Slashdot Mirror
US Copyright Group — Lawsuits, DDoS, and Bomb Threats
Andorin writes "The US law firm of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver, otherwise known as the US Copyright Group, filed suit at the end of August against another 2,177 individuals for allegedly downloading and sharing the slasher film Cornered! (In total the USCG has now filed suit against over 16,200 individuals.) In retaliation, Operation Payback, the Anonymous-led project responsible for DDoSing websites of the RIAA and MPAA, targeted the US Copyright Group's website with a DDoS, temporarily bringing it down for a few hours. The group behind the attacks say they'll continue 'until they stop being angry.' Additionally, the local police department evacuated the office of Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver after a bomb threat was emailed to the firm. The building was searched, but no bomb was found."
I'm not justifying the actions of those who made the bomb threat or who are behind the DDoS attacks, but if US Copyright Group is going to act like a bully they are going to experience some backlash in a variety of forms. They think they can do as they wish just because they're lawyers, etc, but they're discovering that the public doesn't like a bully, plain and simple.
Not so cowardly...
Hip, hip
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I'm a little worried about the direction this is heading. I wouldn't be surprised if individuals who work for these firms will start to be publically identified and their private lives targetted. It is one thing to ddos, when when threats of violence are made the game is moving into a completely different ballpark. There are enough nutters out there and one of them could easily get worked up and do something daft.
This only happened after Aiplex Software was contracted to DDoS attack file sharing web sites:
http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/an-interview-with-anonymous/
Anonymous surely need it's own symbol by now.
It was bad of me, but I did chuckle when I heard of this.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
You'd think it was a blockbuster release like LOTR or something.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151911/
Cornered, a 2-star rated slasher with a no name cast.
Actually on second thought, they might be making more money on the settlements than on theater sales.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
When the government doesn't protect individuals, the companies harassing them are supposed to face public backslash proportional to the damage they cause. IE: When they harass thousands and ruin hundreds of lives for profit, they can and should be willing to expect pretty much anything. That's what happens when government doesn't do what it is supposed to: A small step towards anarchy.
That all aside, I don't expect that Anonymous will ever do anything serious as they are mostly doing things for personal amusement.
When faced with a fundamentally unjust society people will increasingly turn to alternate means to redress legitimate grievances. This is why civil liberties matter and why due process, equal justice, proportionate punishment, and presumption of innocence rather than presumption of guilt are essential, and yet all of these core principles are under open attack in the United States today.
If something is illegal, the way to do something about is to change the laws. Not to do further illegal things.
Artists have to earn money too. You immature twats.
That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group." Then you can bet every agency will want "in" on the action; busting a bunch of (misguided) geeks is a lot safer than going after heavily armed drug dealers and much easier than tracking down serial killers.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Individuals who work for these firms can always chose to stop being evil, thereby reducing their risk.
Sometimes a fed up community just goes extralegal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Why -1 Troll? Bomb threats are dangerous weapons and I consider them a form of violence. They are no more appropriate here than they are in the GP's example. Remember, there are many people in the office being "attacked", not just greedy lawyers. There are assistants, secretaries, paralegals and more. Do all of them need to suffer because of their boss(es)? They are just hones people trying to make a living. Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Do you want the agencies in charge of these things to not go after people who make bomb threats? It takes just one nutcase to decide to move from threats to actions. If you have a big enough anti-anything group, you are sure to find at least one such nutcase. I would like to see said agencies going after people making bomb threats to make sure they don't start to make real bombs.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.
Whats that mean?
Um... invoking Godwin here but the "I just did what I was told, I'm just a gear in the machine" excuse went out circa 1945 when we saw what that can lead to. If you are supporting them, you are supporting them.
Keep suing people who actually are illegally copying copyrighted films. This has nothing to do with extensions of copyright laws; this movie was released two years ago. It would have been illegal to warez it under the original US copyright law. And this isn't a rare foreign film that has no legal avenue of purchase in the US; you can get it on Amazon. The warezers are greedy people who are taking what they have no legal right to and they deserve to be sued. And you can argue about the unfairness of the dollar amount asked for, but that does not change the fact that the warezers deserve to be sued. You can talk about how greedy the big Hollywood corporations are, and you won't even be on topic; this law firm is targeting people who warez indie films.
