerous traffic problems behind him. Actually, to be honest, I wouldn't aim for the tires. Slow drivers need to be taken out of the gene pool. Particularly the ones who always insist on being in the left lane all the time as if deliberately trying to create a traffic jam.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[julesh]

Wouldn't that mean that if you were to do something illegal then you would be charged in every country that your traffic was routed through?

No, only America has such a witless law.

(Although here in the UK, we have a few. For instance, it's illegal for a British citizen to bribe an official anywhere in the world.)

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[Lonewolf666]

Depends on your definition of "driving like a little old lady". Sometimes I pass a truck doing 50 mph at 80 mph, and someone is coming from behind at 120mph and pissed off because I'm doing only 80.
And yes, I will go back to the right lane after passing the truck. So don't care if some would-be racing driver has to slow down for a moment.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Together with the ones that don't know how to work their directional lights & decide to change lanes 20cm ahead of you

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[AmonTheMetalhead]

Isn't the speed limit in the US 80MPH? If so,that speedfreak has no business complaining

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[AK Marc]

Worked for Roman Polanski (though not Canada).

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[Lonewolf666]

I'm living in Germany, where there is no general speed limit on the highways. But introducing one is discussed from time to time, at least in part because of the speed freaks.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I love driving in Germany, you can just relax & cruise the highway without having to pay constant attention that you're not going 5KPH an hour to fast as in Belgium

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[TFAFalcon]

Are there many countries where DoS is legal?

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[dodobh]

I think we would. The Americans can have the DDoSers *after* they have served their indian jail sentences.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[delinear]

Indeed, on the other hand try coming to the UK and driving a steady 70MPH in the fast lane and see how popular that makes you with the speedfreaks behind.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank You.

Tips hat.

Voice of reason...

all that good stuff.

I would love to see those "Slower traffic keep right" signs enforced

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[tophermeyer]

Witless?

We're just looking out for y'all. Making sure you don't go and sin or do anything un-Christian. It's for your own good. Trust us.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[Attila Dimedici]

Except that in most states in the U.S., passing on the right is legal.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[Idbar]

It's legal in Delaware to pass on the right (and mostly sure, it's also in UK, Hong Kong, Japan and Australia). I'd have used red lights. :)

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[Haffner]

In Illinois, it is illegal to BE passed on the right.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[mirix]

I know, and agree. I've been known to pass on the right no less.

I love when people are sitting like a dildo in the left lane, going 50, because they have to turn left in 400 miles. argh.

It was just the first example that came to mind.

Re:What could possibly go wrong.

[exomondo]

Witless?

We're just looking out for y'all. Making sure you don't go and sin or do anything un-Christian. It's for your own good. Trust us.

On behalf of the rest of the world, thank you.

So like

[adversus]

21st century version of a protection racket? "Do what we say or we'll beat your connections down."

Re:So like

[Kjella]

I think this article should be published far and wide, it's anti-product placement for the MAFIAA. Stop denial of service attacks on the Internet, abolish copyright today. Do not support organized crime, boycott MPAA today.

Re:So like

[Nursie]

Not just that but unless India has a law going by the name DMCA, he's using US law, from a base in India to warn sites that could be anywhere else to remove their material, then DoSing them.

It's not just bad, wrong and (in some jurisdictions) criminal, it's fscking nuts!

Re:So like

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially, if the Justice Department, and more importantly DHS and 'CyberCommand' doesn't step in hear and shut this down as willful domestic 'cyber-terrorism', their existence and purpose is officially complete and utter bullshit.

As far as I know, these DoS attacks will be on the same networks that they are so hell bent on protecting from the evil entities over-seas. I guess if Corporations attack citizens online its ok, but if it crosses international boundary, it's suddenly technological warfare.

And as for Aiplex? Aside from the fact that you can't defeat piracy, it's always good to know who your enemy is. Thanks for the announcement.

/hates using the word 'cyber' as much as anyone else
//can't believe the MPAA still thinks these efforts will stamp out piracy

Re:So like

[Nursie]

Well aware but after years of dodging email filters and triggers on other sites it's become second nature.

Re:So like

[AHuxley]

re protection racket?
Thats a nice movie you have, like to reviewed, rated, shown in competition, press access, got many screens yet?

Re:So like

[FuckingNickName]

Perhaps, but is it really necessary? Some people these days are so badly educated and don't know how to express themselves. Swearing is a sign that you lack the.. you know.. words to be able to effectively say what you mean.

Re:So like

[AmonTheMetalhead]

There's a problem though, it's called collateral damage. Say you have a server hosted in a small collocation firm, one of their clients gets targeted by the MPIAA and they start DDoS'ing him, they might end up taking the small collocation firm down with the purported pirate.

Re:So like

[Pikoro]

So you lack the .. you know .. words to be able to effectively choose a nickname? :)

Re:So like

[cpghost]

Essentially, if the Justice Department, and more importantly DHS and 'CyberCommand' doesn't step in hear and shut this down as willful domestic 'cyber-terrorism', their existence and purpose is officially complete and utter bullshit.

The only purpose of DoJ, DHS and CyberCommand is to protect the US. The only (remaining) purpose of the US is to protect its MAFIAA. Ergo, the only purpose of DHS and CyberCommand is to protect those spammers who (claim to) protect the US (err... its MAFIAA). All those so called anti-piracy measures with an associated super power as enforcer are the transitive hull of the biggest protection racket that this crazy old world has ever seen.

Re:So like

[maxwell demon]

But what if he really wants to do a file system check on his nuts? After all, he doesn't want corrupted data there!

Re:So like

[maxwell demon]

The small collocation firm probably didn't generate income for MPAA members anyway.

Re:So like

[FuckingNickName]

Self-deprecating irony is often too fumulescent to release on a US-centric web site, but it's great that there are people out there who have read the MSDS and can give warning when it's in the air.

Cool, now we can measure the effect of piracy.

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Let's see a graph of how their earnings went up during the attack.

Re:Cool, now we can measure the effect of piracy.

[CarpetShark]

Let's see a graph of how their earnings went up during the attack.

Here's one they made up earlier:

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/hq-graphcopy2_800.jpg

This will have the same impact as

[spyder-implee]

Pissing on a bonfire...

Re:This will have the same impact as

[quaero_notitia]

Or, pissing on a bonfire with gasoline.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[Andorin]

Bollywood is bigger in its region than Hollywood is in the US. Not so much in the US, though.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[jafo]

Because DoS attacks never harm innocent bystanders like the ISP, *THEIR* ISP, or other customers of either of them.

We have enough problems with DoS attacks launched by miscreants. So, yeah, maybe some of these ISPs don't take reports seriously, but I do know that not all "copyright enforcement" type actions are well researched...

This one time we got a DMCA takedown notice from a software vendor in Australia for a site run by a department of a local university, for running an unlicensed copy of their software. The DMCA takedown notice was sent to my company because they "couldn't find the contact information" *FOR A UNIVERSITY*. I found it by clicking on the "contact" link on the page they made the takedown request for.

