RIAA Goes Offline, Joins MPAA As Latest Victim Of Successful DDoS Attacks

RIAA Goes Offline, Joins MPAA As Latest Victim Of Successful DDoS Attacks

techcrunch.com

In an offense called “Operation Payback,” members of the Internet collective Anonymous have organized what seems to be anti anti-piracy movement. Dubbed by Torrent Freak as the ”protest of the future” the group has been pretty busy over the past 36 hours launching DDoS attacks on the MPAA, Indian anti-piracy site AiPlex Software and today both RIAA.comand RIAA.org.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
4Chan-Coordinated DDoS Attack Brings MPAA Website Down
Net Neutrality and Why You Should Care
Tea Party Allies With Telecom Industry to Dump Net Neutrality
US Internet Neutrality Flare-Up Resonates Across International Front

techcrunch.com...

"Anonymous" and Pirate Bay are standing up against the global "free trade" corporate takeover of individual rights.

Seems like they're the only ones who've figured out that it's not us against Big Government.

...It's Our Government, us, against Global Corporate Big Government - already enabled and enshrined under international "free trade" legislation.

The Pirate Bay

With over 2 million registered users The Pirate Bay is the world’s largest BitTorrent tracker. The Pirate Bay was one of the subjects of the documentary “Steal This Film” and was raided by the Swedish government in 2006. Still, as of January 2008, no torrents have been removed due to legal threats from The Pirate Bay.

RIAA

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members’ creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

techcrunch.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Isn't this just kind of ineffectual grandstanding? I mean, who cares if their web site goes down -- it's not like the public is clamouring for more information about the RIAA and MPAA and are going to be disappointed when they can't bring it up.

If change is going to come, it would need to be through legislative action, and these acts almost certainly make that far more difficult to attain, while accomplishing little or nothing beyond a "ha ha, we took 'em down!"

Might want to add this to your related threads list: 4Chan-Coordinated DDoS Attack Brings MPAA Website Down

Originally posted by adjensen
...
If change is going to come, it would need to be through legislative action,

True. Starting by our government claiming jurisdiction to protect our rights and freedoms against international trade law.

It's a turf war. Nations -and the individuals who make up nations- against Global Corporate Government under the legal framework created by international trade law.

fyi - Global Corporate Government is REALLY BIG government. ...Remember, international trade law overrides national laws when there is a "conflict."

And individual rights and freedoms conflict with global corporations' rights to "free trade."

and these acts almost certainly make that far more difficult to attain, while accomplishing little or nothing beyond a "ha ha, we took 'em down!"

I agree the strategy would be ineffective as a means of long term change - but it does keep the issue alive, and in the public eye.

All we have to do is pay attention.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Might want to add this to your related threads list: 4Chan-Coordinated DDoS Attack Brings MPAA Website Down

Done!

...I am SO sorry! (Thought I did list it - gremlins?)

reply to post by soficrow


As sick and depraved as some of its members are, it does seem as if the collective are getting some quality work done.
I think its the case now that the internet has taken on a life of its own, and persons on board those groups connected with Anon...spelling... are more than prepared to defend what they seem to regard as a place not beholden to any one nation, nor any one set of laws. In fact these people are probably the most effective anarchists I have ever come across in my life. Someone threatens thier way of life, they shut them up. Someone bashes thier attitude or thier politics, they shut thier access to the internet down... its a damned effective strategy.

This goes beyond anti anti-piracy measures. It's against any form of control. Where efforts of control start to happen, people will strike back.

It's pretty clear TPTB have no idea what they are doing in regards to the internet. They're pissing off a hornet nest.

reply to post by SpectreDC

Originally posted by SpectreDC

It's pretty clear TPTB have no idea what they are doing in regards to the internet. They're pissing off a hornet nest.

They know.

That's why they're killing Net Neutrality.

Takes jurisdiction away from nations, allows governance according to international trade law - in global corporations interests. No more middleman. No individual rights and freedoms either.

...If they can't block the IP, they'll throttle the bandwidth. Already happening, ie., in Canada.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
This goes beyond anti anti-piracy measures. It's against any form of control. Where efforts of control start to happen, people will strike back.

It's pretty clear TPTB have no idea what they are doing in regards to the internet. They're pissing off a hornet nest.

Do you honestly believe that those who are clearly so interested in control, and who ARE in control, are going to say "oh noes, the haxor script kiddies took down the RIAA web site, we'd best give in to their demands!" If enough people start doing it, and it causes real problems, people will start getting hauled into jail -- they don't need to change the laws to do that (in the US, anyway.) And that's where your fight ends, because no one cares enough about getting the new Lady Gaga album or Will Smith movie for free enough to go to jail for it. No one sane, anyway.