I wish Slashdot submissions had a "like" button like Facebook. I love everything about what Anon is doing, bomb threats included. In fact, it would greatly please me if some of them would actually follow through with their threats of violence toward some of these individuals. Let a couple of these pansy-ass lawyers take a couple of good, old-fashioned ass whippings and I bet they'll go find something else to do with their lives.
USCG = US Coast Guard, NOT US Copyright Group. Please don't USCG for these rat bastards.
Anyone making bomb threats needs to be found, arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you act like a terrorist or terrorist organization then you should be treated as one.
If my original post gave the impression that I thought a bomb threat was OK I'd like to clear that up right now: Bomb threats are unacceptable and should never be tolerated.
But is it known for sure that the same group did the bomb threat as did the DDOS?
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Making bomb threats is terrorism. Here's a definition of the word -
the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)
I think there is small difference between supporting the Nazi war machine and being a secretary in a law-firm dealing with copyright infringement lawsuits. And yes, you have won the Godwin award for this thread. Congratulations, you have a choice of a teddy bear or $10 coupons to Nazi-R-Us superstore.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
It was an Uwe Boll boxset
"Whah! I want my Mommy!
The Feds are at the door because I have been playing with C4!"
Here again, the geek presents himself as a misunderstood and persecuted minority --- but in a very strange juxtaposition with the drug dealer and serial killer.
Because only you consider it a form of violence and nobody else does. A prank phone call is not violence, and no matter how much insisting the contrary will make it so.
The assistants and secretaries just get to goof off work for around half an hour at their employers expense. Smokers get an excuse to have another ciggie. I've been evacuated through bomb threats in London, it's no big deal.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Why -1 Troll?
It's begging the question. The question is phrased to make you accept, as a fact, without presenting evidence, that there are 'many abortion clinics known for doing illegal late-term abortions'. So long as there's an overriding argument that violence can be justifed if it's in self defense or support of the law, then the Troll AC is claiming that violence CAN sometimes be appropriate, AND he's advancing a claim that the abortion clinics are doing something that does make it appropriate. He uses the word "many" to imply that the actions are so common the legal system must be ignoring a violation of the law deliberately, and "known", without specifying if it's 'known' to a legal standard, or just 'known' by somebody having started a rumor without any evidence.
Abortion is also a much bigger hot-button issue than the RIAA. The chance of rational discourse drops when Abortion is brought up, and on Slashdot, the chance of people managing to discuss a local hot topic such as the RIAA was already low. (Hell, the way Slashdot is these days, the chance of rationality is too low even without it being a sensitive topic).
Who is John Cabal?
Then why weren't any of the "threats" ever followed up by the local cops or FBI?
No, McBride was just attempting to paint anyone who opposed him as criminally violent.
With the resources of SCO at his disposal, they should have been able to identify ONE person who made a threat via email and parade that person in front of the media.
Instead, there is nothing.
They just failed to find a copy of the bomb^Wmovie that they accused people of downloading. This bomb (title: "Cornered!") was a direct-to-dvd turkey that was already shown on TV in Hungary. It's not nearly as highly rated as the 1945 film Cornered.
bomb threats are hilarious and should be encouraged
Anonymous = NOD
US Govt = GDI ?
bomb threats are hilarious and should be encouraged
note to everyone...
I put a bomb in /., y'all better run!
*waits for +5 funny*
The Hollywood Reporter on "Cornered!": "No, we've never heard of it either".
That's bad. The Hollywood Reporter tracks almost everything Hollywood is doing, in more detail than you need unless you're in the industry. If their people haven't heard of it, it's unknown. There's one entry in THR's database: "MPAA ratings: Jan. 20, 2010", where The Hollywood Reporter listed the MPAA's rating decisions for the week. (It got an "R".) So the producers sent a copy in for rating and paid the fee.
Some DVDs are available for remainder prices on Amazon.
