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."

50 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Not Justifying The Actions ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This reminds me of what happened to Darl McBride after the SCO suits started. It got so bad that he began carrying a handgun at all times.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... in case he suddenly realized what a dick he was decided to kill himself.

    3. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the one hand, doing things like this makes 'Anonymous' look bad, and by association, then makes what they are supporting look bad and hands ammunition to the MafiAA and bully groups whose perspective is "fuck the consumer, down with consumer rights."

      On the other hand, simply protesting verbally and writing letters, even writing letters to congresscritters, seems to do only two things: jack and shit.

      And on the gripping hand...

    4. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, you may just be from the UK, where you have the options to state that acts of the government's definition of terror are wrong or to risk up to 7 years in prison.

      Remember, kids, driving opinions underground is a great way of preventing angry words from turning into action.

    5. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by Ant+P. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fighting terrorism with terrorism only seems fair.

    6. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By that logic we should stop allowing private ownership of knives. It only takes one nutcase to cross that thin line between butchering a cow and stabbing a human.

      Or we could just accept the fact that 0.001% of humans are nutters and will do stupid stuff regardless, so there's no point punishing the other 99.999% of sane persons who use various tools responsibly.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb? There is no justifying it.

      There fixed that for you.

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". The phrasing of the opening sentence does justify Operation Payback's action, if somehow indirectly.

      A prank phone call is now violence?

      Phillip.

    8. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "A DDoS is not so bad, but a bomb threat? There is no justifying it."

      I believe you are confusing a bomb threat with an actual bombing.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by ffreeloader · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the one hand, doing things like this makes 'Anonymous' look bad, and by association, then makes what they are supporting look bad and hands ammunition to the MafiAA and bully groups whose perspective is "fuck the consumer, down with consumer rights."

      They do far more harm than that. They make opposing current copyright laws look bad in the eyes of the average citizen. To get any real change you must have a majority of the citizenry on your side. Then real political pressure can be applied in a legit manner. Pulling stupid stunts like this paints anyone advocating change in this area in a negative light.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    10. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by icebraining · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is a "bomb threat" a tool?

      "Bomb threat" isn't a tool; it's a coercion on others by instilling fear, and any form of coercion is an aggression.

      Having a knife is fine. Threatening to stab someone, even if you don't end up doing it, isn't. This is and should be illegal.

    11. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its the same reason why douche-bags across Silicon Valley start driving bullet proof cars, get panic rooms and start flying around in helicopters.

    12. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Far more than you credit inwardly think "finally, about time" while denouncing it to their peers...

      Such is human nature. Have fun trying to figure out how many people think that! Even if you could, I'd put good money down that it's a far greater number than you expect.

      --
      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...
    13. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clearly you have not been somewhere that matters when a DDoS is in full effect. I've seen equipment get fried (usually equipment that's not too healthy to start with, but still) and have firsthand felt the stresses involved. A bomb threat? Call in the professionals and run the hell away.

      DDoS? Nope, you get to stick through it responding to all the insensitive assholes bitching all the while doing your best (which is never enough against a real DDoS, thus failing)

      --
      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...
    14. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Bomb threat" isn't a tool; it's a coercion on others by instilling fear, and any form of coercion is an aggression.

      I disagree. A bomb threat is a remote way of pulling the fire alarm. The intent in the majority of bomb threats is to clear the building. Rarely is someone levying an actual threat, and even more rare is there an actual bomb. Pulling a fire alarm isn't coercion by instilling fear. It's triggering a set response to get a desired physical action. I don't exit buildings from fire alarms because of fear. I do it because it's the process you go through while the alarm is checked out. The same is true of bomb threats. "There's been a bomb threat, please leave the building while we check it out." It is a DOS.

    15. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by Patch86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm actually generally interested in that now- I know explosives are obviously used for demolitions and mining and construction and whatnot; but the military gets through an awfully large amount of ordinance during a conflict, and there are an awful lot of conflicts going on at any given time. I wonder what the ratio of violent:non-violent consumption is?

      A Google-quest for tomorrow, I think.

    16. Re:Not Justifying The Actions ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm an independent, and I am in agreement with what the Tea Party is promoting, and there are polls saying 70% of the country agrees with their platform.