ITMS has shown that people are happy to pay for reasonably priced, easy to access digital media. Whether or not you agree with Apple, or the industry in general, the excuses that once seemed reasonable for non-sanctioned downloading are effectively gone, in my opinion, leaving the protests of them protecting their product somewhat akin to protesting the corner grocery prosecuting shoplifters or having store detectives (assuming that they are legal and REASONABLE in their protection -- extending copyright time limits, suing random people for seemingly random reasons and Sony's rootkits are not things that I would consider to be legal or reasonable.)

reply to post by adjensen


This isn't about "piracy" - it's about who controls the Internet, how business models need to change and whether or not there will any individual rights and freedoms in our brave new world.

...Artists aren't being hurt by this - only distributors, and manufacturers of outdated media products. If anyone was interested in protecting artists, they'd do it MUCH differently.

I do agree- the ones in control ARE in control, and want more control - signed, sealed and delivered as "free trade," under international law.

Originally posted by adjensen
Isn't this just kind of ineffectual grandstanding?

The Pirate Bay is still here, people are still using torrents and TPTB can't secure their own domains. I'd say it was more like rubbing their noses in it.

Originally posted by soficrow
This isn't about "piracy" - it's about who controls the Internet, how business models need to change and whether or not there will any individual rights and freedoms in our brave new world.

That's just it -- as I noted, business models HAVE changed to address the emerging distribution medium. What is left to argue about is who, if anyone, is going to make money and how. There are negative aspects of this on both sides -- but in both cases, it is about maintaining control. The powers that be want to keep you under their thumb, the unwashed masses want to keep downloading "The Hurt Locker" for free.

You bet your butt it's about piracy. The number of people who understand civil liberties and, more importantly, give two hoots about them, is pretty limited. And without places like the Pirate Bay effusing their support of theft with claims of liberty, there would be nothing for the corporations to pin the blame on.

Who controls the Internet is a battle long over. Once it was opened to commercial interests in the early 90s, that was the end of it, right there. Net neutrality is merely an argument of WHICH corporations will manage things.

And taking down websites is an ineffectual protest that serves only to demonstrate to the vast majority that the protestors are irresponsible hooligans (not to say that's the truth, but that's the impression most are left with.)

reply to post by adjensen


Your points and overview are good. But I don't agree that it's down to which corporations hold the reins - it's still Big National Gov v/s Global Corporate Big Government, imo. (Not over til the fat lady sings.)

And you skipped over this one... "whether or not there will any individual rights and freedoms in our brave new world."

Comment?

cryptome.org...
PDF file from Cryptome.

The pdf is talking about how the US and UK want to create a new larger global governance to control everything and there out look for 2025.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by adjensen

 

Your points and overview are good. But I don't agree that it's down to which corporations hold the reins - it's still Big National Gov v/s Global Corporate Big Government, imo. (Not over til the fat lady sings.)

And you skipped over this one... "whether or not there will any individual rights and freedoms in our brave new world."

Comment?

I don't equate this argument with that, no.

Governments are in the business of restricting your freedoms. It's what they do. Sadly, people are also in the business of restricting your freedoms, at least in areas that they personally do not like. Businesses, on the other hand, they're more interested in your pocketbook, so, as long as you're not taking away from them (something both people and governments also don't want you doing to them,) you're probably in less danger from that group than the others.

This particular instance, railing against the RIAA and MPAA, capitalistic organizations ostensibly chartered with protecting the economic interests of their members, is, in my opinion, couched in an inappropriate argument, that protecting the freedom to steal is somehow noble, simply because you don't happen to be fond of those you are stealing from. And the irony of it all is that, if people didn't exhibit that behaviour, the RIAA and MPAA probably wouldn't even exist, or at least they wouldn't be operating in the same manner.

Give me a real civil liberties argument -- censorship by government, malfeasance by multi-national corporations, journalistic lack of integrity, suppression of open debate -- and I'll be with you all the way. But not in this case, because I see nothing defendable.

Originally posted by JBA2848
cryptome.org...
PDF file from Cryptome.

The pdf is talking about how the US and UK want to create a new larger global governance to control everything and there out look for 2025.

Very interesting. Thank you so much.

I scanned, will study later. A few key points:

On the economic front, trade liberalization under the GATT and the WTO provided another global public good in the shape of increasingly low tariffs and open markets, enhancing shared prosperity and preventing protectionism from generating political confrontation.

...Global governance is not slated to approach “world government” because of widespread sovereignty concerns, divergent interests, and deep-seated worries about the effectiveness of current institutions. However, enhanced and more effective cooperation among a growing assortment of international, regional, and national in addition to nonstate actors is possible, achievable, and needed, particularly to grapple with the growing interconnectedness of future challenges.

...From our investigations of others’ views, it seems likely that the US and the EU will continue to be at the forefront of initiatives to reform and update the global governance agenda and institutions in the short term.

So the "nonstate actors" like the GATT and WTO are slated to play a role in global governance. While nation-states do what? Continue to police and provide funding for enhanced security?