It's going to be hard for the producers of this turkey to demonstrate that they lost any money through downloading. They may have trouble finding anyone who actually viewed the download.
And that is funny, how...?
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Would it be OK if someone made a bomb threat on the place you are working at because of your employer's business decisions?
Accepting that the employer's business decisions were so horrible that a bomb threat against the employer himself is morally justified, then yes, that would be OK. All the assistants and secretaries are helping their evil employer by continuing to work there, and if they had any moral fortitude they would find work somewhere else. Yes, even if they have to move their family onto the street for a couple of weeks (remember, this is a company doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat). All the corporate evil in the world would dry up if people would refuse to support it.
There are a lot of firms like Dewey Soakkum and Howe that are in it for the money. They don't care about people they crush. Their client pays, and they get a bounty for crushing people. With hundreds of years of history and regulation, and because its all white collar, law enforcement hasn't been as draconian as the corporations would like them to be. Call on the lawyers. Like a rabid pack of attack dogs, they come in and chew on anything they see. Innocent, guilty, you all get bit. If you complain, you are screamed at "Be lucky we don't find something to sue you over biotch!" The corporations want unmuzzled attack dogs. Outfits like Dewey Soakkum and Howe (or in this case Dunlap Grubb and Weaver) are those dogs. The corporations pressed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (and other draconian laws) with paid, politicians. Then they pay attack dogs to enforce these draconian laws. People have had enough. The only reason the US government wants to protect IP so badly is that its a big export when the US has so little to export. Other countries are not willing to play these stupid games. In an age of rapidly expanding information, the Berne convention should be becoming less invasive, more liberal. Instead, they are becoming more invasive, less liberal. They are creating a vacuum. At some point, whole governments (by the people) will overturn or radically change Berne (and even more draconian laws already planned). The people won't put up with it any longer. The board is set. Pieces are moving.
You understood his sentence as a way to excuse violence against some causes. I understood it in a different way: Slashdotters are ready to accept such acts as bomb threats when they are aimed at law-firm that "hunt down" copyright infringers, but if it was a bomb threat against something that Slashdotters usually (as a hypothetical homogeneous group) support (e.g. abortions) their opinion might have been different. Yes, his wording was a bit provocative, but since it was used to uncover the hypocracy of some of the comments here, I don't thing it deserves the Troll designation.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
And rightly so. They certainly fit the definition.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
No, you believe they are doing enough evil to warrant a bomb threat. Since the whole issue of copyright infringement is still in hot debate all over the world, claiming that anyone not supporting your side is a bit self-centered. I personally think that what they are doing is wrong, but since it is still such a debatable issue, I accept that some people think otherwise without them being the Devil's little helpers. Or maybe that just don't care so much about the issue.
Since we are talking about copyright infringement lawsuits and not mass murder, I believe we can allow for some difference in opinion... And that is why using techniques such as bomb threats is bad (in my book). If we were talking about some organization that was doing something that is clearly wrong (e.g. using children's blood to make party cocktails), then I wouldn't object to using such measures.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Its four boxes; Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.
With ludicrously and unreasonably high damages being claimed by copy right holders and equally ridiculous damage awards by the juries I am not surprised that it has come to bomb threats. Nor will I be surprised when they stop being just threats.
Knowing that I when I predict things they never come to pass I predict the following: there will be a real explosive/incendiary device used against one of the law firms representing the **AA within the next 5 years. Also within that time there will be an office shooting where someone who has had there life ruined by an unreasonable damage award decides they have nothing left to lose so they might as well take some lawyers with them.
That said I take great comfort in knowing I am totally wrong, and somewhat concerned that what usually does happen is worse than I think it will be.
There is one form of backlash that is completely legal, and is beyond the reach of any copyright law, no matter how draconian. It's called, "Don't buy, don't steal." Consumers could quite literally bring these companies to their knees - legally. The only thing these little skirmishes are going to accomplish is justification for more laws, and even more excuses for government to continue expanding its encroachment into our daily lives.
