Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News

RIAA Smacked by DoS 931

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the gonna-get-messy-before-it-gets-clean dept.
nekid writes "ZDNet is reporting that the RIAA's website was hit by a denial-of-service (DoS) attack over the weekend, most likely in response to their endorsement of legislation that would give them permission to do the same to personal computers that are pirating music (see earlier article). Seems to me that they are killing themselves with bad public relations..." But it seems to me that they don't care, and are instead banking on the ignorance of the bulk of the world.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Smacked by DoS

Comments Filter:
  • hahahahah (Score:4, Funny)

    by hether (101201) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:47AM (#3978330)
    Too funny. Someone's been reading user friendly and decided to fight back perhaps?
  • Great job... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drizzten (459420) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:47AM (#3978333) Homepage
    Give the media and the average American more reason to think the people the RIAA are against are little more than immature "hackers."
    • Re:Great job... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Phinn (110985) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:50PM (#3979416)
      "...and the average American..."

      Okay, I have to rant here because I'm sick of seeing this kind of language.

      Who is the "average American"? What does the "average American" do with his/her time? Watch TV, read magazines, newspapers and books, work, eat, shit? Sounds like things the "average slashdotter" does. Slashdot readers are as average as all the other residents of this country. But because we use Linux and care about what organizations like the RIAA and MPAA are doing, we somehow feel as though we are above "average".

      All of us are considered average by somebody. By the naturalist in Montana trying to preserve his favorite trout fishing streams, the surfer working to preserve the the worlds reefs, the forest fire fighter working to prevent forest fires and the corporation trying to understand consumer purchasing patterns. There are so many issues and so much information out there that a person can only focus on limited number of issues. Those that choose not to are not average, they are merely uneducated.

      Viewing people as a commodity really pisses me off, and the phrase "average American" does exactly that. So I ask you and the rest of the slashdot community to please clarify your definition of the phrase "average American."
  • Mature (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FortKnox (169099) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:47AM (#3978335) Homepage Journal
    Yup, the best way to convince a large corporation/government office/anyone over the age of 20, is to act like a child.

    Immaturity like this only HARMS what we are trying to do.

    Grow up kids.
    • Re:Mature (Score:5, Insightful)

      by unformed (225214) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:56AM (#3978428)
      Immaturity like this only HARMS what we are trying to do.

      Grow up kids.


      That's right; the adult way to convince corporation/government office/anyone over the age of 20, is with green things.

      And no, I'm not talking about grass.
      • Re:Mature (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FortKnox (169099) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:59AM (#3978474) Homepage Journal
        My point was, there are MATURE ways of combating the legislation. Write letters to your congressman. Using "mob rule" strategies will just make it worse (they'll go against congress with a "see? This is what we are trying to stop!" attitude, and congress will agree).

        Hacking someone that's using hacking as a stepping stone to circumvent laws is just plain stupid.
        • Re:Mature (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Is it? The DMCA was passed along despite all of the letter campaigns written against it. Granted, attacking the RIAA website doesn't really do much to further their cause, I'll agree on the stupidity of that. But considering that they're all pushing to engage in some sort of vigilante justice against all P2P networks with their current attempts at legislation, is it so wrong that private citizens, whose opinions and rights in the U.S. are being thrown out the window at a steady rate, do everything they can to bring attention to their views?
        • This kind of thing, short of FLYING over to their HQ and having a sit in, is the only means you have of expressing yourself.

        • Pot vs. Kettle (Score:4, Insightful)

          by PhxBlue (562201) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:00PM (#3979030) Homepage Journal

          (they'll go against congress with a "see? This is what we are trying to stop!" attitude, and congress will agree).

          No. . . this is what the RIAA was attempting to legalize, albeit only for their own benefit. If they can't take what they want to dish out, maybe they should reconsider their attempt at legislation.

