RIAA Smacked by DoS 931
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.
Great job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mature (Score:3, Insightful)
Immaturity like this only HARMS what we are trying to do.
Grow up kids.
and why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
In short: No one should be able to legally commit such a crime.
sweet! (Score:2, Insightful)
A safe bet... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Mature (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Did it happen? (Score:2, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Gotta cheer the script kiddies.... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
.
Re:Mature (Score:4, Insightful)
Hacking someone that's using hacking as a stepping stone to circumvent laws is just plain stupid.
Don't you get it? Their job is to get bad PR (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Great job... (Score:2, Insightful)
Please tell me how it is immature for someone to DOS the RIAA, but not immature when the RIAA DOS's them?
What's good for the goose etc...
Ray
Re:Mature (Score:3, Insightful)
So who owns what? (Score:2, Insightful)
what? so who actually owns the copyright? I thought those artists had to sell their souls to work for these companies... and now they own the copyrights? er... unless the riaa actually creates the artistic works... in that case we now know why these new songs and singers are so similar in style and such
Re:Gotta cheer the script kiddies.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:and why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Given, it's not legal now. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:and why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
just because something is illegal does not mean it is wrong, and vice versa. most forms of civil disobediance are inherently illegal, but they must be carried out to demonstrate that the law is wrong.
Re:and why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Streaming media illegal, says the RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
"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?
Awww that's what I wanted to do........ (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Bullpuckey (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:hahahahah (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's more likely that Illiad caught news of this from somewhere other than ZD and thought it was funny enough to make into a comic.
I don't think it was just a coincidence.
Re:and why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly feel that I'd be justified in causing the MPAA members a billion or so dollars harm. They support unfair laws (and the destruction of a system of government) and reduce the freedom of everyone. (the US citizens for now, but everyone eventually when the US gets around to demanding everyone else adopt a DMCA-like policy.)
There's no way I could ever get a law passed which would hurt them in the same way, or reasonably expect to have any chance of changing the law to one that wasn't unfair. So why would it be so wrong for me to strike out at them, trying to hurt them in an unrelated yet farily equivalent way?
And in this case, the attack is hilarious. It's a perfect example of the shit that they'd pull and when they run to law enforcement about this hopefully some people will see the irony of them complaining about this and then trying to get permission to do it to others. It also seems balanced here, the RIAAs website is essentially valueless, they don't lose money by it being down, so this is a zero-cost (ignoring backbone charges) way of demonstrating something - perfect because the RIAA is only suggesting (and likely bribing for, but that's another issue) the law at this point.
You can't say that civil disobedience is only valid in cases like Ghandis. Hell, he should have just shut up, after all it was just an issue of him obeying laws, few/no people got killed before they started disobeying their lawful masters' orders...
Or, do people have a right to fight unjust laws even if their skin color isn't an issue? Personally, I think the DMCA and potential requirements for a Palladium-type system are worse in the long run, they mandate systems that will take all freedom away from people in a way that will likely be beyond people's ability to circumvent for any reason in a generation or two when the education required has been declared terrorist training. (After all, planes have electronics systems, training potential terrorists about those could kill people!)
fodder for the riaa bashers (Score:1, Insightful)
Untouchables leaked on the Internet before its release, and the band didn't mind at all.
"It's a different age," Davis says. "Kids are gonna get that stuff. It's not a problem for us. We don't make money off of selling albums. Our income is touring and merchandise. We make our records for people to hear. And if they're gonna hear them that way, so be it."
Even with multiplatinum sales, the record industry is so skewed that the band doesn't make money off those sales.
"The industry is a total wreck," Davis says. "It's messed up. It's wrong. But they make us famous and fulfill our dreams. So I just deal with it."
Musical succotash [rockymountainnews.com]
Korn's recipe proves elusive to slew of copycats
Pot vs. Kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
(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.
Re:Great job... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
If the police were allowed to break into my house, guns blazing, and mow myself and my family down (they are not allowed to do this) with no due process of law (analogous to the vigilatism inherent in the DoS law the copymonopoly cartels have proposed), then, yes, there would be nothing unethical about me defending myself and my family in kind, by doing unto the cops what they would do unto me, and doing it first. Regardless of what the law might say.