Turns out that the university *DID* have a license for the software, BTW.

I know it's annoying when your stuff gets stolen, but don't go attacking people.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[jvillain]

I can see the ISP's breaking out the law suites here. They have been looking for some pay back for the *AA and this just might be their ticket.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[mjwx]

I know it's annoying when your stuff gets stolen, but don't go attacking people.

Yes it is annoying when someone physically removes my stuff so I am deprived of that stuff.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[0111 1110]

but piracy is using a product without paying for it.

Information wants to be free. If you don't like that law of nature then keep your creative works to yourself please. Do us all a favor. Most of it sucks anyway. Once information has been released into the wild it's like air or sunshine: free for the taking. You can always claim you have some kind of "right" to it though. You might get some donations if people believe you. But don't try to make the world into some kind of jail cell just so you can get paid to have fun. Most of us work shit jobs and don't have the luxury of writing a book or a song or making a movie so we don't have to do any real work. What's that about the worlds smallest violin? Go get a real job or stfu and be glad that creative work pays at all.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[mjwx]

OK, I was going to point out that infringement is closer to fraud then theft but that works too.

I'll add to that, infringement does not have the negative stereotype that theft does, people when they hear "infringement" do not think of it as a crime. To the lay person infringement is when one walks past the "dont walk on the grass sign" not strictly right but no-one actually gets hurt. Copyright infringement works the same way. So studios that still think 1 causal copy == 1 sale need to push the negative stereotype around infringement.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Nursie]

God I'm tired of hearing this stupid fucking argument.

JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEFT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OK.

Now, can we please use the right words? These are different phenomena. FFS. Copyright infrigingement can be both illegal and morally wrong without being the same things as "stealing".

So please, get it through your thick skull. When talking about the consequences of copyright infringement it doesn't help the discussion to confuse and pollute the language.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[julesh]

This one time we got a DMCA takedown notice from a software vendor in Australia for a site run by a department of a local university, for running an unlicensed copy of their software.

Erm - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a DMCA notice applies in this situation even if they are unlicensed... surely a DMCA notice only requires that they cease *distribution* not *use*?

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Sparx139]

Not just ISPs. Think large websites as well. Can you imagine what would happen if they targeted YouTube? While they are prompt with dealing with it, all it would take would be some paperwork going to the wrong spot to make it it look like they're ignoring the takedown notice, and they could seriously piss off the Google behemoth. The fireworks would be quite entertaining.

Actually, what would happen if there was some internal screw-up and they hit the wrong website? I mean, not even one that's remotely related, I mean something such as... I don't know... a dentist? It would only take a typo, and then all hell would break loose.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Robert Zenz]

It would only take a typo, and then all hell would break loose.

It doesn't even need to be a typo [DE, sorry], an overzealous company/employee is enough. Basically, a german 'copyright-enforcement-company' took down CC-Licensed content, because of copyright infringement...and defended themselves basically with "Well, 5 out of 5 million, who cares?".

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[IRWolfie-]

Explain how copyright infringement is morally wrong?

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Nursie]

I didn't say it was, I said it can be.

My point is that there's room for a moral discussion even if we discard the emotive and inaccurate 'theft' or 'stealing' terms.

That said, yes I do believe it's wrong to infringe copyright on recent (>~20 year old) articles because you're obtaining the fruits of someone else's labour without permission or accepting their terms. This applies to everything from printed media to GPL'd FOSS.

No, I don't give a crap that you haven't deprived them of their copy. That just means it's not 'theft' or 'stealing', it doesn't make it right.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Nursie]

I mean less than around twenty, not greater than around 20.

That's the other point I suppose, I think copyright should be shortened a LOT and that the 'deal' the public gets from it right now is a bad one.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[IRWolfie-]

That said, yes I do believe it's wrong to infringe copyright on recent (>~20 year old) articles because you're obtaining the fruits of someone else's labour without permission or accepting their terms.

Your statement begs the question, it does not explain why I should have to accept terms to make a copy of what someone else has worked on.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Nursie]

I said - you are getting the fruits of their labour without adhering to their terms.

That is the moral case I'm making. If you disagree that obtaining the fruits of someone's hard work without adhering to their terms and conditions (be they monetary, attribution, opening of derivative works, etc etc) is 'bad', why then that's up to you.

That's your opinion, man, and everyone is entitled to one. I don't see that the world would work without some form of IP protection (that's the utilitarian aspect), and I do believe that limited term IP ownership is entirely 'good' as so many people put effort into intangible things that do have value to others.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[delinear]

Then what's the difficulty in using the correct terms? The fact is, if you say "intellectual property infringement" to most people, they won't care, if you say "theft" you're using a word that carries much more power in the public's perception. If infringing property is as bad as theft, use the correct term and live with the fact that most sensible people will laugh it off, if you don't think it's as bad as theft then you're even more of a hypochrite for telling people to equate the two (although ultimately I suspect you're a label shill or a troll in it for the lulz).

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[mcvos]

It's copyright infringement, not theft or piracy. It helps clear up this muddied discussion if you use words by their actual meaning.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[delinear]

Even 20 is doubtless needlessly long - most content makes its money in the first two or three years, after that it tends only to be the content that's taken to the public's heart that still generates profit, and that's exactly the kind of content that it's in the public interest to not be subject to copyright. What I'd like to see is something like copyright expiring after maybe 7 years for personal use, but if you intent to use it commercially (either to sell directly or to advertise another commercial product/site) increase that to maybe 20 years (because if it's still selling after it's free to the public, there is a valid business model to protect). This would still allow content producers to make money hand over fist, but it wouldn't culturally cripple society or punish genuine enthusiasts the way it can right now, and it also wouldn't allow big artists to rest on their laurels after a couple of big hits, they'd have to work for their living like the rest of us (which again benefits society as it means they generate new content instead of spewing out endless "best of" albums).

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Attila Dimedici]

We have enough problems with DoS attacks launched by miscreants.

This sounds as if these people aren't miscreants. If they are launching DoS attacks, they are by definition miscreants.

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[isilrion]

That is the moral case I'm making. If you disagree that obtaining the fruits of someone's hard work without adhering to their terms and conditions (be they monetary, attribution, opening of derivative works, etc etc) is 'bad', why then that's up to you.

I disagree with your opinion, but as you say, you are entitled to it. You seem to be taking an informed stance rather than spewing mindless propaganda. For that, I bow to you in respect.

But, one reason for my disagreement is... why 20 years? What makes 20 so special, that before ~20 years, it is wrong to obtain "the fruits of someone's hard work without adhering to their terms and conditions", but after 20, you no longer think it is wrong? (Replace 20 by any other number

For me, "attribution" should be forever (because not giving attribution is lying to society), but derivative works should be allowed very shortly (or immediately) after the creation of the original, because if we (society) are going to restrict ourselves for the benefit of the author, we better see the fruits (new works) of that restriction while they are still useful for us (i.e, not 40 years later, definitely not after we die).