        • by gnugnugnu (178215) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:21PM (#3979181) Homepage
          from http://www.vigilante.com/inetsecurity/hacktivism_1 .htm

          There is an important corresponding technical dimension that reinforces hacktivist claims of populist support. Hacktivist DoS attacks must be executed using client side or individual browser based tools. The prototypical Zapatista Floodnet tool, (which other groups have continued to develop) requires downloading and installing a Java applet. Moreover, these tools need to be consciously scheduled and aimed at a specific web address; actions that presumably demonstrate solidarity and commitment. To some hacktivists this distinction is all-important because it differentiates their activities from the nihilistic and anonymous February DDoS attacks on the CNN, Yahoo, and eBay e-commerce sites. During those assaults, allegedly orchestrated by "mafiaboy" and a few other apolitical participants, DoS "zombie" servers were surreptitiously placed on unwary host systems and triggered en masse. In fact, the utility programs used for swarming attacks, rooted in performance art, are far less powerful than hardcore "smurfing" weapons like Trin00, Stachaldraht and TFN2K.

          Flood attacks can be used as a useful form of civil disobedience if used correctly in a *focussed and organised* way.
      • That's right; the adult way to convince corporation/government office/anyone over the age of 20, is with green things.

        And no, I'm not talking about grass.


        Yup. As well as convincing the govt., a lot of good ol' Mary Jane would be able to convince me of pretty much anything too ;)

        ... assuming of course that by "grass" you're talking about the stuff that grows on your lawn...

        --
        Garett

    • How about acting like a "criminal." I'm sure that Andovernet would prosecute anyone who DOS'd ./ over a political disagreement. These DOS attacks are not justice, nor should the slashdot editorial staff take show immature and irresponsible sympathy to the culprits.
    • Re:Mature (Score:3, Interesting)

      If anything good comes of this, it will be the publicity. Let's hope an intelligent columnist clues into what's really going on and lets the general public know about it.
    • Re:Mature (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lightcycler (587416) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:13AM (#3978639)
      "Immaturity like this only HARMS what we are trying to do."

      WTF? The music industry just started illegally interfering with computer networks to the detriment of others (hacking, to misuse that word), and people complain that a DDOS on their website is immature?

      As immature perhaps, as spending millions in congress to disrupt others' computers, before sarcastically quipping "at least they've stopped stealing for 10 minutes" when someone does the same back to them?

      Bring it on. The more this group's website gets attacked, the happier I'll feel laughing at them. They want to legalise hacking? Let's show people what it will mean in practise.

      Need I remind anyone here that individuals are copyright-holders too?

    • Re:Mature (Score:5, Funny)

      by capt.Hij (318203) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:31AM (#3978790) Homepage Journal
      Perhaps the folks who did this have reason to believe that the servers held some of their copyrighted material? As long as you have a reasonable suspicion you should be able to just start kicking ass, right??
    • I mean if *we* could afford to bribe politicians, we would... Hopefully these clowns won't be re-elected, hopefully people will boycott the RIAA and the MPAA so they cant use our own money against us, but all that stuff takes time.

      What the DOS attack on the RIAA is saying is, "This is our sandbox, if you're gonna piss in it we've got bigger dicks and more of them."

      The RIAA isn't playing fair, they've never played fair, not to their artists (capturing all distribution channels and then paying artists dirt), not to their consumers (price fixing), and not now by wanting to DOS their customers off the net (customers dont want to pay 18 - 22$ for a cd full of CRAP, so they don't -- mp3s are price competition in a monopoly market) -- Thus the subject of the post, shitty response to shitty problem :)
  • Great... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brad-x (566807)
    Certainly not the most constructive of things to be doing to an organisation that already wants to paint internet users as miscreants, largely. One wonders if they'll approach Congress and call it an act of anti-captitalist terrorism ... :P Funny though. :)
  • and why not? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WildBeast (189336) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:48AM (#3978339) Journal
    If the RIAA is allowed to do a DoS attack, I don't see why individuals should be forbidden to do so.

    In short: No one should be able to legally commit such a crime.
    • Re:and why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Amarok.Org (514102) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:54AM (#3978403)
      If the RIAA is allowed to do a DoS attack, I don't see why individuals should be forbidden to do so
      Because it's illegal, that's why.

      The RIAA isn't allowed to, either. They're supporting legislation which would allow them to, but it's not currently legal.

      The way to make a concinvincing case against legalizing a certain activity is NOT to commit that crime yourself.
      My $.02.
      • by parliboy (233658) <`parliboy' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:03AM (#3978542) Homepage
        "The way to make a concinvincing case against legalizing a certain activity is NOT to commit that crime yourself."