Now do you begin to grasp why vigilanti justice is such a profoundly bad idea?
As for file traders, since when is trading files illegal? I trade files of my vacation pictures with friends and relatives all the time. I even use P2P services to trade ISOs of GNU/Linux with friends all the time (P2P in the form of FreeNet reduces my own bandwidth requirements drastically over a client-server setup like ftp or http).
Your 'solution' is tantamount to saying "if you don't like it, get off the internet or become a passive user of our Approved(tm) Content."
The comparison with similarly unbalanced, historical laws holds. An unjust law such as the one proposed demands to be violated, and violating such a law is in no way unethical. Indeed, doing so as an act of defense against an attack by another, DoS or otherwise, is really quite unimpeachable in any reasonable ethical framework.
Your entire "cop" example underscores exactly why vigilante justice is such a bad idea, and the DoS attack against the RIAA, by whoever these people were, underscored very well exactly why this law is such an appallingly bad idea. It will, in all liklihood, destroy the internet's usability for some time, perhaps a very long time. Interestingly enough, those that are promoting such legislation have everything to gain, and nothing to do, by destroying the internet, and it is really a stretch to believe they are really so stupid as to not realize that.
Re:Mature (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd actually like to see the RIAA DoS people, for three reasons:
It'll break this into the open a bit more, and eventually, even with media FUD and BS, the true nature will get out.
1) The RIAA's image will (hopefully) be tarnished beyond repair.
2) Congressmen that pass legislation putting the law in the hands of the RIAA and giving them power to commit a crime will (hopefully) be disgraced.
3) Crackers from around the world will make the RIAA sorry they were ever born. Call me immature, call me naive, but in this case, I say fight fire with fire: maybe the gov't will listen... but as an above post mentioned, they've been turning a deaf ear recently.
Re:RIAA offline (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:American revolution wasn't exactly "legal" eith (Score:2, Insightful)
However, this was done after several attempts to smooth things over employing legal methods. Have we done this yet? People are calling for us to contact our congressmen... have we? As citizens, we must follow the established legal means first, then pursue other possibilities only if those channels were unrightfully blocked. Yes, even if we try the legal ways, and it doesn't accomplish our goals, it still doesn't give us to right to illegally protest. Only when our right to legally protest is infringed can we in good conscience use other methods.
The DoS is an example of knee-jerk, immature reactions that come from people who don't oppose this legislation due to it's possible implications and precedents, but rather because they want to continue in their illegal activities... which is wrong.
Re: Most wars are fought at many levels (Score:5, Insightful)
In reality, most wars get fought on many levels. The teen hacker who takes down a web site is that person's way of protesting the situation. Nobody said it has to be *everybody's* way of protesting. If you have the "clout" and the intelligence to write constructive critism of the RIAA and get it published - then do it! That's your own personal "trump card" against them. If you happen to be a teacher, then teach your students about what's going on. You're the one who can give them education on the rights and freedoms they're losing. But if you're a young hacker who has nothing else to offer but your hacking skills (and can use your age as an advantage to avoid getting caught/getting in serious trouble), then maybe defacing or DoSing their web site is your own best method of protest.
Re:and why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great job... (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:considering the alternative... (Score:5, Insightful)
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) ???
Motion Seconded (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The Plutocratic Government (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
Re:Great job... (Score:2, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the "average American" has about 2 years of college, 40,000 bucks a year salary, and is mired in middle-management. Not to mention completely apathetic to politics and other items of importance.
Lordfly
RIAA will still fight (Score:3, Insightful)
That'll help, however it won't stop them from making it illegal for you to create and distribute your own music. Nor will it stop them from getting your money.
Everytime their sales slip (or everyone in the country doesn't buy the latest "pop sensation"), they insist it is because of piracy, not the economy or the public refusing to buy from RIAA companies. They may do a similar thing that Microsoft did. (section E) [usdoj.gov] The feds didn't even try to prosecute MS for this, even though I think it is their worst anti-trust violation!
In fact, if you live in the US (and some other countries), you pay "royalties" to them on every CD writing drive you buy and every blank music CD you burn. [cornell.edu] It doesn't matter if it is your own music, or music you are legally allowed to copy--they still take it.