"If you act like a terrorist or terrorist organization then you should be treated as one. "
Ok, then let's apply that logic. Arrest the RIAA and MPAA. After all, they exist to terrorize everyone from grandmothers to independent artists. I say that threatening hundreds of thousands of people with loss of their livelihood is more terrorism than any bomb threat.
But keep your double standard. We need them for "society" to work.
Filing a law suit is a legal way to claim what you believe is rightfully yours. You can say that it is not theirs, or that the law should be changed, or whatever. However it may be, right now they are working within the boundaries of the legal system. You want it to changed - fight fire with fire, don't use illegal means (and yes, calling in a bomb threat is illegal).
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Because that works so well when the people you are fighting have endless supplies of money, and money is all the legal and political systems listen to.
It is an unfortunate situation but not a new one. The civil rights movement, for the most part, didn't get anything from sending letters or filing suit. They had to break laws to get us where we are.
If somewhat childish acts like bomb threats are useful or not is debatable, but to say you should only use legal means is idiotic. This country does not listen to the little guy. You need to empower yourself, and breaking the law is often a way to do that.
I personally would not decry much done to these people. Copyright organizations are legalized terrorists and their leaders and workers deserve anything they get. I'm far from insane enough to set out to do anything to them, but don't expect me to call those who do terrorists. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Remember, use the boxes supplied to you in this order: ballot, soap, jury, ammo. I think we've already tried the first three.
let me see ... a country in which private interests can buy any law they want through the power of money, even if it contradicts popular vote. a country in which, private interests can force their agenda through other means, by harassment and intimidation through legal system - because the more money, the more justice one has in that system -, or, using the administration's other branches by lobbying to them, against the will of the public.
a country in which, this practice is taken to extreme as far to repress basic individual human and free speech rights. and everything being made appear legal and proper through usage of lobbying, bought laws, and administrations, all of which violate basic human rights and even the country's constitution depending on their agenda.
and ????? what they were expecting in return ? obedience ? daisies ? boundless love ?
there is a limit where people can be pushed. after that point, shit hits the fan.
Read radical news here
That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group."
And perhaps that is exactly what is hoped for, precisely as you have suggested. Foreign governments (i.e. non-US) might not put much effort into tracking down someone who 'might' be remotely linked to someone else who 'might' have been involved in a DDos, but they would have a hard time resisting US pressure to help catch the 'terrorists' who are threatening to use bombs.
I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily the reason behind the claims, and I don't think that my tinfoil hat is too tight, but it wouldn't be the first time that a Government has 'manufactured' evidence or made false claims in order to garner public support for what would otherwise be an unpopular action.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
Or they just faked it. How hard is it to type up some reasonably decent-looking email headers and add under it "I'm coming to blow you up!"?
It's like accusing people "He's got drugs!" or "And child pornography" (ala the Scientologists). They fake it to get press and to make the cops jump.
Emailed "evidence" is so trivial to fake I have to wonder why the cops even worry about it anymore.
AC
...they can't FORCE anyone to buy stuff. When the RIAA and MPAA become extensions of the government, then I'll worry. Until that time, they can be quietly and effectively be compelled to adopt a sane approach to the current market, or simply cease to exist. A policy of don't buy don't steal doesn't require any laws, and there is absolutely no legal recourse.
If those employers were in the business of trafficking in human misery, violating civil rights and liberties, and pursuing the concept of unequal justice under the law under a presumption of guilt while denying the means of proving innocence....then it would be perfectly acceptable to me for a bomb threat to my place of employment to be made. The real question at that point would be to ask, "why in the hell am I working for such evil bastards in the first place?", thereby placing the onus upon me to vote with my feet and get the heck out of Dodge.
Remember, places like Treblinka weren't built by the thugs in jackboots, but by those everyday commoners, like ourselves, who chose NOT to stand up and say "NO!" either by virtue of the actual physical labor, or by virtue of the funding that made things like this possible.
"Honest people" who do nothing to halt the advance of evil, are honestly complicit in what results, if they are aware of what's actually happening, anyway.