Re:Sounds reasonable to me.

[Nursie]

Well, 20 years was a number I pulled out of the air. A monopoly on your own work for a limited time does seem to me to be a reasonable exchange between creators and the general public.

Would you prefer that each individual author specify the term? Otherwise any figure will be arbitrary.

All I can say for sure is that for now it is too long, that here I am in adulthood and I see absolutely no reason why cultural artifacts from my childhood, which are little more than curiosities now, should not be totally in the public domain. That's why 20 fit for me.

Derivative works are an interesting side question. It depends how derivative, IMHO. For instance I would have trouble with someone adding 10% more stuff to a GPL program and then being able to relicense it as they see fit. OTOH things like audio/video mashups I fully support.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[Kinky Bass Junk]

Being Bollywood isn't the point - if it is happening in their industry it will happen in Hollywood, too.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[X0563511]

... and all the infrastructure in the way does too? The words "collateral damage" mean anything to you?

And this is legal how?

[pavera]

Pretty sure DoS attacks have landed many a hacker with extraordinarily long prison sentences... So when are we raiding the corporate HQs of the hollywood studios?!?

Re:And this is legal how?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't legal. Mr Girish Kumar is actually admitting that his company is committing criminal offenses.
Copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, but civil matter.
He can argue all he likes that his targets are breaking the law, but that does not give him the right to break the law in response. The courts take a dim view of this type if vigilantism.

Re:And this is legal how?

[GooberToo]

Unless you steal from a cable/satellite operator, then its a criminal offense.

Re:And this is legal how?

[notknown86]

Once they stop making political donations?

What about shared servers?

[MrClever]

My websites generally sit on shared servers. What if a different customer on the same server as my sites hosts something subject one of these DDoS attacks? Answer: I'm boned!! Yeh great idea geniuses! Like others, if these sort of attacks are now legal, then I've got my hitlist ready to go.

An Indian should note the law of karma-sanskara

[woboyle]

Cause and effect - I suspect that this company is going to regret such actions, and in a big way.

Re:An Indian should note the law of karma-sanskara

[julesh]

Cause and effect - I suspect that this company is going to regret such actions, and in a big way.

You mean they're going to be posting without a +1 bonus? No mod points for them, ever.

How is he going to pull it off?

[Haedrian]

DDOS attacks require a ton of people to properly work. Torrents sites are going to have a very large bandwidth and the ability to service many clients at the same time. So he's probably going to need more than one company to do it.

Secondly, if they're all in the same company, chances are they have a similar IP range - which means that any admin worth his salt can disconnect them from the network.

Of course, if they use a botnet, to do so - which is probably the only plausable way - they're going to be breaking quite a few international laws - and get sued into oblivion.

So yeah, I think this is going to end up in tears.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[snookums]

Actually, TFA implies that it's not a DDoS, but some other kind(s) of DoS being used. Perhaps something like Slowloris, or exploiting other unreleased server vulnerabilities.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[carp3_noct3m]

Yep, makes sense, even with the ease of buying botnets on the underbellies of the net, that technique has a very limited list of counters. There is even a windows version *shudders*

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[advocate_one]

ah, wondered why it was getting difficult to get through to PB these days... and several other torrent sites seem to be having problems as well... very dastardly attack...

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[EvilIdler]

With all the bandwidth some of these torrent trackers must have, I wouldn't be surprised to see these scumbags DDoSed out of business themselves :)

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[Kjella]

Perhaps something like Slowloris

That sounds trivial to defeat if you're willing to accept collateral damage by blocking any single IP that makes many requests. The most likely use case for that - an enterprise behind a NAT - is irrelevant to a torrent site. One of the sites I read simply suggested this:

iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --dport 80 -m connlimit --connlimit-above 20 --connlimit-mask 40 -j DROP

Any IP making more than 20 connections to port 80 -> drop. I'm sure there's something similar you can do for an IP range.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[0111 1110]

It's not only Linux ISOs that use decentralized tracking. It's used pretty much everywhere now. There have been plenty of times when TPB was down. I can usually find the same torrent at tracker indexes that include TPB torrents. They'd really have to simultaneously go after every tracking site that hosts the particular films they are interested in. Although that wouldn't help them with the private trackers and there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of those. And then there is emule etc. The ultimate game of whack-a-mole. Information wants to be free.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[rantomaniac]

Careful with connlimit, it's pretty easy to DoS yourself. Its implementation has O(N) computational complexity, for each packet that gets classified by it. (It iterates all remembered connections to check if they're still alive.)
That said, a limit of 20 should work fine.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[molecular]

DDOS attacks require a ton of people to properly work.

a ton of bots will suffice.

Of course, if they use a botnet, to do so - which is probably the only plausable way - they're going to be breaking quite a few international laws - and get sued into oblivion.

can't they just hire a botnet for service? how is that breaking more laws than doing it themselves? which laws would they break specifically?

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[Nursie]

Well, given that pretty much any distributed botnet is going to consist of compromised machines whose owners don't know about it ... I'm pretty sure there are laws in most western nations preventing unauthorised access and use of computer systems now. Creating and maintaining a botnet is illegal, so hiring one to do your DDoS dirty work will likely be covered too.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[molecular]

so the movie industry hiring you to do it would also be quite problematic by the same reasoning?

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[Nursie]

Uh, yeah, that's what I was talking about! Or the movie industry hiring señor asshat from TFA and him hiring a botnet.

Either way badness and illegality where botnets are concerned AND where DoS is concerned. 2 crimes!

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[delinear]

The issue with those is that there are techniques to prevent their effectiveness (not to mention launch counter measures if you really want to go down that route - and if these are sites offering illegal content there's no reason to assume they won't) based on IP. Unless you've also got a ton of IP addresses to sacrifice, a distributed attack is always going to be much harder to defeat long term (not to mention it's probably cheaper to hire a botnet than to do what you suggest - and again if this company is admitting to illegal behaviour there's no reason to think they wouldn't resort to botnets).

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[Peeteriz]

The pirates targeted by the DoS are unlikely to identify themselves to bring up legal action.
An owner of the computer in the botnet might. And it would take just one of the computers to be linked with them to turn it into a criminal offense where the corporation's limited liability wouldn't help.

Re:How is he going to pull it off?

[Kalriath]

Information wants to be free.

No, no it really doesn't. Information doesn't want anything. You want information to be free. And I want you to give me your car. I don't see that happening.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

This is interesting but I am surprised that there is even a demand online for people to download bollywood films.

That's because you obviously have not seen this!

No kidding

[Sycraft-fu]

All I've got to say is if we see this on our (a university) network, we will go after them. Conveniently we've got a company name now and them admitting who hired them. I'll be looking up some IPs and adding them to our network monitors. If these guys decide to DoS our network, we'll get the logs and turn it over to the lawyers and the police.

