Anonymous Knocks Out Ministry of Sound Website

An anonymous reader writes "The latest DDoS attack from Anonymous has knocked offline UK solicitor Gallant Macmillian's website, the Ministry of Sound Website and their payment website. Macmillian is currently looking for several hundred identities of suspected file-sharers, accused of uploading artists under the Ministry of Sound label."

Comments

Re:Fuck Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey... that's a nice case you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Like... your documentation of child pornagraphy being used against you. It would be a damn shame being labeled a child molester by your neighborhood, even if you're acquited.

Sincerely, an Anonymous Prosecutor.

Should have stayed relevant

[yamamushi]

Ministry of Sound has been struggling a lot lately, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/ministry-of-sound-threat . They haven't really stayed relevant in the electronic music world lately, so it won't be a big loss to see them disappear in the near future irregardless of file sharers. As a music producer and dj here in Austin, I feel obligated to buy the music I play and remix (mainly because I'm friends with producers who've burned that unspoken respect into my style, Francis Preve, Josh Gabriel, etc.). When labels go out of their way to pursue file sharers, I feel obligated to go out of my way to find their tracks through non-conventional methods. Not everyone has money to dish out for music, but they will pay to go to shows, clubs, raves, etc. Let them appreciate the art! When was the last time Ministry of Sound put out a track that reached the top 10 charts on beatport.com ? When was the last time Toolroom Knights did? Music evolves, and it feels like they pressed the B button to hold themselves back on purpose.

This isn't helping

[Omnifarious]

I have a lot more respect for the Pirate Party than these Anonymous DDOS attacks. Though I guess I didn't mind too much when they turn-abouts-fair-played the one company awhile back. Ultimately though, resorting to the same tactics as RIAA or whatever other group doesn't help anybody and just makes the attempt to get lawmakers to see reason even more difficult. :-(

Re:This isn't helping

[Anonymous Coward]

any system that fails to leave viable options for civil dissent opens itself to uncivil dissent.

Re:This isn't helping

[Nursie]

'Some of them even think that breaking the law is always 'bad', I'm willing to bet."

SOME?

I went on a tour of Alcatraz a few years back, and the guide stopped to explain how the island had been taken over by students/protestors after it had closed as a prison, as a protest about the disenfranchisement of the Native American populations.

It was when she said "And sometimes when we look back from many years afterwards, we can see that (very rarely) breaking the law might be justified or at least we can try to understand their motivations".

That shocked me. That it needed to be spelled out that clearly to some people, that sometimes people break the law for the right reasons, not because they're just hippie scum. It was then that I realised how straight-and-narrow a lot of folks see life. I don't know if they just don't think for themselves or if the buy all the bullshit or what. A lot of people won't even disagree with the government.

Hell, in the UK I heard people say "well if the government tell us we need to go to war in Iraq, then we must need to, it's not like they'd do it for no reason". Now I don't care which side of the should we/shouldn't we debate on iraq you come down on, the government's duty is to prove to the population that invasion of a foreign country is necessary. And the people's duty is to look at and question that proof.

bah. "Sheeple" is an overused cliche, but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people.

Re:This isn't helping

[Adambomb]

When I run out of gin.

Re:This isn't helping

[b4dc0d3r]

I agree, but it gets the issue in the news. Eventually people start asking why they keep doing this, and knowledgeable people should be able to reply with decent, neutral information about copyright problems, enforcement by barratry, settlement letters and why they put the little guy at risk. Add on things like these are the same companies responsible for DRM (can't copy your music where you want to) and levies on blank media used for non-infringing purposes (backup, pictures, your own legally purchased CDs), and it's a great public-relations opportunity.

Even worse, RIAA settlement money goes back into the RIAA coffers, not to the artists. RIAA started this, anyone else now is copyright troll and doesn't even pretend to defend the artists. This is a business model, not copyright enforcement.

The tough part is, the people leading the charge leave it up to other people to explain their actions.