Except the population that would continue to buy and/or steal is far to vast for those who actually care to have an effect in that manner...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Though I doubt anyone would dispute that the person(s) that emailed in the bomb threat need to be found and prosecuted, I think the grandparent post was referring to the government using this to label anyone involved in the anti-copyright movement as a terrorist to round them all up. Anonymous is a bunch of unassociated geeks with a mob mentality, not a unified organization. On top of that many of them are teenagers or younger therefore not a group of the most responsible individuals.
What we're suggesting is the same strategy police use to break up traditional protests they don't like. They wait (or antagonize) until one or more members of the group cross the line then they use that as justification to tear gas and/or arrest the entire crowd.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Hey man, with all due respect this is a law suit handling (alleged) copyright infringement cases. We might disagree with their methods, but from this to say that they are "trafficking in human misery, violating civil rights and liberties..." is taking it a bit too far. They are doing what the laws (enacted in a totally democratic way) have allowed them to do.
There are many laws that violate civil rights - I may not drive whatever vehicle I like without a permit; there are things I am not allowed to say (Slander); I may not build my house wherever I want; and many more - we accept them because we believe the benefit to society as a whole outweighs the harm to the individual. Maybe current copyright laws are not balanced and hurt the individual too much, but I don't think they justify equating organizations that use these laws to much more harmful examples from the past. Using your logic, I can organize actions similar to the ones described in TFS against the IRS because they are stealing my money, and damn the law!
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Ah, of course. Let's protect these worthless corporate tools but not protect the people they're constantly badgering and ruining. Makes sense!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Technically, yes. Not all types of "terrorists" are bad, however. Against a foe with a seemingly unlimited supply of money (which is used to lobby the government), laws almost always must be broken in some way to stop or hurt them. Otherwise, nothing will get done.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Wow, the government performs terrorist acts on a daily basis, who'da thought?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Problem is, calling "anonymous" an organization is... very much wrong.
Organizations have some organization at the very least; all anonymous "operations" are just someone posting a website link on 4chan, and people participating about as much as they want. And doing pretty much whatever they want, with absolutely no control - or even a way to control 'em.
Organizations have some kind of hierarchy or membership criteria - "anonymous" lacks both.
Manufacturing evidence against a fully anonymous non-group... isn't exactly hard. Do a thing, then pin it on said group. The group doesn't have a central authority or even knowledge of it's members - there isn't any way to say they didn't.
"PAY UP BASTARD 5000 DOLLARS OR WE'S GONNA DRAG YOUR ASS TO COURT." - that's the essence of what RIAA/MPAA s mailing to millions of people. Yes I consider that use of terror.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Then again, the copyright lobby is quite infamous for using threat of costly lawsuits to blackmail people, both innocent and guilty, into paying protection money to said lobby. Does it really surprise anyone that such tactics would eventually lead to a violent response? You can't make mockery of law yet expect it to still protect yourself.
The lawyers finally stepped over the invisible line, and are now reaping the consequences - and yes, one of those consequences might very well be getting assasinated. And if it is, they only have themselves to blame. As far as I'm concerned, the only bad thing here is the inevitable disregard of law in other areas of life as well, and the resulting slightly increased instability of society.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Remember, there are many people in the office being "attacked", not just greedy lawyers. There are assistants, secretaries, paralegals and more.
While I don't support bombing, this gives the non-lawyers reason to get on the corrupt lawyers to end this sociopathic campaign. If you knew you might die because someone else is an asshole, wouldn't you try your hardest get get them to stop being a dick? I know I sure would.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
"Terrorist" is just what the big army calls the little army. I read that in a comic book.
I get your point, yet I think maybe you failed to fully appreciate mine. Granted, I engaged in a bit of hyperbole, but still, this is NOT just a simple lawsuit against copyright infringement, this is about setting precedent.
It's about targeting a segment of society for future discriminatory action (profiling has its validity, but can be easily taken too far), and yes, trafficking in human misery IS apt for this. Judgements against people on this, where guilt is presumed, and economic circumstances preclude an ability to reasonably defend oneself against charges made, result in false positive convictions.
