Slashdot Mirror
Operation Payback Shuts Down IFPI Site
newtley writes "Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's main IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) website is down. Not coincidentally, there's an Operation Payback post addressing the Pirate Bay crew's lost sentencing appeal: 'Dear IFPI, MAFIAA and other parasites, The recent verdict in the Swedish Appeal Court (ThePirateBay spectrial) provoked this statement from Operation: Payback. We emphasize our statement with a Distributed Denial-of-Service attack aimed at the IFPI's website.'"
What's the peaceful resolution they should be aiming for? What branch of the government can they appeal to to restrict the power of government to intervene without precedent? The courts are obviously not going to help them, nor the legislators, nor the president or any various governors.
are you aware that what you are saying basically totals to 'just be subservient' ?
the 'peaceful resolution' you speak of, has no effect. people elected someone on various premises, and he fulfilled maybe one out of a few dozen. people elected representatives on various issues, yet they set out to make laws totally against the will of public. they have even gone the extra mile of bringing out laws with NO transparency and democratic process, in the form of acta.
then there is the 'noncriminal', legal ways of doing that eh ? like, battling them in courts, where they have multiples of money to win over you ?
excuse me but what you speak of can only work in an ideal world.
Read radical news here
I bet 99% of people on either side of this issue have never been to ifpi.org, what exactly is this supposed to accomplish?
Whether Anonymous is right or wrong is for you to decide. But under either case, you don't mess with them.
What a utterly stupid statement. That's justification for doing nothing about bad behavior by any individual or organization simply because they engage in bad behavior, and those who engage in bad behavior are not to be messed with.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
The best response to these types of organization is not through government or peaceful resolution. Even by stealing the media these organizations represent you are part of the problem which limits human potential. We can all stop buying (or even stealing) music that these organizations control. If you enjoy music and film, learn to create something of your own and share it. Subvert the organizations, not their websites/servers. Go to free, live performances, learn an instrument, write a screenplay or lyrics, share your creations in public or over the internet.
I'm sure they're shaking in their boots. I mean, Anonymous went and took out a website that no one visits. What will they do now? How will they bribe politicians without ifpi.org?
Some people consider imprisonment to be the use of force and intimidation. DDOS attacks seem tame in comparison. I suppose maybe you care a lot about whether the use of such tactics is "criminal" but that only depends who is writing the laws.
Agreed. While I don't always approve of the things Anonymous does (such as what they did to Boxxy), you can't deny that they know how to get things done.
Seriously, am I the only who's thought about what we could do if we could get get Anonymous to focus on digging up information on corrupt politicians / cops / other government employees?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
It seems many here are quick to criticize the immaturity or pointlessness of launching a DOS on some arbitrary website no one ever visits, which is their right. However, I think launching an assault on a website (especially as Anonymous) serves a very important purpose, both functionally and symbolically. It conveys a very direct voice of opposition against companies shutting down websites like TPB or (as we've seen just this week) other torrent domains without due process. It is very clear that those companies and politicians have no idea how these websites function. Rightly so, they are made in a tiered and complex fashion so as to spread, eliminate, or avoid liability, as is the case in the OP (e.g. i-frames, torrents with no trackers, using only links to other sites but not actually hosting any illegal content). However, this isn’t an excuse for the judicial system to say that merely because a system is too complex to understand that those who are genuinely innocent should be lumped in with the guilty. That is ridiculous and I’m sure no one would agree with such a verdict. So while many people on Slashdot might complain about the point of DOS’ing a website, it says very loud and clear to those ignorant parties that people won’t stand for this kind of tyranny. Good for them, I say.
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
Nice move. Protest the loss in court by doing something illegal.
then there is the 'noncriminal', legal ways of doing that eh ? like, battling them in courts, where they have multiples of money to win over you ? excuse me but what you speak of can only work in an ideal world.