      I've made polls. I've purposefully manipulated polls. I've read the teabagger platform. I claim bullshit on 70% of the country agreeing with their platform. Now, if you were to ask "do you believe in responsible government" and 70% agreed, then released a press release stating that 70% of Americans agree with teabaggers, then you'd be both 100% factually correct and a liar. From what I've seen, anything that gets more than 5% support for teabaggers is a pile of lies. Of course, as a response, you could just as well ask "do you believe in forcing others to obey your religious tenets, so long as you don't actually force them to worship your God?" and clam that any dissent is people that "hate the teabagger platform" and be no less intellectually honest than the pro-teabagger polls.

      I never trust a poll that doesn't release every question asked in the order asked so I can judge the bias of the question askers. Whenever one side claims it supports their claims and the other side disagrees, it's usually a case of a biased study (and almost every single political poll is purposefully biased).

      If the only people you're talking to are other leftists then you're getting a very slanted view of what is going on in this country.

      I'm an independent. I can always tell the affiliation of the person talking to me because conservative nutjobs call me leftist. Liberal nutjobs call me a rightist. I think I have a good view of what's happening to the country. The divisive asses who have to label everyone else as "leftists" or such are ruining the country. Yes, that's you destroying the American Way. When we enter hyperinflation to pay off our debt, it will be your fault. Thanks.

  2. There's more to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    This only happened after Aiplex Software was contracted to DDoS attack file sharing web sites:

    http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/an-interview-with-anonymous/

  3. I am... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I am... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We, The People, never actually had a say in the creation of those "laws" which were supposedly broken. I say supposedly because we have seen these same braintrusts in the past sue grandmas that couldn't even email, much less P2P, and of course dead folks. But the laws have been hopelessly perverted by the multinationals against the wishes of the people as I doubt very seriously you could even find 5% that would agree that 150 year+ copyrights are anything but robbery.

      So yes, the government if it were actually functional should protect the people from those that would pervert the laws with money but it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain it is by the corporation, for the corporation now, which means the people will have to take care of themselves and fight back. If the people had any say pot would be legal, copyrights would be the same as they were for 150+ years, and it would be legal to walk into any Walmart and buy a device that walked you through ripping DVDs to it, so they wouldn't have to worry about kids scratching their discs. The fact that common sense is so far away from anything being written into law only proves We, The People had nothing to do with it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:I am... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Funny

      "and it would be legal to walk into any Walmart and buy a device that walked you through ripping DVDs to it, so they wouldn't have to worry about kids scratching their discs"

      But... but... if you copy the file onto another disc instead of buying another copy, you're stealing potential profit from the artists! How could you support such thievery?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:I am... by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should have included what the copyright date of that film is because I've never heard of it.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:I am... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are recent works that would have fallen under the original 14 year copyright terms

      That's not as relevant as you'd like to believe. We cannot choose to follow an outdated law in lieu of the newer, more onerous one and still be considered "law abiding". If the law is going to be broken, why follow an arbitrary restriction?

      That's not even getting into the greater point, which is that copyright is a favor, a boon granted to creators which they can leverage for some profit, and in exchange the public domain is enriched. Perpetual extension of copyright essentially eliminates the public's gain in that social contract. As there's simply no moral requirement to adhere to a bargain that's completely one-sided, there's nothing wrong with telling the publishers/jailors of our common culture the bargain is invalid and reverting to the natural state of information exchange. In fact, the only ethical course of action at this point is to refuse to obey the law. Because the legislators are all in the back pockets of the copyright industry, the only hope for change is in forcing a collapse of the system. Meekly obeying the law and hoping legislators someday decide the change the law isn't going to work.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:I am... by daveime · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's plenty of people who think pot is horribly dangerous, and there's many of those people who more or less make it their life's work to spread terror about how bad marijuana is to the public at large.

      Yes, and most of those people think so, because someone in government decided it should be a class A drug instead of a potential wood pulp replacement, and spread the message "POT IS BAD*".

      Before then, it was just another plant in the forest, used as a painkilling medicine by shamans and witch doctors for millennia. Or something like that.

      When you think about it pretty much ALL our beliefs are shaped by either Government or Religion. That doesn't make the majority "right", it just makes them "more listened to".

      * Of course, drugs in this context do not include Alcohol or Nicotene, two of the most dangerous and addicting substances known to man. But we tax those, so its okay.