...Not to minimize the importance of cooperation, nor to dismiss the legitimate concerns about looming chaos, but I suspect the loyalties and priorities evidenced are a bit skewed.



adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by adjensen

 

Your points and overview are good. But I don't agree that it's down to which corporations hold the reins - it's still Big National Gov v/s Global Corporate Big Government, imo. (Not over til the fat lady sings.)

And you skipped over this one... "whether or not there will any individual rights and freedoms in our brave new world."

Comment?

I don't equate this argument with that, no.

Remember Robin Hood?

He was a criminal in the eyes of the King and Landowners - but a hero, and sustenance, to the poor.

Governments are in the business of restricting your freedoms. It's what they do.

Monarchies, empires and other feudal societies, yes. But not the original United States of America. We were different - our government was established to protect individual rights and freedoms. That's why the country was created; that's why our ancestors came here.

Originally posted by soficrow
Remember Robin Hood?

He was a criminal in the eyes of the King and Landowners - but a hero, and sustenance, to the poor.

I remember him, I don't believe that he was right, though :-)

Governments are in the business of restricting your freedoms. It's what they do.

Monarchies, empires and other feudal societies, yes. But not the original United States of America. We were different - our government was established to protect individual rights and freedoms. That's why the country was created; that's why our ancestors came here.

I would respectfully disagree. Our ancestors (well, yours, mine showed up about 150 years after the Republic was founded) came here because they were tired of being pushed around, true, but proceeded to immediately push other people around once they came into power here. That's sort of what people do.

The Civil War was, ostensibly, about slavery, but the real issue wasn't slavery at all. The "War of Northern Aggression" wasn't about whether the South could ignore the Emancipation Proclamation -- it was about whether South Carolina had the right to leave the Union. Did the rights of the states supercede the rights of the nation? For all the noble claims of freedom, the slavery at the root of the war was whether states were beholding to the Federal government, and that's exactly what the outcome decreed.

Say what you like, but governments, like people and corporations, are all about self preservation. Seems counter intuitive, at times, but time after time, it's been shown to be true.

reply to post by adjensen


I'd really like to keep arguing with you, but:

1. I't's my bedtime, the birds need to be covered and my dog needs a walk too; and

2. I agree with a lot of what you say.

More tomorrow, perhaps?

...My main issue here is not copyrighted creative materials but copyright and Intellectual Property rights to information as a commodity as is defined in free trade agreements. (The definition is virtually all-encompassing.)

I don't support theft - but I do see the need to stand up against global corporate power plays and appropriation of national jurisdiction... If such action involves theft (according to a trade definition of information-as-commodity), then I do think the Robin Hood defence is legitimate. ...or Jean Val Jean if you're more empathetic to his circumstance.

...also, even if people can't articulate their perception of injustice, the underlying apprehension often remains real and true.

reply to post by soficrow


Hey, dog walking always takes precedence over debate, no worries on waiting until tomorrow :-)

Richard Stallman's argument that "information wants to be free" is something that I tend to agree with, though I have long argued that this represents an ideal, one which is easy to sustain when one is granted a salary from MIT or where ever I happened to be drawing a cheque from at the time. (In this instance, both Stallman and I agree that "free" means "without limitation" rather than "without cost", but there is a recognition that both he and I need to keep the bills being paid in order to sustain our ideals.)

However, in practical application, the CREATION of information has a value, and one which must be paid. If there is no means by which the creation of information can be compensated, the result will be a denigration of the quality of information. Applied practically, if I like a certain type of music, but musicians cannot be fairly compensated for their work, the result will not be economically poor musicians, but poor quality music, as the good musicians find more lucrative things to do.

I am not sure that your "Robin Hood" defence provides a reasonable refutation to this, as the root of the Robin Hood myth is based on a person's needs, rather than a person's merit. Under that myth, the poor needed the assets of the rich, though they did not deserve them, but the need outweighed the valuation. Personally, I'm kind of okay with that, though I recognize that, for the reason I specified above, it is not sustainable. Eventually, those who merit the capital will resent the fact that they're supporting those who want it (or need it) but are incapable of producing it, and will abandon the effort (ala "Atlas Shrugged".)

Now, applying all of this to the current instance, the RIAA and MPAA claim to represent the interests of the aggregate -- all musicians or filmmakers who belong to those groups. At their core, they are merely defending the rights of those that they are supposed to represent. I agree that they are a bit out of control, but I don't dispute that a musician or a movie maker, doesn't deserve defence, just as I would demand it for myself.

I do not support these groups in their efforts to do things which are contrary to the basic idea that, at some point, information wants to be free, and that we all contribute to the society as a whole, but I do support their effort to claim the intrinsic value of the actual creation of something that adds to what society is.

Write a hit song and want to profit from it? I am by your side!

Want to continue to profit from it a hundred years after you're dead? Meh, I'm not so keen on that idea.