Re:Great job... (Score:2, Insightful)
I say to heck with it. If I cannot get recognition for the good, supportive things I do, then maybe at least I can get recognition of those things I want changed.
I'd be the first in line to drop SETI@Home and sign up for DoStheRIAA@Home.
Re:Great job... (Score:2, Insightful)
This should show them what it is like to have an 'innocent' system brought to its knees by DoS. Perhaps it would be less annoying to them and still inconvenient enough if someone would just squeeze their bandwidth down to a trickle without cutting them off completely. After all, that is an effect of that medicine being promoted by the RIAA.
Oh, and it's nice to see how a RIAA representative seems to feel so founded in the rightness of their position as to remain anonymous. Lord knows that when I believe so strongly that I am in the right, I recognize anonymity as a hindrance rather than a protection.
But then, my thoughts are not programmed by my puppet masters.
Re:Great job... (Score:2, Insightful)
Average American-
n.
My generalization, based on the people I've interacted with since I've formed memories. This population includes people I see every day (family, work, friends, etc.), people I talk to occasionally (business clients, friends of friends, etc.), and people I meet either rarely or only one time (on the road, while shopping, far flung-friends and family, you-get-the-idea). Also included in this population are all the thousands of opinions, statements, and comments made by those I read online.
After several years of observing this ever-growing population, I've come to some general conclusions, only one of which is pertinent to this discussion.
Your Random Person is incapable of any technical computer work beyond reistalling software, rebooting, uninstalling programs, using Plug-n-Play devices, and creating desktop shortcuts. This technological ignorance, while not itself a necessarily good or bad thing, directly leads to a state where Random Person can be lead around more easily by 30-second soundbites and alarmist headlines. For example, I work with some pretty able IT folks in my department. They do web programming and database analysis, and yet they were frankly amazed when I told them I load 10 CDs worth of music on a single disc and play them on my car MP3 player. I believe the Average American is not technically proficient enough to effectively grasp the true nature of issues such as the RIAA vs. Fair Use. Hell, I wouldn't even call myself well-informed in many areas.
This may come off as elitist, but I mean no insult. I simply believe that a majority of Americans don't know enough about technology to usefully parse news reports to get at the heart of current issues. We rely too much on second hand sources, hearsay from relatives and friends, and accept what some authority figures say as fact.
So, when I say "Great job...give the media and the average American more reason to think the people the RIAA are against are little more than immature 'hackers'," I mean I don't believe it helps persuading Average Americans out there that what our opponents are saying about us are either outright lies, factual twists, hypocrisy, or contradiction. By doing exactly what our opponents decry is immoral, illegal, and wrong, we start the debate off on the wrong foot by giving the other side ammunition strong enough that it is persuasive to the point where I see people reading the headline and saying, "Damn hackers! They just can't stop messing around where they don't belong. Stealing music and software isn't enough, apparently. Now they do these traffic-jam net hacks."
Yeah, my sample is biased and my interpretation may be as well. However, that is all I have to go on and I believe that the generalization stands, generally. Obviously, this is a diverse country with millions of people who defy categorization. It doesn't change what I've experienced in my life.
Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
And all this time I thought musical artists were the ones creating music and not the RIAA. Now we see what Hilary really thinks of the people she's supposed to be representing... Lets not forget that when you sell your soul to the RIAA, you no longer own any music you've created. Here's the proof [mindspring.com]. Or is Lars readying to "pilfer the grabasses [campchaos.com]"?
What about copyrighted material on foriegn sites? (Score:2, Insightful)
International incidents? RIAA terrorism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How to stop this (Score:3, Insightful)
This episode clearly shows we are up against a gang of thugs who care nothing for anyone's moral sensibilities, if there's a dollar (or a bit of control) to be squeezed out.
As engineers we are used to dealing with people who can be won over, if we can only logicaly explain why our position is the Right Thing. We can't deal with these racketeers that way. They don't care what the Right Thing is, so there's no point in arguing it with them.
We have to recognize that we are in an all out brawl, and act accordingly.
Re:Great job... (Score:1, Insightful)