Re:No kidding

[Gaygirlie]

I was just thinking it'd be interesting to set up a P2P server with tons of fake files, all with the names these companies are most looking for and then attract them to DDoS your server, then just record all the incoming DDoS packets for as long as they keep the attack going and then suing them to hell. Oh, and also ring up your ISP when you notice the attack starting and telling them to record the attack also so they too can sue. ISPs really, really dislike DDoS attacks on their networks and would sue the offender to obliteration.

Sort of like an inverse honeypot: not meant to catch pirates but instead the people hunting pirates using illegal practices.

Re:No kidding

[blarkon]

Hopefully if your university is hosting torrents of pirated movies, they will go after you.

Re:No kidding

[mayberry42]

I think most will, but to be honest this sounds more like a desperate call for free press to me. I mean, c'mon a guy basically goes out of his way to say "hey, they've hired us to take down torrent sites, and guess what? we're awesome at what we do!" Sounds fishy to me. Then, of course, there are the legal issues:

At time, we have to go an extra mile and attack the site and destroy the data to stop the movie from circulating any further

So, not only does he plan on launching a DoS attack, but he also plans on destroying the data? Sorry, even governments investigating CP won't do that, let alone some small private company.

Now let's assume, however, that he's telling the truth. Would major motion studios actually be that stupid (jokes aside) to give him discretion to bring up their names? He brings them up as if it were nothing.

Sorry, but this is all too much for me - let me be the one to call bullshit on this article and to the author who fell for it bait, line and sinker

Re:No kidding

[Nursie]

This company also appears to offer "email marketing services".

I would say that being lying scumbags is probably part of their day to day ops. You're mist likely right. It's a publicity shot.

Re:No kidding

[delinear]

Because they've never gone after innocent parties before now?

Re:No kidding

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

All I've got to say is if we see this on our (a university) network, we will go after them. Conveniently we've got a company name now and them admitting who hired them. I'll be looking up some IPs and adding them to our network monitors. If these guys decide to DoS our network, we'll get the logs and turn it over to the lawyers and the police.

And you think that you will be able to do something via the legal system against a company in India because...?

I'm serious. I'd like an explanation of why you think that you actually have a method that will work to deal with this.

Wrong wrong wrong

[Weaselmancer]

Stealing shit left and right is okay but stopping people from stealing shit is completely illegal and immoral.

That's not the case at all and you know it.

DOS is illegal. Period. But the claim here is that if you're doing good works it's not illegal. That's bullshit. Otherwise the pirates they're taking down could make the same claim.

That's the way the law is. Something is illegal, or it isn't. If you claim to be on the side of right and good, you follow the law. Or you don't. That lets you know what the real gist of this battle is all about. This isn't about good versus evil. This is my interest versus your interest. There aren't any good guys in white hats in this battle.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[0111 1110]

That's exactly right. Copyright infringement is not stealing. OTOH some people would say that holding a copyright is itself a form of legalized theft. It is certainly not any kind of natural right. You can't own information. There is no property here. There is just an arbitrary gift from the public to the copyright holder allowing them to have an artificial monopoly over their work for a specific period of time. There is an easy way to avoid copyright infringement. Don't release your fucking work in the first place if you are so sensitive. Believe me. No one will care. The alternative is to live in a police state. Sorry I'd rather never read another book or watch another film than live in a full on police state, which is what we are headed for. So please keep your precious creative work to yourself if that's your price. It's not worth it.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[Nursie]

"The claim is, the hypocrisy is so blatant, its painful to read all these posts with completely irrational justification of why one crime is okay but another crime, a second crime, in response to the first crime, is somehow the worst thing to ever hit the Internet and is completely deserving of our ire while the first is to be celebrated."

Where are all these posts? I don't see them.

As someone else already said, two wrongs don't make a right. And that statement is absolutely correct. The problem is, as usual, one wrong doesn't make a right no matter how ineptly and unintelligently others attempt to justify the behavior.

So because one wrong doesn't make a right the second wrong is justified and therefore two wrongs do make a right? That's some damned fine mental gymnastics there buddy.

Why do you find people decrying DoS so hard to take? It's bad for internet as a whole, increasing the amount of useless or malicious traffic massively. It affects innocent people by clogging the tubes at the ISP, or the upstream ISP. It affects lots and lots of people that aren't involved in piracy in the first place. It's a stupid response. It's worthy of 4chan and certainly comes out of the same immature mentality.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[TheRaven64]

Every time this kind of topic is discussing, I see a lot more posts claiming that everyone on Slashdot defends piracy than posts that actually defend piracy.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[Nursie]

Indeed, and they're pretty much all from Anonymous Troll^H^H^H^H^HCoward.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[jedidiah]

If the law were not corrupted to favor the corporations then nothing that Jamie Rasset was sharing would have been in copyright. It all would have EXPIRED into the public domain by the time she was engaging in her piracy. The flagship RIAA anti-piracy case isn't even about current works. It's about "moldy oldies".

Copyright is one of those area where the law itself is grey.

Your rights are supposed to expire.

Some infringers are worse than others.

Some "infringement" is perfectly legal and ethical.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[Jawnn]

That's the way the law is. Something is illegal, or it isn't. If you claim to be on the side of right and good, you follow the law...

Well..., no. Not always. "The law" is "the law", nothing more. Sure, we try to craft our laws so that they reflect a universal consensus (as far as that is possible) of what's "right and good", but history is littered with laws that came nowhere close. Here in the U.S. we are fortunate to have multiple means by which unjust laws may be peacefully challenged or overturned. It isn't perfect, and the wheels of the system may turn too slowly for many, but at the end of the day it is better, by far, than any of the alternatives.

Circling back to the topic, launching a denial of service attack is illegal and immoral, as is stealing someone's lawfully obtained IP. If the terms by which that IP is acquired, traded, distributed, or sold are immoral (arguably so), that is cause for changing the laws governing those things. It is not cause for breaking those laws, unless all legal means of redress have been exhausted. Sorry, no, the fact that you don't have the bucks to take on RIAA or MPAA in court, or to out-spend them in Washington, is not an excuse.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[tepples]

Sorry, no, the fact that you don't have the bucks to take on RIAA or MPAA in court, or to out-spend them in Washington, is not an excuse.

Then what means of redress do you recommend?

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[mea37]

"Some "infringement" is perfectly legal and ethical."

You almost had a point, and you had to go and ruin it with this gem.

Infringement is a legal term, so I'm not sure how you can claim that some infringement is legal. The law identifies some circumstances (like fair use) in which an act that would otherwise be infringement is not, by virtue of those circumstances, infringement. (See, e.g., U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, s107.) Such acts are perfectly legal, but then again they are not infringement.