Doesn't sound like an issue? Try explaining that to a prospective employer that denies your application in a recession on the basis of that conviction, or more likely, your credit report which indicates your inability to pay the fines incurred.
Now, factor in identity theft, racial profiling, theolgical or regional bias, corrupt officials, etc, all the things that are NOT supposed to happen, but still, somehow DO.
I like that you are an optimist, and assume only the best of intentions from our legal system over here, it's really nice to know that there are still those with faith in human kindness. Regrettably, such faith falters in a corporate setting.
Equating the small injustices of corporate behavior with the grand atrocities of the past may seem inappropriate, until you recall that those grand atrocities weren't so grand when they were initiated and authorized. Was Auschwitz a death camp? Oh yeah, but what was it's initial justification when it was built? Extermination of people? Umm, no, if I recall correctly, from a German perspective at the time, it was touted as a solution to a cheap labor shortage issue for making bulk goods such as clothes, parts, food for the troops, and had the added value as being a means to dispose of an unwanted "criminal" element of German society. Maybe it wasn't THAT particular camp, but I hope you see what I'm getting at, here.
This country, like many others, has an established history of unjust laws, and blatant violation of even the best intentioned legislation. Slavery, the Whiskey Rebellion, the push for Indian extermination, the Tuskeegee experiments, atomic bomb testing on live troops during the '40s and '50s, the AIG bailout, these are only a few of the more obvious examples.
Violent action isn't justifiable, but is comprehensible. As you are an Israeli, I'm a little surprised you missed that distinction. How many times have your friends and neighbors been subject to missile attacks from Gaza, only to have reciprocal action made by your own government on its residents?
Sometimes, the law, and its proponents are Just...plain...wrong. Sometimes, the law gets it right, too.
Right now, moneyed interests in this country, for good or for ill, are in a defacto state of war against its own citizens of less ample financial means. Are those of us in that lesser status level not to defend ourselves over such tyrannies?
Copyright Infringement litigation seems a small thing, but what it's being used to justify, under a cover of legal authority, is just one more step in furthering that war's aims, namely our second class citizen status and subjugation. The legal system here is already failing us rather dramatically, and it may be time to adjust strategies.
I hope your optimism may eventually be justified, and common sense bears out fruitfully, I fear, though, it may already be too late for that. Time will, indeed, tell.
Because that works so well when the people you are fighting have endless supplies of money, and money is all the legal and political systems listen to.
It is an unfortunate situation but not a new one.
This is sounding more and more like the situation leading up to the french revolution. Those with power and money used their power and money to insure that the law was always on their side... right up until they were dragged from their homes and beheaded in the streets.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
> Filing a law suit is a legal way to claim what you believe is rightfully yours.
Or Barratry. There are convicts that engage in barratry as a hobby because they're bored and need an outlet for their destructive urges.
The manner in which the RIAA and the MPAA easily falls under the headings of blackmail or terrorism.
They are certainly not proper tort cases.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Bad laws, unfairly enforced, inevitably lead to the diminishment of all law. I don't think that Anonymous is doing a good thing, but it was inevitable given the way that lawsuits are being used as a terrorist weapon. The general lack of respect for law which this engenders is a bad thing for society.
" I wouldn't be surprised if individuals who work for these firms will start to be publically identified and their private lives targetted."
Yes that would be wrong because when they sue people for thousands of dollars, they are not publicly identifying them, targeting them personally, and then trying to wreck them financially.
You're right. The people who do this should allowed to be anonymous. Why didn't we see this before?
First of all, great post and I hope someone will mod you up, you deserve it. Finally one post that passes an idea clearly without being full of useless, hyperbolic adjectives. /. - I am right!). Each person with his own set of ideals after understanding the issue thoroughly, has to decide where this line is for him and what to do when it is crossed. I guess this is why we have so many different opinions on this thread.
Second, I see your point. I guess I am optimistic. I don't think for a moment that the legislative branch always has the citizens' best interests before their eyes. Sadly enough, corporate interest drive many laws in many countries, mine and yours included. I sincerely think that the judiciary branch is in a better shape, it's just that it is forced to work with whatever laws are passed by the legislative branch; no way around it.