        This prohibition amendment that they ratified is really horrible! I know; if we want to get it repealed, we'll demonstrate the futility of it by not drinking. That'll get their attention!

      • by DeltaSigma (583342) <onu.public@g m a i l . com> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:22AM (#3978728) Journal
        But the RIAA might be in for some trouble if the bill is passed.

        Think about it: The RIAA has (and still does) sell works created by independant copyright owners. They don't keep perfect track of their signings with artists and are, sometimes, selling records which they don't hold the copyright to. Artists have come forth in the courts and said this.

        Given that this is the case, an artist can give a group (in this case the public at large) permission to attack any server network participating in the distribution of their copyrighted works. This is not limited to riaa.org. If CDNow.com is selling the CD that the RIAA is distributing illegally they're open to attack too. I mean, just look at how loose the wording is:

        "...use of technologies to prevent infringement of copyrighted works on peer-to-peer computer networks"

        Translation: any copyright owner can technologically attack anyone infringing upon their copyrights as long as the target of their attack can be described as a "peer-to-peer computer network."

        Besides that, the RIAA is acting no less childish than the people that DoS'ed them. Their current actions in regards to this legislation are equivelant to signing onto a Cult of the Dead Cows message board and proclaiming a hacker war. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not you can't expect them to just sit there and take whatever you throw at them.

        It's childish to declare a hacker war.

        It's foolish to declare a war on all hackers.

        It's pure ignorance to believe you can win.
      • Bullpuckey (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FreeUser (11483)
        If the RIAA is allowed to do a DoS attack, I don't see why individuals should be forbidden to do so

        Because it's illegal, that's why.


        Bullshit.

        If a crime of aggression (ie. attack or subversion, physical or informational) is 'legalized' for a special group, but illegalized for another group, there is nothing ethically wrong with the attacked group fighting back using the same means, regardless of what the law might say.

        To take an extreme, but historically accurate, example of the same sort of thing, if it is illegal for a black man to shoot a white man, yet legal for a white man to shoot a black man, there is nothing ethically wrong with the affected black man in question defending himself and his family from his attackers, and most certainly not if he is using the same means they are using (projectile weapons in this case), regardless of what some corrupt and morally bankrupt laws might say.

        The only real difference in these two cases (cyberattacks allowed by one group against another, but not visa versa, and physical attacks allowed by one group against another, but not visa versa) is the magnitude of atrocity (vastly greater in the second instance), and the fact that, at one time in the United States, the second instance was in fact actually the law at one time, while the first example (cyber DoS attacks) have not (yet) ever been legalized for one group over another.

        However, should DoS attacks by media cartels be legalized, there will be absolutely nothing ethically wrong with those attacked retaliating in kind. Indeed, the ethical breakdown appears to be almost entirely on the side of the copyright cartels, who have just been given a taste of things to come if these foolish laws should be passed.

        I will not participate in such activities, but I will excercize my dwindling freedom of speech to openly cheer those who do.
    • A couple reasons:

      a) The bill hasn't passed yet. At present time they are not allowed to DOS anyone.

      b) They haven't DOS'd anyone to date AFAIK.

      c) When they are allowed if you really want to play "an eye for an eye..." then, by your own standards, you have no right to DOS them unless they DOS you and you can prove it.

      d) IMO two wrongs don't make a right. There's a better way to fight. But this one is entirely subjective and I expect many to disagree.

      --
      Garett
      • Re:and why not? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by John_Booty (149925)
        c) When they are allowed if you really want to play "an eye for an eye..." then, by your own standards, you have no right to DOS them unless they DOS you and you can prove it.

        "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

        While the RIAA DOS'ing people's networks isn't nearly as dramatic or awful as the scenarios described in this quote, I think it's the same principle.
    • Because the RIAA bought^H^H^H^H^H^Hlobbied for a legislative exception (ok, the bill has not actually been signed into law, yet). If an individual wants to do a DoS, he should simply lobby Congress for a similar exception beforehand.

      Cheers,
      Slak
      • The exception was for copyright owners. It makes no reference to "licenses", so presuambly any copyright owner can attack you if you're on the Internet and have one of their files available.