I suspect that just like there are provocateurs sent by the police in peaceful anti-globalizing demonstrations, there are provocateurs at the source of these kinds of vengeful, reactive actions. And there is no way to insure that there isn't. These actions are in now way controllable under a sensible strategy. The goal of this is pretty simple: present any protest against corporate abuse as the doing of unlawful elements, and not as the expression of public opinion.
This goes exactly against of what you are pretending here: you say that there is no legal way to advance the views of public ownership of its culture, yet public opinion HAS an effect, since so much effort is put into skewing and misrepresenting it, and stupid actions such as this Operations Payback go a long way to do RIAA and MPAA's bidding to discredit it.
Stupid stupid stupid! And fucking naive.
I know that many of the corporations are pretty sleezy and they make money off the backs of the artists, but the pirate sites do exactly the same thing. At least the corporate suits give a few percent to the artists. The pirate sites keep it all for themselves. If you're going to do this thing, study the masters like Richard Stallman and write something intellectually coherent about intellectual property. Make a solid argument and it's more likely to be respected.
The Pirate Bay is not the Pirate Party is not "Anonymous" - I'm guessing, but I assume jdpars is talking about "Anonymous" - a multinational "mob."
Even if they could appeal to some government function, they can't - unless some global government came about and I missed the memo.
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...
I'd say it's not very different from demonstrations and riots. While in most cases it's questionable - sometimes it's the only way to be noticed.
The pretense of accountability that is common in western nations is not adequate for me to believe there is a difference between the two. In practice there is zero accountability.
I'd say all parties involved are being assholes. But I am much more afraid of being on the wrong side of the government than anonymous. That tells me the government makes a better use of fear and intimidation and is therefore the bigger bully. Maybe anonymous would do the same if they could, but they can't.
As far as what is right, it's not right for people to be imprisoned for sharing copyrighted works. It's not right to DDOS someone's server. But I don't really wish to argue about which is less right.
No, the inequality of wealth has a reasonable effect on the level of social cohesion within a country. Obviously people are materially better off now than poor people were in the 1920s. You'd expect that. But it doesn't mean that the poor people today have the same opportunities (despite the best intentions of law makers) to progress in their lives as those who are raised in rich households.
I'm impressed: I couldn't squeeze that many fallacies into the same sentence if I tried. You're arguing that poor people aren't productive, and that the welfare state, with its progressive taxation, is "slavery"? You're really arguing that people who make millions would be less "productive" if taxed at a higher rate? If you're posting on Slashdot, it's exceedingly likely that you are not wealthy enough for our current plutocratic policies to work in your favor.
You illustrate my point perfectly: you've been convinced by the propaganda of the ultra-wealthy and their lapdogs to argue (and presumably, vote) against your own economic interests and damn our country in the process.
The pie is growing, but the wealthy are taking the vast majority of the increase:
The wealth disparity itself is a problem, but worse is the corrosive effect this wealth has on our political structure: those with money and influence are increasingly able to purchase government policies that further increase their share of the pie even at the expense of the total size of the pie. It's a positive feedback loop: more wealth leads to more power, and more power leads to greater wealth. This feedback is why I'm so dour about our prospects: the cycle seems impossible to break.
The little things we agitate about today: censorship, abuse of copyright, overzealous airport security, our foreign wars, the loss of our manufacturing jobs, are all caused by the increasing ability of the wealthy to pervert government to work in their favor. When power is concentrated in a few hands, the result is inevitably selfish exercise of that power and poor outcomes.
You cannot defend the inequality in wealth and/or income distribution by saying that all boats have risen. Maybe poor people have it slightly better off, but at the expense of rich people have it ridiculously better off.
It's also a myth that income is proportional to productivity. The market, via the participants, does not work rationally, nor appropriately in a ton of situations. The invisible hand is no match for irrational behavior of the masses, especially behavior instigated though advertising.
You may have been able to argue better for the market in the past, but when you have one group, producers, actively manipulating consumers, through the application of psychology and focus groups, you're going to end up with insane wealth inequalities.
