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

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

Goofus killed Gallant.

For a moment I thought...

[PaulBu]

That UK actually has an official Ministry of Sound (as in, Govt. agency) ! :)

Paul B.

Re:For a moment I thought...

[PatPending]

Yup; it's located next to the Ministry of Silly Walks

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.

Re:Should have stayed relevant

[lightversusdark]

Ministry of Sound is still one of the better clubs in London, especially with the closure of Matter, so they are still providing a venue for shows, clubs, raves, etc. The better promoters prefer Fabric as it's not as "corporate" as the others.
The brand itself has been diluted to worthlessness. You can get MoS branded alarm clocks and iPod docks FFS.
The label, while being the biggest indie label in the world, just churns out compilations - The Annual, Best of Happy Hardcore volume 40 etc.
The company does still release credible records, but they are all on imprints like Hed Kandi and particularly Data Records. Eric Prydz is at the top of his game, and Example is riding high in the charts.
Palumbo is a businessman, and that he would jump on the opportunity to screw a few more pennies out of file-sharers doesn't surprise me in the least.

Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[zill]

Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization?

Can I register a corporation under the name "Federal government of the United States"?

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[Jesse_vd]

It worked out pretty well for the Federal Reserve

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[cappp]

There are loads of laws that are applicable. Trademark and obscenity are likely to be the ones you run into most - try registering Fucking Microsoft for instance - but there's also a bunch of regulations controlling the use of characters, abbreviations, and all of that. I did a quick search and found a great list of British restrictions on specific terms including

Accredited, Auditor General for Wales, Bank, British, House of Lords, University,

and so on. A general rule of thumb - if it has the potential to mislead you probably need to get some permission.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[SuricouRaven]

We've a scam company here in the UK called London Mint Office. It's not affiliated with the real mint at all, but somehow they get away with it. It's just on the right side of legal - the standard 'didn't read the small print,' where the customer is offered what looks like a good deal on a product (A commorative coin) but isn't clearly told that in accepting the agreement they are also agreeing to be direct-debited for a case full of overpriced junk coins every month... and the only way to get out of the deal is via a phone line that is always unavailable.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[arivanov]

Depends on the country.

15+ years ago the current Bulgarian prime minister business was called "First Private Police". That was in the first years after the fall of the berlin wall and funnily enough they were more efficient and less corrupt than the police proper. IIRC the ministry of the interior tried to sue them for trademarke infringment and failed. So they started stopping their cars for 2h checks every time they had to attend to an incident in progress, arrest their staff for nealry anything and so on until they forced a name change.

So it depends. The government has "its ways". Now are they going to apply them is a different matter

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[Chrisq]

We've a scam company here in the UK called London Mint Office. It's not affiliated with the real mint at all, but somehow they get away with it. It's just on the right side of legal - the standard 'didn't read the small print,' where the customer is offered what looks like a good deal on a product (A commorative coin) but isn't clearly told that in accepting the agreement they are also agreeing to be direct-debited for a case full of overpriced junk coins every month... and the only way to get out of the deal is via a phone line that is always unavailable.

If its a direct debit then it is clearly not the only way. Cancel your direct debit - most banks let you do it online.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[dargaud]

Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization? Can I register a corporation under the name "Federal government of the United States"?

Years ago in France a guy did name his company "Trésor Publicité". A perfectly good name. Except that he used it to cash intercepted checks intended for the "Trésor Public" [the french revenue service], just adding the 3 letters at the end. Guess how that worked out for him... Hint: never steal money from thieves, they don't take kindly to it.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[Chrisq]

Which would be a breach of contract if they play their cards right, leaving you even more fucked up than in the previous situation.

Not if key details of the contract were only in the fine print, and the cancellation number unavailable. You would have two defences: 1) The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and 2) You made reasonable attempts to notify the company about the cancellation.

I would be very surprised if they even took you as far as the court for that.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[DrXym]

Are there any laws governing what you can legally name your organization?