        Much of the Open Source-ish software is copyrighted by individuals. Under the bill as written, they'd have every right to DoS or otherwise attack the RIAA if the RIAA was distributing their files.

        The only thing is - the RIAA would drastically inflate their damages, and would crush the person. That's still legal (in as much as bribing congressfolk is currently legal).
  • by reaper20 (23396) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:48AM (#3978340) Homepage
    Everyonce in a while they make us all grin from ear to ear.
    • It might be mildly entertaining to see a pain in the ass entity like the RIAA get smacked by script kiddies. However, all this is going to do is cause the RIAA to say "SEE told ya so". The RIAA wants to make all internet users into criminals that must be monitored closely or else they will go about stealing things.

      So now we have to deal with the fact that the RIAA has PROOF that "internet users are evil".
      • There's no doubt in my mind that you are correct, this doesn't help any internet users one bit ... but I'm sure this idea has crossed all our minds a few times, it's good for a laugh I guess.

        Now someone with a dremel, blowtorch, and a chainsaw in the RIAA server room ... that's a good time for everybody... :)
      • They will do that but the thing is it will continue.

        This is a lot like terrorism on a much less lethal level.

        Terrorists are wrong to kill people. But sometimes governments realize that the only way to stop the terrorists is to listen to them and change some things. The governments come to the conclusion that compromise is better than fighting. (I've been thinking about this a lot w/all the documentaries PBS ran on Northern Ireland recently)

        There is such a widespread unhappiness w/the RIAA that it doesn't matter what they do. As long as they continue to mistreat their customers they will get hammered.

        Quite frankly they need to get over the 'wrong and right' of the issue and deal with the reality. The true irony is the only reason the record companies are trying to take the moral high ground is because they don't like the reality of the situation (they can no longer control the content the way they want). If they could profit by stealing themselves (I know they already do) they would.

        I do not steal copy righted music, I don't buy CDs either. And I wont ddos their site- but you wont see this kind of thing stop until they back off

        .
      • It might be mildly entertaining to see a pain in the ass entity like the RIAA get smacked by script kiddies. However, all this is going to do is cause the RIAA to say "SEE told ya so."

        It's not an "I told you so," it's a "See! This is what we want to have legalized for us and not for them."

        They want this tool to only be in their arsenal and no one elses.
  • Karma (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by steveeq2 (148816)
    RIAA has bad karma. What goes around, comes around.

    They deserve it.
    • I much prefer this sort of real life karma to the inane imaginary sort that limits and extinguishes discussion on certain weblogs.
  • BWAHAHAHAHA (Score:4, Funny)

    by bgarcia (33222) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:48AM (#3978342) Homepage Journal
    ZDNet is reporting that the RIAA's website was hit by a denial-of-service (DoS) attack...
    And if *that* doesn't make them think twice, we'll set them up for a good slashdotting, eh CmdrTaco?
  • Fritz (Score:2, Funny)

    Whats next? Somebody going to steal Fritz Hollings credit card numbers?

    PS: Note to FBI - It wasn't me!
  • sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tps12 (105590)
    That'll teach those bastards. I'm going to start copy protecting my CD's, too. Two can play at this game.
  • by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:49AM (#3978352) Homepage
    The DoS'ers were obviously trying to prevent the RIAA from distributing material copyrighted by the DoS'ers. Namely DoS software.
  • Userfriendly (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sobrique (543255) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:49AM (#3978356) Homepage
    Userfriendly link [userfriendly.org] for those who didn't see it :)
    A tragic irony isn't it?
    I wonder if we can start a campaign to keep the RIAA DoSed off the net. Not that I'd ever condone such a thing, but there are times when a little net abuse is so poetic.
  • Not intended to be a flame, but how many folks actually access their site? Quite a few people condemn their actions, but when was the last time you clicked your way to www.riaa.com ?
  • Dear Taco, (Score:5, Funny)

    by liquidsin (398151) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:50AM (#3978361) Homepage
    Thank you for posting that helpful link to the RIAA website [riaa.org]. This is a pressing issue, and as such, I urge everyone to go immediately to this [riaa.org] website and show your support. Now, more than ever, the RIAA [riaa.org] needs our love. So everyone, stop hammering the SSH site and give the RIAA [riaa.org] the affection they so sorely need.
  • ...only give the other side more ammunition.
  • Hmmmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by tickleboy2 (548566) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:51AM (#3978372) Homepage
    "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."