Re:This isn't helping

[Tom]

The copyright lobby is using every conceivable way of defending their position. Legal, doubtfully legal, illegal. Against the masses, against individuals. Changing laws, creating new laws, ignoring laws.

It's only fair to reply in kind, using several different ways. Lobby counter-work is important, as is legal support for the innocents caught in the net, as is legal support for the guilty so that they get a fair trial and a fair punishment and not these ridiculous witch-burnings. Technological counters to protect our privacy against the dragnets are important, and at times a counter-attack can reveal what legal activities would have never managed to uncover - as in this case.

I, too, support the Pirate Party more than a DDoS. Which is why I'm a member of my local PP chapter, but not of Anonymous. But that doesn't mean I don't like what they're doing.

And frankly, the press articles on this and the revelations about the dirty tricks played by those who label themselves the righteous are a lot more likely to change public opinion and then maybe politicians' minds than the most civilized and measured talking.

You can not win against a trained slimebag with words alone. You are going up against people who have been lying professionally for many years, and the truth is harder to convince people with, because it is more complex, less black-and-white, and usually incomplete. A clear, simple and well-rounded lie will always beat it. Everything else is the stuff of books and movies, but not the real world.

Holy poorly written summary batman!

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to read the summary 3 times before I actually understood what transpired. It would be nice if:
a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)
b)You explained what the Ministry of Sound is.
c)You didn't repeat the word "website" 3 times in one sentence.

You know where this is going to lead...

[jimicus]

If anyone honestly believes that this is going to result in the various record labels worldwide finally throwing their hands up and saying "Enough! We give up", they're living in cloud cuckoo land. Far more likely it'll lead to much tighter regulation of the Internet in many first-world countries.

After all, we already have "three-strikes and you're out" laws in many countries, and those strikes frequently don't require any sort of due process. Plenty of governments have hinted by their actions that they rather like the idea of a tightly-controlled Internet where everyone does as they are damn well told or faces the consequences, this kind of thing could be all the justification they need to tighten the screw a little further.

Of course, it won't be painted in that fashion. It'll be painted as "Cyber-attacks cost businesses millions of ${CURRENCY} a year in lost revenue, this law will force ISPs to automatically detect and shut-off the Internet connection of anyone launching such an attack".

Re:There's a word for this sort of thing: terroris

[airfoobar]

Terrorism, by the contemporary meaning of the word at least, involves blowing shit up. Thankfully, other than a prank bomb threat, that is not the case here.

4chan's goal is not to terrorise, but to harass in order to be heard. In other words, it's no different than a real-world protest, where they stand outside the company's building and throw eggs and yogurt at everyone who dares come out, thus disrupting their business. It's a sad truth today that if consumers don't organise and hurt a company's wallet, they'll be totally ignored -- tell me that isn't true.

I would normally feel bad about the companies that are at the sharp end of all this, but I don't. At all. They totally deserve everything they get.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land."

Article I, Section VIII. "The congress shall have power ... to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may...become the Seat of the Government of the United States" et cetera, et cetera.

but why read the Constitution when you're yelling about something being unconstitutional?

Re:There's a word for this sort of thing: terroris

[imakemusic]

Absolutely. It was terrifying. The prospect of not being able to buy the latest remix of Unce-unce-unce-unce shook my soul to its very core. I will be having sleepless nights for months to come. I worried about my family and my friends getting caught in the denial of service or getting wounded in the crossfire. "Never again", I thought to myself, "will my people be free to listen this mindless horseshit without fear of a slight delay because they can't buy it online and will have to walk to the shop or get it from a different website." Pure terror. I wanted to stand up to these evil people but I was scared so I just sat there, quietly leaking bodily fluids.

Re:There's a word for this sort of thing: terroris

[HeckRuler]

Because instead of being killed, maimed, and/or TERRIFIED, people were inconvenienced and possibly put out of a few sales, for a while.
Jaywalking is not an act of dissent due to it's scale. It's just not serious enough to qualify. A DDOS, to a music store, does not terrorism make. Even if they had thrown a brick into their window, it's still not terrorism.

Ease up on that trigger grandpa.