I agree that when things are falling apart all around us, sometimes people need to resort to (more-or-less) violent and/or illegal measures. I also agree that big changes are made of many small ones and it is a tough mission deciding when these small changes have crossed the line.
There is no magic formula and no right-or-wrong answer (although since we are on
Basically it all boils down to whether we say the current situation is bad enough to justify using desperate measures. I started writing on this thread feeling the situation is not there yet. Although I still think this way, I can see why people will see things differently. Since I am not a US citizen I appreciate that my view on this issue is limited.
Whenever in an argument, remember this.
Is it a bomb threat even if there is no mention of a bomb? Politely telling someone to leave could easily be turned into a "bomb threat" with only a few extra adjectives.
Problem is, calling "anonymous" an organization is... very much wrong. Organizations have some organization at the very least; all anonymous "operations" are just someone posting a website link on 4chan, and people participating about as much as they want. And doing pretty much whatever they want, with absolutely no control - or even a way to control 'em. Organizations have some kind of hierarchy or membership criteria - "anonymous" lacks both.
Yet within that anonymous cloud there can hide all sorts of many and varied hierarchical groups with motivation, dedication, and a desire to accomplish certain tasks. How would you know? I would liken it to the army planning an assault on a beach for example, during a storm when the enemy's radar is already confused with multiple contacts, real or not.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
So we have seen DDos and bomb threats.. Someone forgot the Pizza.
That smart-ass bomb threat going to get them classified as a "terrorist group." Then you can bet every agency will want "in" on the action; busting a bunch of (misguided) geeks is a lot safer than going after heavily armed drug dealers and much easier than tracking down serial killers.
While I agree the bomb threat was a hideously bad idea, I think law enforcement going after anonymous full-scale would be an enormous public relations disaster. Even if you discount the bad publicity of hauling lots and lots of college students and high school students into court (and if they do raids, being taken at gunpoint) for downloading and running an application, I don't think it's guaranteed they'd be able to get convictions. No one person individually is denying the attacked sites' services, it's only in aggregate that it's a problem and becomes a DDoS. The only people they might be able to prosecute for this would be if only a handful of people was deciding the attack targets and times, then those people would be easy targets for law enforcement and since they were organizing the attacks, definitely prosecutable (and they could win the case). But I kinda doubt anon's that organized, it's probably just whoever manages to convince enough people to go along who decides each target, and it's probably new people every time.
Besides, I'm quite sure if law enforcement started trying to crack down on anon that some of them would start finding open proxies and stuff to add lots of false positives into the IPs being used in the attacks. Trying to sort out the real attackers versus open-proxies/hacked PCs would be a total nightmare.
Damn right. If you're going to bomb someone, just do it. If you're not, don't say that you are. All this ridiculous threat stuff just makes you look like an ass.
So if 999 people participate in a DDoS attack, and one (whose sympathies are assumed to lie in the same place) sends a bomb threat, it's OK to treat all 1000 as if they were involved with the bomb threat?
Great if you want a police state (want to shut down a protest group? Plant an agent provocateur). Not so good otherwise.
Yeah there's a difference between being threatened by someone to pay up and threatening someone with death and violence. A collection agency will tell you to pay up or else too but we don't consider them terrorists. Guys who may or may not have planted a bomb in your building are absolutely terrorists. If you lose a court battle you can live on, but there's no coming back if the bomb is real.
Emailed bomb threats should be done only by people with appropriate expertise in forging the "from" address.
Please, people, if you don't know how to make the email appear to originate from a close associate of the targeted company, DON'T DO IT! This action is much more effective if you plant forensic evidence that the company itself originated the false bomb threat. The intent is to not only disrupt their operations for a few hours, but to also take a piece out of their credibility.
Let me spell it out for you. What you want to have happen is:
This kind of thing is well within Anonymous' abilities. If you are going to take on the risks of doing a bomb threat, don't blow your opportunity to do long term damage to these sleazebag mass litigation firms by failing to frame them for the threat.