    Apparently the RIAA hasn't heard of this cool technology called "multitasking". :-)
    • Or, as someone pointed out above, scripting languages. I wonder if Ms. Rosen can be replaced by a small shell script, hopefully with STDOUT and STDERR both redirected to /dev/null?
  • I can't wait until the RIAA's computers are taken down for violating a person's copyright.

    Then they will claim the law is outragious.

    They just got a small taste.

  • by johnlcallaway (165670) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:52AM (#3978384)
    "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music." -- unnamed RIAA representative
    What an idiotic thing to say. I do all my music stealing using automated scripts, I don't have to lift a finger.

    Obviously the RIAA rep is not very tech savy. Of course, since their site was DoS'd, I would have to say that about the whole organization.
  • A safe bet... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thewheel (92774)

    But it seems to me that they don't care,
    and are instead banking on the ignorance
    of the bulk of the world.
    Unfortunately, this is a pretty safe bet to take.
  • "But it seems to me that they don't care, and are instead banking on the ignorance of the bulk of the world."

    Exactly, they believe most people are stupid. They are, in essence, flipping the bird at every single citizen of every country they operate in.

    Glad they care about their customers!

    • Glad they care about their customers!
      The RIAA's customers are the record companies, not the general public at large.
  • bad publicity... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bje2 (533276) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:54AM (#3978407)
    wow, didn't they get enough publicity when this story [slashdot.org] was announced last week...i'm not saying they should have ignored this DOS attack, but it seems to me the RIAA rep had a little too much attitude with quotes like "Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" and especially "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."...talk about antogonizing the masses...couldn't they comment on this story without being blatantly condescending and arrogant???

    on the good side, maybe the link to the RIAA website [riaa.com] with this story will slashdot their site and bring it down again....
  • Did it happen? (Score:2, Insightful)

    The article cites no source for the information, besides the RIAA itself. Can we be sure that it actually happened, and wasn't just a way for the RIAA to make themselves look like the victim in this whole situation?

    "Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."

    That's certainly a nice way to deflect the issue. It's like a mantra with these guys!

    " On Thursday, the RIAA endorsed a bill written by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., that would authorize copyright holders to begin "blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing" peer-to-peer networks.

    RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."


    Call me a skeptic, but that reads a whole lot more like a "Hey, those guys are bad, so side with us" thing than anything else. While I trust in the immaturity of script kiddies, I'm not convinced that this attack even happened. If it did, though...well...come on guys, this isn't helping us any.
  • by dknj (441802) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:57AM (#3978450) Journal
    Please please please tell me this is faked [netcraft.com]

    -dk
    • I quote (Score:3, Funny)

      by Srin Tuar (147269)
      Its at least somewhat accurate:

      No uptime is currently available for www.riaa.com.

      Sounds like netcraft is right on, afaict.

  • by Viewsonic (584922) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @10:58AM (#3978465)
    If the RIAA downloads illegal MP3s, even to check to see if they're legit illegal copies, this in turn opens THEM of for legit DoS attacks. The person in question that is doing the "checking" for the RIAA better own the right to every single MP3 he downloads. They're going to need to have the artists themselves sit at the cpus and do the DoS's for this to even be legal, it can't be based around "trust". Quite an evil little repurcussion .. If this goes live, it will effectively DESTROY the RIAA.
  • Here's the right way to do this:

    1) Wait until this insane law passes
    2) Set up a webpage with a lot of "warez" & "mp3z" stuff on it. (Don't forget to include the popups!)
    3) As content, however, include only songs for which you own the copyrights. Name the files to look like popular songs for which you do not own the copyright.
    4) Log everyone who downloads those files and wait until someone from riaa.com downloads one.
    5) Follow all the procedures laid out in the law for launching a DoS attack and do so.
    6) Issue a press release. Get as much publicity as you can. "I hacked the RIAA website and it was COMPLETELY LEGAL!" etc...