Some infringement should be legal (because, as you note, copyright terms are out of control). You can argue that violating such laws is ethical, if your ethical code endorses civil disobedience. However, you need to remember that civil disobedience includes accepting the social and legal consequences of your actions, even though those consequences be improper and even though your goals largely involve abolishment of those consequences.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[SanguineTeddy]

To be fair, this might be a bit simplistic - a lot of the time, the law is corrupt, filled with loopholes, or just plain immoral. So, if you claim to be on the side of right and good, there are plenty of reasons you might not follow the law. For example, if you look to Blackstone and Cicero, Blackstone says that a judge is: ‘sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one...If it be found that the former decision was manifestly absurd or unjust, it is declared, not that such a sentence was bad law, but that it was not law; that is, that it is not the established custom of the realm, as has been erroneously determined.’ (Blackstone, Commentaries) Cicero also holds that there is a distinction between "true law" (natural law) and the laws that humans create, and that when there is a difference, humans are justified in not following human law. Personally, I think it's pretty simple in this case - this company is not doing "good works," for the reason that many of the above commenters have noted (collateral damage, etc). That said, I think it's a bit too easy to dismiss out-of-hand all illegal actions as immoral (not even going to get into civil disobedience here, since I don't think it's relevant, but my only point is that there is a place in this conversation for exceptions to the law)

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[osgeek]

This kind of topic makes defending piracy while condemning the DOS agents a bit of a hypocritical farce.

Not many posters want to look quite so obviously like hypocrites.

It's in other topics like when discussing DRM technology where the pro-piracy bias of Slashdot is more obvious.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[spazzmo]

Right vs wrong != legal vs illegal

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[sabt-pestnu]

Sorry, no, the fact that you don't have the bucks to take on RIAA or MPAA in court, or to out-spend them in Washington, is not an excuse.

In military cases, this is the origin of asymmetrical warfare: guerilla warfare, terrorism, human shields, etc. One side has disproportionately greater resources. The other side has no realistic chance of effecting change through any usual methods, and sees little to lose by using unconventional methods.

"It is not an excuse" is only said by those with something to lose.

Re:Wrong wrong wrong

[retroq]

Carl Jung named it "Shadow". At heart everyone is a small pirat here.

HIOOOOO

[Anonymous Coward]

Be interesting to see what happens when someone "In country" gets ddos'ed and their base commander considers losing his uplink an act of war.

Spammers as well as script kiddies.

[Anonymous Coward]

Five minutes on Google, and they already look like tools. They're amateur spammers, too. I find it hard to believe anyone hired them for anything. Why don't you have a look yourself, and if you wish, tell these utter clowns what you think about their business methods?

+91 95386 66666
+91 98451 28280
karan@aiplex.com
rajani@aiplex.com
girish@aiplex.com
mahesh_r_blr@hotmail.com
+91 80 2503 5411
www.onlineantimoviepiracy.com
www.reportmoviepiracy.com

Aiplex Founded in 2003 provides net Vigilance services & is a leading provider of Windows-based Network Vulnerability & security Solutions that enable corporations to safely conduct business operations via Internet. The following are the solutions rendered to various clients across the globe.
a)Search engine optimization
b)Medical Transcription services
c)Email marketing / e-campaign
d)Business solution & Statistical Analysis
e)Net Vigilance (The complete corporate / Media security for copyright contents)

Net Vigilance
We are proud to claim that we are the only Net vigilant company in the Globe thus far to provide unprecedented services on Internet based piracies. To eradicate piracy at its best possible, we strategically follow some of the best practices outlined below;
a)Finding the links of the unauthorized content using appropriate software which co-relates the copy right / licensed material in any given format.
b)A detailed statistical analysis of the site which has such pirated content would be made available on a weekly/fortnight basis - they are so called the very enemies to the creator.
c)Our 24/7 net vigilant agents & customer support team will have a rigorous check on video sharing communities and do regular check ups for copy right deviation.
d)We shall approach the service provider with the authenticated links of the unscrupulous pirated products being uploaded & appeal them to remove the content/file by sending legal notice / request letter for violation of copyrights.
e)Our 24/7-support team would also prevent the damage by sending instant legal notices to the service provider & block the account for deviating copyright laws.

Techniques used in identifying & preventing the copyright damage
a)We shall promote various articles in leading forums & reiterate the pros & cons of copy right deviation.
b)Creating accounts in popular social network communities and inviting people to contribute in locating the unscrupulous videos or duplication of an original recording for commercial gain without the consent of owners.
c)Conducting torrent search with torrent Meta sites using software.
d)Conducting music search with music meta sites
e)Conducting video search with video spotters and video sharing meta search engines
f)We can prevent by sending a strict warning notice/legal notice to certain service provider who invite their clients to upload videos & movies for the benefit of having more traffic to their site.
g)We can provide the copyright infringement articles which helps the company to promote and update their method of protection against the piracy.
h)We will seek advice from various technology forums that are implemented which could help the copyright content owners to protect their material against piracy.

Aiplex Net Vigilance strength lies in DATA BASE
We have a huge database of popular forums, search engines, torrents, video sharing communities, blogs & social networking communities which can be used to reduce the rate of piracy growth in Bollywood.
a)We have a list of 14500 leading torrents where movies are uploaded currently.
b) A list of 97 leading movie uploading sites where people are allowed to upload more than 1GB single file is available with us.
c)A mega list of 40000 plus forums where general discussion are made will have high impact while we invite aspirants to share views or locate the pirated content on web will surely reduce piracy.
d)A list of leading 159 video sharing communities

Re:Spammers as well as script kiddies.

[colinrichardday]

Aiplex Founded in 2003 provides net Vigilance services & is a leading provider of Windows-based Network Vulnerability

Doesn't Microsoft already provide that? Or did I fail to distribute over the ampersand properly?

Re:Spammers as well as script kiddies.

[symes]

I'm sensing a disturbance in the slashdot collective karma -- if this is raising the temperature on slashdot, god knows what /b/ will be like. I harbour a mild sense of pity for "Girish Kumar", temporarily, and look forward to the spectacle.

Re:Spammers as well as script kiddies.

[anonymousNR]

looks like they already got slashdotted .. the irony

Re:Spammers as well as script kiddies.

[prograde]

The first site is slow to load, the second is timing out completely. Could they possibly be Slashdotted?!

Who has the right incentive?

[jonaskoelker]

why not modify the virus to host P2P trackers along with it?

Who should do that?

Are you suggesting that I, a disinterested party, finds all the infested machines, break into them, and make sure they run P2P software such that someone else will come in and take out the machines? In that case, if I'm willing to break the law (by breaking into machines) and I don't mind spending my time on doing this work, why don't I just clean the machine myself?

Or are you suggesting that the virus _writer_ goes out of his way to attract more attention to himself from people who have lawyers and can poke law enforcement? Why is that in his interest?

Or are you suggesting that the people owning the machines running the virus finds the virus and modifies it? Why don't they just remove it?

Your plan sounds great, but who executes it?

Re:Who has the right incentive?

[Mister_Stoopid]

Botnet owners make money off their botnets, right? Maybe there's someone out there with a little money who's been looking for a way to stick it to the **AA without dirtying his own hands. Maybe some of that money could find it's way to the owners of the botnets in exchange for the botnets running some kind of P2P server?