In Britain there are naming rules that require names be unique, none infringing, don't imply a connection to government or royalty, are not offensive, or confusing (e.g. Limited ltd). There are certain additional rules when you include words like Vet, Doctor, Solicitor etc. in your company name.

Even with the rules it doesn't stop some scummy ambulance chasing companies trying to pass themselves off as official sounding accident boards and such like.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[ooshna]

That's because no one ever visited your site.

Re:Offtopic, but I'm really curious

[imakemusic]

When Railtrack Plc - the company that ran the British railway system - was sold to Network Rail, the name Railtrack became available at Companies House. Some enterprising bloke registered Railtrack Ltd and proceeded to mess people about by answering their letters (PDF). Worth a read.

Re:Fuck Anonymous

[Vegemeister]

Heheh... "Body of Evidence". So that's what they're calling it these days?

When I was a kid we just played pool all day...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see kids these days cooperating with each other to make the world a better place.

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

[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

[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.

Re:Not enough lulz, it is insufficient.

[Omnifarious]

What would be the most amusingly effective is to infiltrate the computers of these organizations and start running filesharing software on them handing out copies of stuff that you just know the MPAA, RIAA or some other organization is going to be really hot about.

Explaining to a judge how their filesharing was totally innocent even though their IP addresses were flagged would be really fun to watch. Also, in 3-strikes jurisdictions, watching their ISPs kick them off the net would also be huge fun.

Re:Holy poorly written summary batman!

[MichaelSmith]

It would be nice if:
a)You explained what Anonymous was(is it a group? an unknown attacker? A kind of bug spray?)

Its you!

Re:Not enough lulz, it is insufficient.

[Securityemo]

People just don't understand me. Why can't they just accept that we have different sexual drives in life? ;_;

Re:Not enough lulz, it is insufficient.

[Securityemo]

Oh, I'd simply love to 3. But I'm a bit blushing towards building up the protected double-life required for my mommy/gf not finding out about my randy gay orgies with turkish assboys and imported russian manwhores. She'd be so very, very disappointed in me. Ah, santorum, how I long for thee.

Re:irregardless

[SharpFang]

They ain't not undisappearing irregardless of no lack of none of the file sharers.

Wow

[BancBoy]

Your average MoS compilation is bus compressed so hard that I don't dare subject my amps to it, go anywhere near the clip light with that stuff and you know your spending a significant fraction of your time putting out DC.

Wow! I don't know what half that meant, but it sounded damn insightful!

Re:Wow

[Nerdfest]

"Every sound in the recording (even the ones that should be quiet) are amplified to a high level. If this level is too close to the point on a VU meter that indicates the amp will lose the tops of the waveforms (clip them off) the output signal will look like a flat line, or DC voltage. This is hard on amplifiers." I feel like the "English Sound Engineer" version of "English 50 Cent".

Hope I actually got it close to correct.

Re:Wow

[Vryl]

Mostly correct. Describing "compression" as "amplification" is arguably correct, but doesn't tell the full story, even tho you correctly point out the soft sounds.

Compression basically makes the soft sounds louder, and/or the loud sounds softer so there is less dynamic range in the music - that is, the difference between the soft and loud noises is made smaller, or even much smaller.

The result is that the music sounds "louder", but you can lose a lot of the "feel" of a track.

It also uses more energy, and drives your amp and then your speakers much harder, and hotter.

But hey, that is a ton more words than you used, and someone will pick holes in this version too.

Yours is pretty darn good, for a paraphrase to non sound geeks.

Re:Why bother with this?

[Spliffster]

Well, it seems to have worked against ACS Law, the domain does not resolve anymore (since ca. 29. Oct). http://acs-law.org.uk/

It is very likely that ACS Law will go out of business for doing their shady "porn" extortion. After/During that attack, some 200MB of emails "leaked" which will put the last nail in their coffin: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5850493/ACS-Law_leaked_emails

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: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.