The simple fact is that no person, regardless of any factor, should be able to and/or need to make more than, say, a million per year. it's DESPICABLE that one person could want and justify having so much wealth at the DIRECT expense of others, regardless of whether those others "deserve" it or not.
Simply put your an idiot for believing that more than a small group of people choose to be poor. For every millionaire there are 10 people who work twice as hard and yet live in poverty.
I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
I would not consider someone who makes $100 million/year trading oil on a commodities market to be a productive person. No value is added, only value extracted from a system.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57D3PQ20090814
The definition of "poor" is slowly encompassing more and more of the middle class in the US. I'd make sure you're on the right side when the pitchforks come out after the 21st century equivalent of "let them eat cake" occurs.
like, bush crowd, and their unwarranted laws, constitutional violations.
who is going to prosecute them ? supreme court ? THEY are the one appointing the supreme court justices.
like, bp oil spill. who is to prosecute them ? the senators who are their collaborators ? the administration which cooperated with them ?
what you say, is only naivete.
and, no, youre wrong, there isnt even the pretense of being accountable when it comes to putting somebody in jail or prison in the u.s.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/144656/%22we_can_make_him_disappear%22:_immigration_officials_are_holding_people_in_secret,_unmarked_jails
"If you don't have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he's illegal, we can make him disappear." Those chilling words were spoken by James Pendergraph, then executive director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Office of State and Local Coordination, at a conference of police and sheriffs in August 2008.
http://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-ice-castles
Read radical news here
dont talk about knowing jack shit.
standard of living and distribution of income are two irrelevant concepts.
standard of living changes with technology and times, and is not dependent on distribution of income.
currently, average american lives in far better standards than a medieval serf. but, s/he gets FAR less than the economy, than a mere medieval serf got in middle ages :
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
therefore, a medieval serf's standard of living, COMPARED to the max standard of living in middle ages, comes much higher than the standard of living of an average american, compared to the max standard of living currently.
you need to brush up on your statistics knowledge. the one which does not exist, that is.
Read radical news here
Really? How did the "Great Tumblr Takedown" go? Oh that's right, it backfired.
Y'know what? It may be called "out of line" by someone, but I'd say the O:P operations are the modern-day equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in, or Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.
We need more people doing this, not less.
And if it happened to YOU because someone doesn't agree with your opinion. No matter what the topic? Is it still ok?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
It was "illegal" for those who were participating in lunch counter sit-ins.
The point was, the law was wrong, not the people.
The same is true today. The problem is with the MafiAA types, not the people doing the protesting.
A DOS attack! That'll show 'em!
A bunch of internet vigilantes perform a Denial-of-Access-to-Information Attack in an attempt to get a court judgement in another country overturned in the vain hopes that the majority of people won't view them as little more than spoiled brat troublemakers ...
You know, MLK and his people braved fire-hoses, dogs and shotguns at close range.
The worst you guys have is running out of Mountain Dew and porn.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
Blame? Who said anything about blame? Moralizing and pointing fingers doesn't accomplish anything. I don't begrudge the rich for taking advantage of their access to the levers of power. Human nature is immutable.
Ideally, we'd align incentives so that actions taken in self interest benefit all. Unfortunately, we don't have that incentive structure today. If we want to remedy that situation, we need to convince or force those currently in power to be more egalitarian; it just so happens that the people in power today (as is usually the case) are the ultra-wealthy.
The little things we agitate about today: censorship, abuse of copyright, overzealous airport security, our foreign wars, the loss of our manufacturing jobs, are all caused by the increasing ability of the wealthy to pervert government to work in their favor. When power is concentrated in a few hands, the result is inevitably selfish exercise of that power and poor outcomes.