Sauce for the goose

[Clueless Nick]

If political parties can hold entire cities and states to ransom for their jingoistic agendas like enforcing the use of their regional languages, or as a protest to some trivial insult to some historic figures, or for banning a book that 'hurts' their 'religious or cultural feelings', or thrash people up for trying to celebrate Valentine's Day, there is no doubt a DoS attack would be condoned even if illegal.

Ironically, certain aspects of the Indian cyber laws are really draconian, paranoid and against free speech (which is only a right with stipulations in India). Unfortunately, nobody cares.

Idiots even think the UID program will help thwart terrorism, and they don't realise that it would only be another tool in hands of politicians, bureaucrats and the police to harass citizens even more than they are doing now.

Mod parent insightful

[Clueless Nick]

Although a slim chance, a file-sharing site may have legitimate users. A DoS attack by analogy would be like pushing hordes of protesters inside a mall where some shops may be selling pirated CDs. At least the mall can restrict the right to entry and lodge a police complaint if people try to force their way in, while this may not be possible in the virtual world.

Would it be possible for the site owner to notify ISPs about this unwanted traffic and try to get some IP addresses blacklisted?

Re:Mod parent insightful

[Clueless Nick]

I was talking about the legitimacy of files being shared on such sites, and not the possibility of shutting them down.

By the way, the assholes in question use DoS attacks, because DDos attacks might mean they have created a botnet.

Re:Mod parent insightful

[ewanm89]

That is only a valid analogy for a distributed denial of service attack. DoS attacks can be targeted exploits at services designed to crash them in one request.

Instigating a neverending arms race

[Crypto Gnome]

The Music and Movie industry will (one day) regret that they instigated a never ending escalating arms race against *everyone*.

It is a bad business model to go out of your way to piss off *the entire known universe*.

One day somebody with enough brains and too much anger will trump your sorry ass and you will take *years* to recover (even slightly) from the mountain of suffering that will be unleashed against you.

Have these people forgotten Nagasaki and Hiroshima? EVENTUALLY somebody says "STFU or I *will* make you regret it".

Re:Instigating a neverending arms race

[bratwiz]

I'll bet you're a hoot at parties...

Should have been completely hush-hush

[BangaIorean]

This kind of business should have been kept completely hush-hush and shady by this Aiplex company. Going public with this stuff essentially defeats the purpose.

Re:Should have been completely hush-hush

[RivieraKid]

Going public with this stuff essentially defeats the purpose.

Well that kinda depends on what the purpose is, doesn't it?

My guess is either:

1. Free publicity
2. Misinformation
3. All of the above

We'll probably hear in a few months how they launch an IPO and the owners/CEO makes $$$$$.

Re:Assassins is a bit much.

[Sulphur]

Windows don't think Boy Wonder.

Lemme get this straight...

[billsayswow]

So these new "Cyber Hitmen" who "Take Down Pirates" are, essentially, using the same playbook as a place like 4chan? Next they'll be paying their staff to stand in front of street vendors selling pirated movies, in suits and afro wigs, holding signs that say "Vendor's Closed. Vendor has AIDS"

A bit off, but maybe not surprising

[jimicus]

Come on, the movie industry has clearly considered itself above the law for some time. So it's not terribly surprising.

What does surprise me is that someone who claims to have been hired for this will admit it in a public forum. That's odd. Either he's incredibly stupid or he's got an ulterior motive.

I'd be interested to see the news in a weeks' time. "Aiplex Software out of business - because their previous ISP disconnected them and they can't find another prepared to take them on", anyone?

For the very las time...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Distributed.
Hash.
Tables.
Taking down tracker sites is irrelevant now. DDoS'ing P2P clients in itself is stupid, as there are millions of them.

Just who the hell are they going to attack? The entire internet?! Or is this going after smaller groups on outdated centralised neworks? In which case, well done on giving those guys (the only ones you could actually catch with a significant haul) the incentive to move into the 21st century and totally decentralise.

Idiots.

Re:For the very las time...

[Nursie]

So how do you find a peer with one of these DHTs? How do you bootstrap the process?

(Genuine question)

Re:For the very las time...

[L4t3r4lu5]

A little light reading

Most BitTorrent DHT implementations are based on Kademlia.

Re:For the very las time...

[Nursie]

It is interesting reading, but it doesn't get around the bootstrap problem, just mentions you need to know at least one other node to get started.

Fair enough, it's not magic, I was just wondering if someone had come up with another way yet. This lends itself to either centralised server attack - if you use a known (web)server to bootstrap, or slow network growth if connection details need to be passed between people.

Actually, here it's even worse

[Moraelin]

Actually, this one goes even one step further and illustrates yet another aspect of what's wrong with vigilantism, namely: harm to innocent bystanders. You know, people who even the vigilante never accused of doing anything wrong.

DDOS-ing a hosted tracker somewhere, essentially can DDOS the whole colocation company. There'll be a bunch of small company servers there, a bunch of kids' blogs, some community page, maybe a couple of Teamspeak and Ventrilo servers, stuff like that. It's not even a hypothetical scenario. The Pirate Bay servers for example, as probably the most famous tracker, were hosted at such a company. And basically then everyone else there is colateral damage, even though they never did anything wrong with those servers.

DDOS-ing enough users of an ISP essentially stuffs the pipe for everyone else too, even if they never torrented even legit stuff. Maybe not completely if it's a major ISP, but still lag them majorly, and if it's essentially a cable ISP trunk that only has the max bandwidth of cable, it's possible to actually cut a whole building or city block in the suburbs off the net.

And that doesn't even have to mean just the inconvenience of living a couple of hours without lolcats or porn or WoW. In the meantime a bunch of people rely on VOIP for their phone. So they could prevent someone from calling an ambulance or the cops. It's not just got the potential to cause a little collateral damage, but actually very disproportionate collateral damage: it could cause a grandma somehwere to die, just so the fuckwits can annoy a file sharer.

To use the earlier sending-assassins-after-shoplifters analogy, it's more like sending someone to torch the whole city block down because they followed a shoplifter to that location. Even by the standards of criminal organizations, it's like torching the whole condominium down because the guy running the grocery store at ground floor didn't pay his protection money. I'm pretty sure even the mafia generally avoided something that disproportionate, if nothing else, because they were trying to not alienate the population all that much. (In fact, quite the contrary, for example Al Capone was running soup kitchens for the poor to whitewash his public image.)

Re:Actually, here it's even worse

[Jesus_666]

Plus, actions like this are an excellent way to make outspoken enemies out of ISPs and hosting companies. If these companies don't get any legal recourse (for instance because the hired DOSers sit in a country that doesn't care) they might turn to vigilantism themselves. In the end it will be hailing either subpoenas and injuncations or counterattacks.

Re:Actually, here it's even worse

[TheRaven64]

You'd have to check in your jurisdiction, but in most places hiring someone to do something illegal is illegal. It doesn't matter where the people running the DoS live - the RIAA member companies have seizable assets in countries that have such laws.