> ...they can't FORCE anyone to buy stuff.
No, but organizations like the RIAA are perfectly capable of generating revenue from people who don't buy their products. Case in point: Canada, and the blank media tax that Canadians pay to the recording industry when they buy blank CDs, regardless of what those CDs are used for. They pay the tax because those CDs 'might' be used for piracy.
The difference is that in a free market (which we no longer have) anybody is equally as welcome to that money and the power that goes with it. If the people don't want them to have power, then they shouldn't buy their merchandise. If somebody wants power to stop them, then they should sell useful products/services, or collect donations from people who do.
Sadly, the problem here is that government regulations unfairly distribute money and power to people who did not earn it. In this case, it's the media companies.
Here in America, these groups heavily support the Democrats, and for good reason. It is that party which spends large ammounts of money in pork spending and other boons to them. Both of the current parties have their pet projects, so I'm not saying that either is good. It's just something to think about when you vote next month.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
You are forgetting that these worthless corporate tools are complying with the law. Naturally the law will be on their side, so it does make sense. If you think the law doesn't make sense, then consider new politicians.
There are 10 commandments: 01)Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God 10)Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.Matt22:34-40
The magic free market. It will fix anything.
Both parties are bad. But the free market will fix anything. So vote for the party that supports the free market. Or the one I am heavily implying does. Not that either are good. Just think which one supports the free market that will fix all our problems when you vote.
I really am not biased at all towards the republicans.
It is perfectly fine to lose a court battle, yes. Nothing wrong with being made to pay half a million dollars minimum for maybe downloading a CD worth of songs. Not that they can prove you did, you just look really guilty sitting next to that high power attorney. Nothing at all wrong here. They had it coming.
Meanwhile, it is wrong to do anything against the business owners who abuse the law, buy the government, destroy the lives of thousands of people for no reason other than that they are greedy scumbags who want another few cents, but above all else, control.
Rot in hell, you corporatist pig. You'll get yours one day.
...when you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
How long the copyright should stay on their works, you will get as many different answers as artists you ask.
Congress, by voting to extend copyright 12 times, has stated it is "indefinitely".
If you ask a hundred engineers how long their patents should stay valid, nearly every single one will tell you "I have to keep working anyway; someone will out-innovate me."
The people, through technology, have retorted to congress and the companies; "If you say Forever, we say never!".
You always become the things you hate and in this instance, if you hate lawlessness, you become lawless. Step up the war and you will find out how hopeless it is for both sides.
Bomb threats are becoming the stuff of teenage (or drunken) pranks now. Maybe it would be a good idea to reduce the first-offence penalty to just a warning or fine, on the grounds that people are idiots but will grow up eventually. Jail destroys lives - it should be reserved for those who are an actual threat to others. Besides, it's expensive.
You can still ruin business for a day, forcing the target to evacuate the building, and at minimal risk to yourself too. I imagine it only works a few times though before they stop taking you seriously.
A difference of scale. Both are in the business of destroying people's lives - the nazis were just far more effective at it. Something like comparing a BB gun to a howitzer - they are both fundamentally just devices that launch a projectile at a target, only one is bigger.
How do you know the bomb threat wasn't an employee that wanted the day off. Like school kids have never done this before.....
Sup /b/?
"If you think the law doesn't make sense, then consider new politicians."
Right, because I can systematically undo the indoctrination that befell the majority of the population to get them to actually acknowledge the problems. Besides that, such a course of action is completely pointless. The new politician would just be lobbied all the same, and we'd be right back where we started. Unless the government weren't allowed to take actions that affected the people unless the people voted and said that they could take said actions, this corruption will continue.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
What hairyfeet said!
Unless it was staged by the "victim" to vilify this "terrorist group"
Just throwing it out there, who knows
All of those complaining, and making threats will be dragged into court as well for file sharing. Give them a reason to suspect you are a file sharer, and the US Copyright Group will go after you.
Strange, then, that with these blatant crimes being committed law enforcement has not been involved.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hahaha no
the shitstorm that would result from that would be humongous, they would be fools to do that.