  • Gee, the RIAA website is SOOOO important. Ever been to it? Taking down their website does not hurt them, because it's only provided as a marketing angle, it will in NO way hurt their business (like DoS'ing Amazon for example).

  • by PK_ERTW (538588) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:00AM (#3978491)
    "Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."

    "Doesn't the RIAA have anything better to do than hacking into my website?" asked a pimply 15-year old who asked to be called "H@ckeR d00d." "perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from fucking over artists."

  • "Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack the P2P servers?" asked the hacker representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from their stealing money."

    Geez, It's like listening to a bunch of children, eh?
  • And in the other news: the US is setting up road blocks on all remaining functional roads in Afghanistan. All 5 road blocks have being successful at not letting any Usama Bin Laden followers in or out of the country. It is not clear though whether the road blocks were successful or whether terrorists have being unlawfully and actively avoiding the road blocks by taking alternative mountine and underground paths.
  • voluntary dos (Score:5, Interesting)

    by drDugan (219551) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:01AM (#3978511) Homepage

    #!/usr/bin/perl

    while (1){

    `wget "http://www.riaa.com" -nc -r -l 0 -k -nH -o /dev/null -O /dev/null`;

    }

    # one of many many ways to do this...

    • by Anonymous Coward
      add this:
      --user-agent="MSIE/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)" --execute="http_proxy=xxxx:zzzz"

      where xxxx:yyyy is the IP:port of a HIGH ANONYMITY web proxy, which you can get from one of several online lists, such as:
      http://www.stayinvisible.com/page1.html
      http:// www.atomintersoft.com/products/alive-proxy/ proxy-list/
      etc. :)
  • by Sanity (1431) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:02AM (#3978518) Homepage Journal
    The RIAA doesn't care about public relations, their whole purpose is to take the heat and protect the brand names of the companies behind them such as Sony and EMI.

    Arguing that bad PR will make the RIAA think twice about doing something is like arguing that a fish won't want to get wet.

  • .. they will probably get 'owned' by some cracker in another part of the world where they have no jurisdiction.

    Things like the DCMS, RIAA, MPAA, all piss of the cracker community and the hacker community. (Hmm notice they are all 4 letter words .. guess they must be bad words ).

    To me the DCMA says if you buy this then you don't really own it. I own my redhat cdrom. I can make copies of it and modify it. I can't legally do that in the US according to the above mentioned 4 letter words. That's why I use open source case MS and all the other MS vendors do that crap too.

  • Is when Mrs. Rosen said: "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."

    Oh, right, this isn't a new law granting vigilante powers to big media, it's a clarification of existing law! The laws already on the books meant to put enforcement of the law into the hands of the RIAA, it just wasn't worded clearly.

    That's damn hilarious, but also sad, because she gets to have her insane comment quoted in a serious context. If the next line of the article was "A passing rational human was quoted as saying: 'Clarification of existing law? What the hell is she smoking?'" then we might have some balance. Oh well.
  • On Thursday, the RIAA endorsed a bill written by Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., that would authorize copyright holders to begin "blocking, diverting or otherwise impairing" peer-to-peer networks. RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy."

    What about all of the programmers who actually take the time and effort to establish worldwide networks where people can directly share information? Who is the RIAA to decide which person's effort is worth more?
  • by (void*) (113680) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:04AM (#3978551)
    Whether the RIAA site was truly DDoS'ed or not was not the point. The point is: it is now. THIS WAS THE EVIL PLAN!
  • by suwain_2 (260792) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:09AM (#3978608) Journal
    Not that I'd condone it, but the ultimate hack (or crack) would be rooting the RIAA servers and using them to host a very large MP3 collection, complete with a gnutella client to share them with the world.
  • by NetRanger (5584) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:15AM (#3978653) Homepage
    November, 2002 WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- In a massive Denial-of-Re-election (DOR) attack, Mr. Bermen, Mr. Hollings, and all the other RIAA-linked Congressmen have been apparently booted offline by a massive surge of votes for the opponents.