I really hope the RIAA goes ahead with this. Once following RIAA strategy starts costing these companies a lot of money, maybe they'll notice that they could make a lot more by being less hostile to their customers.

Re:Actually, here it's even worse

[HungryHobo]

Fuck costing them a lot of money, if they hire someone to explicitly break the law then execs should get jail terms.

Re:Actually, here it's even worse

[f3rret]

You'd have to check in your jurisdiction, but in most places hiring someone to do something illegal is illegal. It doesn't matter where the people running the DoS live - the RIAA member companies have seizable assets in countries that have such laws.

I really hope the RIAA goes ahead with this. Once following RIAA strategy starts costing these companies a lot of money, maybe they'll notice that they could make a lot more by being less hostile to their customers.

Well it seems obvious to me that if the RIAA and MPAA were going through with this sort of thing they'd make sure that had plausible deniability.
They'd place the order through some third party which they control but cannot be directly linked to; then when some random guy named Kumar stands up and tells the media the horrible things the **AA ordered him to do there is no direct link back to the **AA.

Re:Actually, here it's even worse

[Jurily]

it could cause a grandma somehwere to die, just so the fuckwits can annoy a file sharer.

And then they'll sue her.

Re:Actually, here it's even worse

[sabt-pestnu]

Execs of most companies are liable to shareholders (and CEOs to boards of directors) as well. For instance, Patricia Dunn of HP. HP eventually settled with California on the wiretap charges, but Dunn got booted^H^H^H^H^H^H "resigned".

It is hard to assign personal liability to corporate actions, but like with Enron (Jeffrey Skilling) does occasionally happen.

So don't be anticipating lots of exec jail time. Crippling fines might happen, though.

It gets better - DMCA ahoy!

[stiggle]

So an Indian company is quoting the DMCA in takedown notices to get people to remove content before they then illegally impair electronic communication in a completely different company.

Employing someone to commit a criminal act usually gets a larger sentence than the criminal act itself.

We don't have much to worry about, I think...

[Meneth]

From their website:

Torrent downloader’s Aiplex has the best and most commonly used torrent software’s, that automatically searches for relevant key words at frequent intervals, which provides accurate information and also the location of the file being uploaded. The following are the most commonly used to name a few: U torrent, Fast torrent, Mp3 search, Lime wire, Bit Torrent, Vuze, Bit comet,Acquisition, Abc, Bit lord, Transmission, Bit let, Bit coca, Bram cohen, Mp3 Rocket, Etc.....

mass email and call the justice department

[hebertrich]

They admit publicly to break the Patriot act willingly.That is a stupid move on their part.
Second the vigilante part : Call the justice department in masses and ask to deposit a complaint
against them.Heck .. they are probably the types that would sue their own moms. Again find
time to write the Justice department.The EFF would certainly like to look into this.
Oh .. sending faxes is also nice :)

Re:sears

[TaoPhoenix]

"Come see the deadly side of Sears!"

Yeah, Right - Good luck with that

[bratwiz]

My bet is that it will only take a couple of initial DOS attacks before the pirates will strike back with some DOS attacks of their own, and aimed right at the heart of the motion picture industry-- and it won't be pretty. No more online movie tickets-- the sites are blocked. No more movie trailers, the sites are blocked. No more fan forums-- well, you get the picture. Er, or rather, you won't.

Re:Yeah, Right - Good luck with that

[gx5000]

Not very well thought out, and will end badly for all...
The traffic that will be generated, as you said, will affect many more than
just the desired target, we're all on the same network after all...well almost.

In this case...

[Clueless Nick]

From TFA:
"How can we put the site down? The only means that we can put the site down is [by launching a] denial-of-service [attack]. Basically we have to flood [the site] with millions and millions of requests and put the site down."

They are not sending *one* well-designed exploit, but millions and millions of 'requests'.

Hey, they could just post the links on /. instead and we'll do the DoS for them!

Re:In this case...

[ewanm89]

Well, I can line to their site if you wish, but as it's running IIS 6.0 I recon a single exploit attack is going to be easy enough anyway.

Bollywood and Hypocrites

[hooaamai]

The behaviour of Bollywood towards Internet is full of Hypocricy. When it comes to the free publicity that Internet offers to the Bollywood movies worldwide, they have no complaints. Infact, they encourage torrents and video streaming sites that host their movie trailers. But, this medium has the other side which is not completely unknown to anyone. This involves piracy and if you get involved with internet for publicity, piracy follows automatically. So, Bollywood should keep aside its hypocricy regarding the internet and try to cope with it in a legal fashion.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[Clueless Nick]

That ain't Bollywood, even if the title says so. It is a patently Tamil movie.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[delinear]

They even admit (in TFS and TFA) that it's already happening in Hollywood - albeit we only have their word for it, and a company capable of employing a DoS attack is likewise capable of lying about its clients to make it sound bigger than it is.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[mcvos]

From what I understand, Bollywood is a bigger film industry than Hollywood. "Its region" is bigger than Europe and the US combined. And I'm seeing more and more Bollywood movies appear in European theaters recently.

isn't DMCA only for America

[He who knows]

How can an Indian company try to use the DMCA laws that only aply in America (at the moment) to try to force websites that probally are not based in America to remove copyrighted material belonging to mainly film companies based in India.

Completely Illegal!

[sniperdoc]

That's unbelievable that they're allowed to do that. So much for taking up valuable bandwidth. It's not like India has a good network to begin with. Everyone and their mother taps off of phone lines and internet over there like it's going out of style. If they do this, that company and Bollywood related firms should be knocked off the grid by IANA. Teach those morons Internet etiquette. I'm not a proponent of piracy, but you don't fight fire with fire... that never works.

RTFA

[mcgrew]

1. TFA says that if they shut down an Austrailian site, they're in deep poodoo.

2. The DMCA only applies in the US. Nobody else has to worry about it

3. I see DDoS war on the horizon. How long until Aiplex Software is knocked off the internet? I'm betting it won't be long.

4. I'm also betting that NOBODY from the US film industry will spend a minute in jail over their blatantly illegal activities. In the US, if you have enough money you're above the law. A rich, powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

Re:RTFA

[murdocj]

4. I'm also betting that NOBODY from the US film industry will spend a minute in jail over their blatantly illegal activities. In the US, if you have enough money you're above the law. A rich, powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

So Leona Helmsley's only problem was that she was a woman?

Re:RTFA

[easyTree]

How long until Aiplex Software is knocked off the internet?

Curious... www.aiplex.com seems to be slashdotted (or regular DDoSed)... :D

Re:RTFA

[mcgrew]

No, that *wo'MAN's problem was she pissed off someone richer and more powerful than her.

* Woman = wo'man = womb man

Re:RTFA

[murdocj]

She was worth a billion dollars. Remind me just who the richer person was that she pissed off?

Re:RTFA

[thejynxed]

Uncle Sam.