    6. Re:I am... by bit01 · · Score: 3, Informative

      To prove that the problem is the stated one. Otherwise it's just an excuse to get what you want.

      No, it's just a sensible reaction to a broken law to balance out all the times when it wasn't broken.

      Not completely. The public still gains from the works that are produced with the expectation of copyright.

      Not when the work is priced such that there is no significant net value to the public, just the creators and middlemen/parasites. Given the extremely low cost of entertainment these days (e.g. slashdot is more entertaining than most movies for many) that is more likely than not.

      You could refuse to buy or support any copyrighted work and put your support behind works with open source licenses. It would have the same effect of collapsing the system.

      No, he said refuse to obey unethical laws. Nothing to do with collapsing the system. Quite apart from the entire artificial scarcity silliness.

      ---

      Like software, intellectual property law is a product of the mind, and can be anything we want it to be. Let's get it right.

  4. Not surprised by dyfet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not surprised by Reteo+Varala · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What legitimate grievances? The RIAA, MPAA, and other groups have generally not been suing people who didn't, in fact, commit copyright infringement. In the few trials that have reached the verdict stage, the defendants have been found liable. The issues are about the level of damages, the cost of litigation, and whether the litigation strategy even makes sense. What's not an issue is that the defendants who were found liable broke the law.

      I can see two major grievances.

      The first is that the copyright system is being extended specifically to prevent anything from being placed into the public domain. Originally, in the US, the term of a copyright was 14 years, after which the work would enter the public domain. Today, the term of a copyright is 70 years after the death of the author. What this means is that copyright terms have increased by roughly one order of magnitude.

      The second is the inclusion of criminal elements in a specifically civil matter. Originally, copyright was a case where the copyright holder was responsible for enforcing their copyrights through the legal process. However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act introduced criminal elements into the process, making certain forms of infringements (circumventing anti-copying protections) into a criminal matter.

      Simply put, the law is being tilted in favor of the copyright holders in order to increase their profits at the detriment of the public domain, which has remained static at 1923 for several decades now... not counting legal hiccups, such as "Happy Birthday," which was able to squeeze in due to the pre-1923 works being "unauthorized."

  5. Re:Hmmmmm by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I wouldn't be surprised if individuals who work for these firms will start to be publically identified and their private lives targetted."

    That's exactly what needs to happen, copyright and corporations have shown themselves to want nothing more then a monopoly, and turn customers and citizens of the world into serfs where the rent everything in perpetuity. WHere ownership rights on the customer end are being rescinded and quite frankly copyright will always be abused it goes against our rights to own what we purchase outright and modify it as we see fit.

    I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings. We've seen how free market ideology works in the real world where there are no scruples and money makes the rules and if you don't have money your voice doesn't matter. We're already in an era of corporate dictatorship of policy to such an insidious degree.

    Why exactly would you want more of it? Right now the economy, government and law is so twisted by the structures of power that be, we need constant resistance and less ideological infighting of right vs left, left and right simply doesn't matter, these are distractions from the main issues - the removal of our liberties and rights as human beings view the market mechanism. We're seeing how money and markets can be transform a society into a society of serfs, any system can be gamed, transformed and abused, how so many people can't see this is disturbing.

  6. I think we know exactly where all this is headed.. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!?
  7. Re:Troll by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a world where votes are counted in dollars changing laws is no longer up to the people.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  8. Vigilante justice by paiute · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  9. Re:Hmmmmm by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You say it like it's a bad thing. It's the only way the lawyers will put any thought into what they're doing. Those folks(the lawyers in this case) are out to ruin lives. Those guys pay firms to DDos you, hack you, stalk you, put malware on your computer, and finally litigate you to death, just for uploading a few songs. Do you think the Jammie Thomas case, even the more lenient judgement, is justice?

    If anything, it sounds like Anonymous is trying to beat the thugs at their own game. Let's hope that they succeed.

  10. Re:Hmmmmm by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're seeing how money and markets can be transform a society into a society of serfs, any system can be gamed, transformed and abused, how so many people can't see this is disturbing.