    The attack has been described as a write-in vote for an unidentified third party candidate known only as "CowboyNeal". No information upon the identity of this third party candidate are yet known.
  • by zoombat (513570) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:23AM (#3978730)
    I was about to defend the act.. because really, what are they supposed to do to prevent a distributed network of thousands of users from illegally trading copyrighted files?? They can't really take them all to court...

    I like that the bill requires them to NOTIFY the Attorney General before they do anything... I don't like that they don't have to wait for approval.

    So I started to think... "How would I feel if I was faced with 1000's of people scattered covertly across the country violating my rights?" Then I realized that I do... SPAMers. Sure, if I had the time, money, and expertise, I could take them each to court. But the reality is that even if I get SPAM, the best I can do is report the SPAMer to their ISP and hope they're not SPAM-friendly and will shut the account/network connection down.

    So either they should allow us to DoS or hack SPAMers' computers, or they should require the RIAA or whomever to get ISPs to shut down illegal file sharing internet connections.. just like the rest of us.

    • by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @12:53PM (#3979456) Homepage Journal
      because really, what are they supposed to do to prevent a distributed network of thousands.... So I started to think... "How would I feel if ... Then I realized that I do... SPAMers. Sure, if I had the time, money, and expertise, I could take them each to court.

      Yep, it's too much trouble to go after the ones actually causing the "problem".

      Therefore, you'd put pressure on the creators of all email client software to check for a special cryptographic signature/watermark in every message, so that only "authorized" messages could be received and read?

      When _all_ of authors those authors refuse, or at least take a "let's think this through carefully" approach, you'd use your lobby with congress to fast-track legislation to mandate these "security" measures in all "devices" devices capable of touching email in any way? You'd press as hard as possible, with zero regard for what impact it might have for email in general for everybody else.

      You wouldn't stop there, you'd also get is worked into "open" standard, such as DVD-R, IDE (ATA-6) hard drives, flash memory modules, etc, so that it would be impossible to use the actual storage devices to store spam messages?

      Maybe somewhere along the way, you'd lobby for a tax on all transport of messages (aka sales of blank recordable media), on the assumption that much of is it used for inappropriate spam despite the security measures?

      And to top it all off, failing all these other approachs, you'd lobby for vigilante justice, so you could send your thugs directly to the homes/operations of those spammers to shut them down (no due process, little to zero liability for yourself for making mistakes).

      What next? Forced spying on users to see what they're doing (Replay4000 case, admittedly the movie studios, not the RIAA) ???

  • by dkroells (68413) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:27AM (#3978765) Homepage
    In all of this law making, the RIAA has not realized a few basic facts. Most of these are relative to me, but I'm sure I'm not alone:

    1. When Napster was big, I purchased 75-100 CDs in two years and enjoyed about 80% of them. Since then, I have purchased about 10 CDs and enjoyed about 20% of them. I would rather gamble $15 on a blackjack table then buy a $15 CD when I have only heard one song I like on it.

    2. I don't own a plain-old CD player. I have a MP3-CD player, a laptop, and a desktop. If I can't listen to or convert the CD I won't buy it.

    3. I'm not a fan of the MPAA either, but which would you rather purchase: A soundtrack CD of a given movie for $17.99 or the DVD of the same movie for $14.99? To me, a music CD is worth about $8, and at least 25% of that should go to the people who actually created those sounds(artists, songwriters).

    4. I don't believe the DoS on the RIAA last weekend was necessary, but it will be a preview of what will happen if that new law passes. (Just a prediction)

    5. What ever happened to "The customer is always right"? All of this copy-protection, "everyone is stealing our music", "we need tougher laws" stuff can't possibly be in the consumer's best interest. Sounds to me that they are trying to maintain a monopoly. (Hmmm... now where have I seen this before?)

    Anyway, I dig into my current music collection, books, magazines, and a few select internet sites for my media these days. I've just about had enough. Everything in this post is my opinion based on some facts and is probably in need of some correction. Have a nice day.
    • Motion Seconded (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mulletproof (513805)
      Is everything looking like a nail to you, cuz you're sure hitting them on the head...

      I agree with damn near every point you bring up. I got tired of paying premium for a song with one hit and the rest filler. I got tired of using the same ol 20 per track CD format when I could have 100's of songs of nearly the same quality on one disk and I got tired of the labels raping you on every purchase.

