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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[IRWolfie-]

Copying is not theft

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,

[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,

[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,

[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,

[AmonTheMetalhead]

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

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,

[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,

[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,

[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]

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[dkf]

Is that an English or Metric fuckton?

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

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

[Pikoro]

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

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...

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.

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?!?

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?