The problem seems more spread out than that to me. Consider the anti-Bush villainization, or the anti-Obama villainization now. Most people are still playing my-team vs your-team, and not really caring about the influence of the powerful on the government. If the influence of the powerful was the core problem, people would at least care about it. And actually they still have enough power to be able to do something about it if they wanted to. But nearly everybody is willing to mistreat other people in exchange for some apparent advantage for people more like themselves. Its not just the rich who are doing this, its most people. For example, the loss of manufacturing jobs is directly related to the way wall street profiteering dominates the economy. But try talking to any upper middle class people about our ethical responsibilities while investing and see how far you get. I'd give a similar example for lower middle class people, having to do with unreasonable collective bargaining demands or entitlements, but they don't really have that kind of power any more. They did have a hand in losing it though, and one can still see the same kind of selfish stupidity with public sector unions in many states.
I'm also optimistic that things can get better. A lot of things are a lot worse now than they ever were before, but a lot of things are better. I don't think what we've got now is worse than Jim Crow. And its not as if we lack the power to break the cycle. Wealth stops being power if people stop being willing to be bought.
a guillotine worked for the french
Y'know what? It may be called "out of line" by someone, but I'd say the O:P operations are the modern-day equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in, or Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat.
Not even close. This is more a bunch of babies pissed they missed nap time, then any sort of civil disobedience ala Rosa Parks/MLK.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This is a very dangerous kettle of fish that is being passed around here. I really don't want to reach my hand in, but here it goes anyway.
The previous poster about FDR (being a crook) is absolutely correct. Even a cursory examination of the impacts of his political policies during the depression reveals that unemployment skyrocketed after the formation of the new deal, and that living conditions took serious turns for the worse. Further, he enacted the atrocity that is the federal reserve bank, against the bitter pleas of more sensible men at the time, due to strong influences from foreign powers. (The run-away inflationary cycle of which is what is at least partially responsible for the banking failures of the past few years.) In addition, he created an executive order that seized all privately held gold, and transferred it to government coffers to back the new deal.
The multitudes of destitute people made for a very willing public, eager to be saved from the outcome of their own panic. (the 1930s bank crash resulted from panicked crowds making runs on banks. The natural way that banks make money is by lending more than they have in the vault, and depending upon interest payments for the returns on investment. If everyone makes a run on the bank, the bank will be caught with its britches down, and default on its extended credit. At the time there was no protecting agencies like the FDIC, since there was no national reserve bank. [yes, I called it an atrocity, I'll get to that later.] Because of this the banks of the era HAD to be more sensible in their loaning practices. Despite this, the bank scare caught them at a disadvantage, So, as a matter of consequence, the bank and loan industry crumbled under its own debts, resulting in a massive deflationary spiral, leaving millions unemployed, and many more homeless as people with mortgages got foreclosed on by banks desperate to pay off their debts to remain solvent. Essentially, a substantial amount of the currency that was PREVIOUSLY in circulation, was now stuffed into wealthy people's mattresses. As such, there was a dramatic currency shortage. (Deflation.)
These people were desperate, and would have eagerly accepted a deal from the devil himself. They got pretty much that with FDR and his new deal.
The federal reserve bank.
This new agency had been tried before. It was successfully eliminated by Andrew Jackson, under the incarnation of the "Central Bank". Andrew Jackson is the ONLY president in the history of the united states to pay off the national debt, by halting all deficit spending, paying off it's debts, and dissolving the bank's charter to make more loans. This prior president had some rather choice words to say about it in fact.
** ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."
"The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government
**
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves."
**
"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."
-- amongst others.
So then-- What is the federal reserve bank, and what does it do?
The federal reserve bank codifies lending practices (in general a good thing), but by design creates exponential inflati
Since when is agressive attack equivelent to non-vilent protest? You seem to be quite confused about the methods used in those events, or confused by what a DDoS attack is.