      And since you brought it up, I'll pose an interesting question, using myself as an example, though it'd apply to anybody. It's generally accepted that if you own the copywrited material, you can make as many copies as you want for personal use, right? So let's say I buy a DVD (as per parent's supposition). Tomb Raider. It obviously has the same music that the audio CD will come out with. Some DVD even have a seperate option to listen to the soundtrack seperately. Now, especially in the latter case, don't I own the rights to the content of the DVD (keeping the studios EULA in mind), including all features, music and "bonus material"? And since I now effectively own the soundtrack on the DVD, in many cases the same music, I shouldn't be violating any clause prohibting "illegle use". One copy is as good as another, right?
      That's where the fun begins >:)

      As to customer service, that only flies with companies who care. Most of the labels have proven they are nothing more than parasites. And the DoS? Heh. You could see that one happening 50 miles out. If they are going to use an easily availible "script kiddie" hacker tool to deny service, then they should have seen the consequences. I mean really. But then, maybe this is what they were hoping for... (Cue Twilight Zone music). Can we now associate illegle music downloads with "hackers"!? OMG!! Ahem. Either way they're idiots.
  • by zaren (204877) <holdthis@mail.com> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:38AM (#3978844) Homepage Journal
    From riaa.com's "What is Piracy" [riaa.com] pages:

    "4. Online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isn't resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of "streaming" technologies from the Internet."

    Sorry, did I miss a memo? When was streaming declared illegal? Shouldn't someone notify Apple and Real that thier streaming server software is facilitating illegal activities?
  • by Ixe (547791) <ixe.quant@us> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @11:39AM (#3978853) Homepage Journal
    .... yeah call it immature, call it childish, call it hacker, call it what you want.......but man I would've loved to do it myself...we're all just too legal to get into trouble annoying someone even if they deserve it.

    Give the lil script kiddies a break, they were just venting all of our frustration for us.


    "Wasn't me! Don't sue me!" (but I'm enjoying watching)
  • by jafuser (112236) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @01:22PM (#3979677)
    If this bill passes, I think it's time to officially declare this government a plutocracy [freespeech.org].

    "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." -- Robert Heinlein

    "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

    "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

    ""I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson 1812

    "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." --Abraham Lincoln 1865

    The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." --President Franklin D. Roosevelt

    "The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It's unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it's undesirable -- if they see too much of reality they may set themselves to change it." --Noam Chomsky

  • Very interesting [riaa.com] spin they put on here: If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

    Here: RIAA does not represent artists directly but we do work on behalf of such artists' rights as freedom of speech and the right to control your own music.

    Here: When asked, most consumers describe CDs as a good value. ...the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music.

    My Favorite FAQ:
    What is the RIAA? The RIAA is a membership organization. Our members are record labels who pay membership dues to have the RIAA represent them on different issues. This includes everything from speaking out in support of free speech -- and against attempts to pass legislation to censor music, to traveling the world in support of free trade, to defending artists and record labels from pirates who sell and distribute fake copies of their music. We also work with our members on issues of new technology and how that technology can best bring artists together with music fans.

    Lots to think about there. Amazing how the RIAA talks out of both sides of its mouth. "We support artists rights, prevent censorship of music, and help Santa out every Tuesday...." Yet they are busy trying to take away my legal abillity to create and distribute my own music.

    If irony was a drink, I'd be wasted.

  • by thumbtack (445103) <thumbtack@ j u n o . com> on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @06:30PM (#3982525)
    The RIAA doesn't have the knowledge or the skill to do it themselves so they hire companies who do this sort of thing for a living. They pay a certain amonut per song as a base, so many cents (usually about 1.5 cents) per scan, per protocol, then pay the same amount again when they find the files, then so much to send a Cease and Desist Letter. They scan about every 15 minute, or determined by the label. They can run up huge numbers in just a couple of days for popular acts. Who pays? The artist of course, as it goes into their recoupable account, that never shrinks.

    DMusic.com [dmusic.com] has an article with audio of the California Senate Hearings if you want the lowdown on the labels accounting. (Streaming MP3)it can be found Here [dmusic.com] especially enlightning is Don Engel's and Fred Wolinski's testimony.

"Bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...