Re:RTFA

[murdocj]

I knew someone would come up with "the government" or "Uncle Sam". In other words, you support my position that rich people who break the law are prosecuted by the government and go to jail. As opposed to the post I originally replied to that said

"A rich, powerful man only goes to prison if a richer, more powerful man wants him there."

Re:RTFA

[mcgrew]

Most likely one or more of these people. Carlos Slim Helu & family are fifty times richer than her, although I wouldn't know which one (or ones) on the list it was.

When someone like Bill Gates goes to prison you'll have convinced me.

Helmsley was stupid, bragging publically about how "only little people pay taxes". That pissed almost everybody off.

Re:RTFA

[murdocj]

Right... someone with a billion dollars goes to jail, so it must have been "someone richer" who wanted them there.

I think you're going to have to come up with something more convincing than "so & so isn't the richest person on the planet".

Re:RTFA

[Pechkin000]

Although having initially received a sentence of 16 years, Helmsley was required to serve only 19 months in prison and two months under house arrest.

Privateers attack copyright violators!

[crow]

Essentially the media companies are hiring Internet privateers to attack copyright violators. This really sines a new light on which side to assign the term "pirates" to.

Self Help

[gpmanrpi]

If the allegations are true, this is the type of "self-help," to use the legalese term, that is not just frowned upon, but as a rule is illegal conduct. If we live nations of laws we cannot condone law breaking when there are legal means to solve the problem. This is no different than sending someone to rough up or forcibly remove a tenant from an apartment rather than filing for eviction. Just as there are legal consequences for such actions in landlord-tenant law, there are consequences for trying to do this in copyright law as well. This is the type of behaviour that can pierce the corporate veil as well and if any damage is done, could cause personal liability for those that implement or knowingly do nothing to stop such a practice. So, if this is what they want to do I say let them do it enough that they are caught red handed, and then hope that the damages are consequential enough to go after executives personal pocket books.

Problems with creating your own works

[tepples]

Just Do Not Buy Their Stuff and consume/create something else

I'm not condoning flagrant copyright infringement as seen on warez trackers, but creating your own works instead of buying the major labels' works can be difficult for reasons that depend on the medium.

In music, there have been notable lawsuits over accidental copying of melodies. Because copyright infringement is a strict liability tort, damages are due even if both sides agree that the copying was an accident. See, for example, Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.

In video games, certain genres appeal more to console gamers than to PC gamers. These include fighting games, slapstick auto racing games, Mario Party style minigame collections, and anything else where two to four players holding gamepads are expected to look at one monitor 23" or larger in size. Yet companies like Sony and Nintendo make it impossible for indies to legitimately develop for the hardware that they manufacturer.

DOS attack lasting two decades

[tepples]

DOS is illegal. Period.

How? The predecessor to MS-DOS was a clean-room clone of Digital Research's CP/M. If MS-DOS is in fact illegal, then how did Microsoft get away with a slap on the wrist when it had DOSsed PC users from 1981 through 2000?

Oh, you meant that DoS, which is more often written with a lowercase O.

Corruption

[tepples]

The key word being "approximate". Trade groups for big businesses have more money with which to lobby legislators and contribute to their election campaigns than organizations that serve the public interest. Does EFF have an affiliated PAC? If so, I have some money that I'm itching to donate.

Re:People want to pirate Bollywood films?

[Locke2005]

I know! Why go through the trouble of downloading all that data, when you can buy bootleg DVDs on any street corner for just a few rupees?

Slower traffic vs. turning traffic

[tepples]

The following applies to North America and continental Europe. Flip left and right for GB/AU/NZ/JP.

If you're being passed on the right, move to the right!

Every rule has an exception. I'm on a bicycle in the city, and I'm being passed on the right because I have moved from the right lane to the left lane to make a left turn.

Good luck...

[Mattskimo]

I'm behind 7 proxies!

Now that we all agree copyright law is borked:

[karlandtanya]

You're only asking for what you believe is reasonable, fair and just.
You're not getting what you want when you want it on the terms you want it by using legal channels.
Therefore, you are justified in pursuing whatever methods you like in order to get what you want.
This is EXACTLY the same argument put forth by the people you're fighting against!

We're done here. It's broken. Strip copyright law. The public hates it. The studios hate it. It does not fulfill its constitutional mandate-- to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Public proposals of new laws, frank and open discussions, and execution of the legislative process are in order!
(Not, BTW, secret backroom "treaties" that are nothing more than an end-run around the legislative process.)

Kumar?

[Dexter Herbivore]

Harold and Kumar go to Pirate Bay?

Or an ISP behind a NAT

[tepples]

That sounds trivial to defeat if you're willing to accept collateral damage by blocking any single IP that makes many requests. The most likely use case for that - an enterprise behind a NAT - is irrelevant to a torrent site.

Or an ISP behind a NAT, which is common in some countries outside North America and Western Europe. A few years ago, Wikipedia tried blocking a vandal from Qatar and ended up blocking the transparent proxy that handles all of Qatar's outbound HTTP traffic.

Isn't it nice when they confess right away?

[Minwee]

As I recall it, the standard sentence for a "denial of service" attack is four years in jail and paying $900,000 to the City of San Francisco. And even if they are located in Finland, Sweden or Bangalore it shouldn't be that hard to send the local police raid them to enforce US laws against foreigners living abroad.

So when are we going to see some action on this?

Re:Er, DOS attacks

[lsatenstein]

Illegal in the USA, but not illegal in all countries or jurisdictions. And especially if not advertised as being the doer.

Torrent sites host legitimate content!

[linuxiac]

Torrent sites host legitimate content, such as Linux and BSD image torrents, free files, free ebooks, Gutenberg project, and more! If they are subjected to a DDOS attack, then, the attacker is depriving honest folks of their rights to freely exchange knowledge and software programs! That is CRIMINAL! That means that there will have to be action with extreme prejudice, against the CRIMINAL PERP! And, of course, a continuance of the total boycott of those who promote the CRIMINAL acts!

In a society based on violence and exploitatation

[h00manist]

If the MPAA hired net sabotage, breaking with the law and civil behaviour, it would be best to get the lawyers and press, make them look like thugs, and exploit it politically. Get picture and documentation. We do live in a society based on violence and exploitation, and are often encouraged and temped to adopt its methods - but not forced. Implied in the rules and laws is "or else - punishment". It's a common mode of thinking. Just opening wide, participative, *actual* free debate on pretty much any sector, and soon the debate degenerates to agression. Pretty much any profound social change involves shifts in power, influence, labor and profits. Someone gains market, someone loses. We're still a long way from a society where the law manages to establish debate and justice as the rule. All the law currently accomplishes is, generally, keeping the monopoly of force to be useed by the state only, not every single group, and keep the police and army directed by the decisions of judges and lawyers. There is more justice if you can manage more debate and negotiotiation, and there is less justice once you start using agression, then the court, then the police, private security forces, fences, walls, weapons, saboteurs, etc. Once civil debate ends, the most violent party wins. Sometimes in the courts the strongest prevails too, but at least in ends in the court, not at gunpoint.