What would be similar is if a bunch of individuals quietly sat down in the lobby of the IFPI and simply refused to move. Attacking them is the opposite of what Rosa Parks or the Greensboro 4 did.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
themselves the curtain of non-violent protests
It is a non-violent protest, though.
but it's still an act of agression
Alternate suggestions? The government is practically bowing down to rich corporations. What are some ways that you could get the government to listen to you without being 'aggressive' over extremely rich corporations? They may not be doing much, but at least it's something.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How are they wrong? Is it because they're taking action (even what little action they are doing counts) against a corrupt government? Just because something is illegal that doesn't mean it's wrong. There may be no other choice at this point.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I think it's more the equivilent of another protest tradition: The sit-in deliberatly in front of a doorway. It's non-violent, but intended to cause disruption to business.
They really hurt the church of scientology. The DDoS itsself inconvenienced them and no more, but the publicity around it, the digg-spamming, the subsequent interest the media took... the church's reputation was the real target, and it took a hit so hard they have had to step up their recruitment operations in third-world countries now in order to find people who don't just walk away at the mention of their name.
I'll grant that they are breaking the law, but they are doing it to protest that the law is unjust.
If you don't like their approach, suggest an alternative, that has any chance of success. (And define success.)
I don't like what they're doing, but I dislike it less than I dislike the corrupt legal systems that they are protesting. (OTOH, let's not be confused. It's just a protest. It's not anything that's very effective.)
The "effective" measures that I can think of are all much more illegal, and all require a much higher level of commitment. Things like assassinating all the janitors and secretaries that work for the company. One a day. So replacing them gets to be so expensive that it can't be done, but they can't be given 24-hour guard because there are too many targets. That has the potential of being effective, but I don't think group of people is so committed that they would do it.
Were they to do as the above paragraph suggests, then one could reasonably argue that they were doing wrong, rather than merely acting illegally. But if they were so committed that they would carry out those acts, then I doubt that they would pay any attention to your evaluation of their moral worth. (Actually, I doubt that anyway. *I* certainly consider it a mere assertion without any backing argument.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Rather than trying to crash the server, Anonymous should be building a targeted spider of all the sites related to the offender. These sites should be carefully and constantly farmed of their content with due care to make sure the site isn't ever actually brought down.
So instead of a DOS, you levy a TAX. Yes, tax the site, as in "that was a very taxing experience".
There are several important results of TAXing a site.
(1) bandwidth charges go up, so there is TAXing and taxing both.
(2) You are never really stepping over the line legally because you didn't "interfere" with their business.
(3) You have an affront-in-depth because you can TAX the core site, and all the accomplice sites. So not just IPFI but Sony Music, and all thier ilk.
(4) The each TAX collector gets the best use of their action.
(5) you are likely wearing out the gear a little too.
So, to use the physical analogy, take all your sit-in participants and, instead of "blocking the door" you make a velvet rope maze of sitters that complicit actors would have to navigate.
Think of it this way... If you block the door to a bank you will get rousted by the man. If you get 1000 people to go to the bank, stand quietly in line, and when they reach the teller have them perform a cash-only or information-only transaction (e.g. "can I get change for a ten?" "I need to check my balance.") Go get a brochure, read it, then go ask a question in person or on the toll-free number like "This says the interest rate is good for six months. Does that start on the day I open an account, the end of the month I open the account, or the start of the month I open the account?", get the answer, thank the support guy and hang up.
So sure, fill out forms; File polite inquiries, visit their sponsors and members; fill out forms and file polite inquiries.
If brochures are available, ask for one. Recommend they contact a friend. Recommend they contact an enemy. Ask for more information by every possible venue to every reasonable destination.
Get their site to _vomit_ _up_ as much bandwidth and postage. Buy one share. Get the actual share certificate printed up and mailed to you. Then sell the share to your friend for a loss. Make sure he gets his share certificate as well. Buy his share for a loss on the same day and get your new certificate. (best done in a bg circle not just two guys. 8-)
A reject connect attempt is cheap compared to actually fetching a web page or sending out an email that was composed by a support-desk guy, or even a support desk automation.
Find business reply coupons and _use_ them.
At first it isn't as splashy, but you know what, when they run to their government buddies and whine "but they are using our free services exactly as offered" their buddies will probably laugh.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press