    How most people can't see this is quite a mystery unless you are willing to entertain the idea that people are not naturally this blind and must be trained to be this way. Then you realize this is the main reason for having a government-run public school system. The mystery then disappears but a sense of relief is not forthcoming, because it took a few generations to make things this way and may well take a few generations to begin to undo the damage.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  11. Re:Hmmmmm by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Informative

    I will never understand why westerners are so supportive of corporatist removal of our rights to own outright and modify our stuff as customers and human beings.

    You are confusing explicit support with apathy and ignorance. I know an argument could be made that they are equivalent, but the truth is the people who care AND are willing to act is such a small percentage that the organized actors (corporations and law firms) are the only ones who are effective at advancing their agenda.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  12. Re:All this for a loser film? by chebucto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Recently a lawyer in the UK was also targeted by the 4chan group.

    What's notable is that he was in the same business as the law firm in this article - sending out compliance letters for alleged copyright infringement. As this article notes, lately the UK lawyer had only been getting business from porn movie producers; all his mainstream clients had stopped hiring him because they no longer saw a net benefit in suing their fans.

    This might explain why the law firm was threatening people over a c-movie: the 'real' movie studios in the US might no longer want to work with people like them.

    The law firm he ended up with was ACS Law, run by middle-aged lawyer Andrew Crossley. ACS Law had, after a process of attrition, become one of the only UK firms to engage in such work. Unfortunately for Crossley, mainstream film studios had decided that suing file-sharers brought little apart from negative publicity, and so Crossley was left defending a heap of pornography, some video games, and a few musical tracks.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  13. Re:Huzza for those responsible. by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nuh-uh.

    Pranks, yeah. Making their lives miserable through perfectly legal means, yeah, I can smile at it (e.g. when Mr. Ralsky got a taste of his own spammy medicine a few years back... those were good times).

    OTOH, breaking the law is only good for those willing to challenge an unjust law. Notice that the US Civil Rights Movement didn't resort to breaking other laws to make a point - they only broke the unjust ones. Most importantly, they were willing to take the punishment for it, in order to point out to the world at large just how unjust those laws were. That's the whole point of civil disobedience.

    While, yeah, I have zero love for a law firm that engages in the RIAA/MPAA's tactics, the best way to make one's point is to do so w/o breaking other, more important laws.

    What this would accomplish (at least if done large-scale or over time) is to provide fodder to make existing laws even more draconian, and to allow government(s) to step in and regulate the Internet even more, which none of us want.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  14. Re:Hmmmmm by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised to see some congresscritter use this as an example to introduce legislation that makes all of our lives just a little bit worse, by regulating the unholy shit out of the Internet.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  15. Re:Hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what. If you work for an a$$hole company, you need to be willing to live with the consequences.

  16. They found a bomb alright but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It was an Uwe Boll boxset

  17. Re:I wonder by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?
  18. And you believed him? by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. There WAS an actual bomb involved ... by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny

    The building was searched, but no bomb was found.

    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.

  20. Re:Hmmmmm by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then you realize this is the main reason for having a government-run public school system.

    Sometimes I wonder how this trash gets modded up. Pretty much all modern countries have public schools because otherwise kids wouldn't get any school at all. See the whole third world as an example, lack of education is a huge blocker for prosperity. The reason we have teacher's degrees and curriculum is because otherwise we'd have no quality control and no assurances that kids would get out of school knowing even the minimum about the world they ought to. Why is creationism so prevalent in the US as opposed to everywhere else? Because you can pull your kids out of school and teach them whatever you like. And not how reproduction works and what a condom is for. Can homeschooling or private schools be better than public schools? Yes. Can they be worse? Absolutely. At a minimum, you have to deal with a lot of other kids that aren't like you and don't think like you. By far the most narrow-minded and with the most twisted world views I've met have been American and home schooled. Granted, so have some of the brightest but it seems to bring out both kinds of extremes.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  21. Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  22. Re:Serves them right. by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "even if it contradicts popular vote"

    What popular vote? As far as I'm aware, the people can't even vote on 99% of the laws that these idiots try to pass. If they could, there would be much less corruption going around.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  23. Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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
  24. Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would like to see said agencies going after people making bomb threats to make sure they don't start to make real bombs.

    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.

  25. Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > 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.
  26. Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade by russotto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    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.

  27. Re:I think we know exactly where all this is heade by kainosnous · · Score: 2, Funny

    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