4Chan To Target RIAA Next | Hacker News Reader

4Chan To Target RIAA Next

torrentfreak.com

44 pointsIndyan30 comments

And its down... Though, I gotta wonder how useful it is to take down an almost useless website on a weekend. The email infrastructure would be far more damaging I would imagine.

Hint, hint?

People keep saying this but is there evidence that this attack doesn't bring down the mail server too? I'm not making assumptions, but for what amounts to a brochure site, it wouldn't be that surprising if mail was on the DoS'd servers.

Of course, if not, I agree this is kind of pointless.

As little as I like the RIAA/MPAA/etc's policies of suing everyone, I'm finding it even harder to like what amounts to petty cybervandalism.

"Turn about is fair play," as they say. AiPlex has been DDOS'ing file-sharing sites for months. http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-outfit-threatens-to-dos-... RIAA and MPAA have a long history of taking down websites they don't approve of with less-than-legal tactics. http://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-outfit-threatens-to-dos-... Some of those sites weren't even illegal! MediaDefender group broke into Revision3's private tracker (which had ONLY original Rev3 content on it), injected illegal torrents into it in the hope of suing them for illegal distribution, then (accidentally!) DOSed it. http://revision3.com/blog/2008/05/29/inside-the-attack-that-...

Edited for correctness.

The whole "an eye for an eye" thing doesn't exactly scale terribly well.

Sorry, but this bothers me.

  <pedantry>

In the culture of the day (middle-east, thousands of years ago) many arguments - even little ones - would escalate, sometimes into generations-long blood feuds. The "eye for an eye" law was a law of peace! Even if someone did something incredibly painful, disfiguring, and debilitating as gouging out your eye, you weren't allowed to extract revenge on their family or property, or even to torture or kill the guy. The most you were entitled to was his eye. No more blood feuds allowed.

  </pedantry>

Not being able to torture, maim or murder someone is a good thing. Really. If you're not sure about this, you'll just have to take my word on it.

But, thats pretty far off-topic. The essence of my point still stands, even if you disagree with the wording of it. Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't give you a license to do the same.

An eye for an eye is not about torturing, maiming or murdering anyone. It's a metaphor. Taking down their website for a few hours, is fairly close to harmless.

I agree that they shouldn't be doing this. If they really want an eye for an eye they should sue them to oblivion. That I think would be quite appropriate.

> Taking down their website for a few hours, is fairly close to harmless.

That just makes it even more stupid. Not only does it not accomplish anything, but it's illegal and stoops down to their level. You'd basically sacrifice principal for nothing except a little "gotcha back" feeling.

> Not being able to torture, maim or murder someone is a good thing.

Apologies for being totally misleading in my earlier post, because I agree with you. It was the best philosophy of retaliation until "turn the other cheek" came along, which I much prefer.

> Just because someone else did something wrong doesn't give you a license to do the same.

Morally, it doesn't. Legally, sometimes (self-defense and all that). Probably not this time.

What if the guy's blind?

Edit: the point here is that sometimes it's not possible to get directly equivalent reparations, so you have to come up with something else like a $5000 fine or a blood feud...

I'm sure if you argue this approach actually changed the times that much:

<God>"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."</God> Samuel 15:3, quite a while after Exodus and commandments

My favorite quote on this matter is from Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

and that's the whole point!

I don't agree with this either, but it's only happening because the MPAA did it first. And they're supposed to be the "good guys".

If/when this hits mainstream media, I think this is the important thing to point out. The people have to be informed how these companies operate (I'm too cynical to think this enlightenment will ever happen, but it's a nice thought).

I would have had to agree with you, if it wasn't because they themself started it.

So now, it is about showing them what happens when they thread on 4chan.

The real protest is setting up a distributed infrastructure for sharing high-quality files for free that these organizations want $30 and your first born child for. Of course, that war has already been won so I guess 4chan has just decided to kick them while they're down for the fun of it.

I approve.

A group of people who find pedophilia funny vs. a group that is willing to ruin the lives of elderly and children to make more money. Somehow I just don't care what happens.

Cultural taboos are always ripe for humor. Be careful judging someone for something you might not understand as well as you think.

Wouldn't offending 4Chan enthusiasts result in great lulz? Perhaps the reason I don't understand is because it doesn't make sense.

What is the reasoning behind these attacks? Immaturity?

Getting content legally and quickly in 2010 is a lot different and better then say 2003/2005.

If you live in America, sure.

The argument is weak re: DDOS(ing) the RIAA, you can listen any song for free on Youtube or Vevo either through your PC or through either iPhone app. Also YouTube's new artist playlist mix is awesome!

As for watching MPAA content check out YouTube as well. Tons of american tv shows can be found on youtube; better yet Justin.tv's entertainment section is awesome place to watch American TV shows for free! For me downloading is 2005, even if I did not have access to Hulu; youtube & justin.tv satisfy my prior bit torrenting.

The idea is that the MPAA or someone hired a company that executes DDoS attacks against torrent websites. It is in fact a immature retaliation. At the end of the day, even if the RIAA and MPAA are sometimes behind the times, they are enforcing the (American) law on digital rights. People can use all the backwards reasoning they want, but they are still receiving content for free that the distributor wants them to pay for.

When did the MPAA or RIAA become a law enforcement agency? Also, who's lobbying/(bribing) senators to make laws?

I understand it as a protest against copyright, or at least the abuses of it by the organisations in question.

Rejecting copyright is a perfectly legitimate position. It's not immature, nor does it have anything to do with the means of "getting content legally and quickly" that are currently available.

It's a movement I guess that is screaming for Hulu? Are most of those in this movement not in the US?

But again this the RIAA they are targeting as mentioned above any song you want to listen to is available on youtube through ur PC or their iPHone app.

Honestly, I don't understand why anybody cares about torrents.

I get all my music, etc. through upload-and-download sites like rapidshare, megaupload, mediafire, etc. and it's A LOT faster and doesn't mess with my internet like torrenting did.

Anybody else feel like we've also moved beyond torrenting like we did with napster, kazaa, limewire (well, most of us?)?

Because they are a distributed network? Because they are more difficult to switch off? I believe that the massive download sites are a bad habit. It's a step back. It's not only about copyright. It's about who governs the internets.

I'm finding it hard to feel bad for the RIAA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com