Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Music Piracy Sony The Internet

Operation Payback Shuts Down IFPI Site 376

Posted by Soulskill
from the countering-a-distributed-denial-of-liberty-attack dept.
newtley writes "Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's main IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry) website is down. Not coincidentally, there's an Operation Payback post addressing the Pirate Bay crew's lost sentencing appeal: 'Dear IFPI, MAFIAA and other parasites, The recent verdict in the Swedish Appeal Court (ThePirateBay spectrial) provoked this statement from Operation: Payback. We emphasize our statement with a Distributed Denial-of-Service attack aimed at the IFPI's website.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Operation Payback Shuts Down IFPI Site

Comments Filter:
  • You never mess with Anonymous. Whether Anonymous is right or wrong is for you to decide. But under either case, you don't mess with them.
    • by Cl1mh4224rd (265427) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:14PM (#34361170)

      Whether Anonymous is right or wrong is for you to decide. But under either case, you don't mess with them.

      What a utterly stupid statement. That's justification for doing nothing about bad behavior by any individual or organization simply because they engage in bad behavior, and those who engage in bad behavior are not to be messed with.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'm sure they're shaking in their boots. I mean, Anonymous went and took out a website that no one visits. What will they do now? How will they bribe politicians without ifpi.org?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Totenglocke (1291680)

      Agreed. While I don't always approve of the things Anonymous does (such as what they did to Boxxy), you can't deny that they know how to get things done.

      Seriously, am I the only who's thought about what we could do if we could get get Anonymous to focus on digging up information on corrupt politicians / cops / other government employees?

      • by hedwards (940851)
        It's really not that hard, the easiest way is to get those people on tape harming cats.
      • by hardburn (141468)

        If /b/tards could be effectual, they wouldn't be /b/tards. Instead, we'll be subjected to their normal blather of incoherent teenage rage. In other times, they would be painting anarchy symbols on overpasses. These days, they take down web sites nobody cares about, so at least they've been sectioned off to a place where they do less damage.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NiceGeek (126629)

        Really? How did the "Great Tumblr Takedown" go? Oh that's right, it backfired.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SuricouRaven (1897204)
          They really hurt the church of scientology. The DDoS itsself inconvenienced them and no more, but the publicity around it, the digg-spamming, the subsequent interest the media took... the church's reputation was the real target, and it took a hit so hard they have had to step up their recruitment operations in third-world countries now in order to find people who don't just walk away at the mention of their name.
    • Umm, DDoS is not that difficult, all you need is a botnet. To get a botnet you need to engage in some pretty evil and destructive behavior (infecting people's computers on a large scale). Nothing worthy of respect, either from technical or from moral standpoint. Common sense is questionable too since temporarily shutting down someone's website will not change absolutely anything in any positive way.

  • by BitHive (578094) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:12PM (#34361160) Homepage

    I bet 99% of people on either side of this issue have never been to ifpi.org, what exactly is this supposed to accomplish?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by QuoteMstr (55051)

      If your side seems powerless and morale is low, a symbolic victory is better than none at all.

    • by Ex Machina (10710)

      Exactly, if they really wanted to hurt them, wouldn't an attack on something that would cost them real money (like a RIAA-blessed streaming music service) be more damaging?

      • by Pharmboy (216950) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @08:54PM (#34361690) Journal

        Exactly, if they really wanted to hurt them, wouldn't an attack on something that would cost them real money (like a RIAA-blessed streaming music service) be more damaging?

        I got a better idea, we need to hit them financially. Let's distribute pirated copies of their movies for free, using P2P. Just think, if we can get 1 million people to download their movies, that means they will have lost $20 million in sales, since everyone knows that every time a movie is pirated, it equals exactly one lost sale. That would show them.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      To piss them off.

  • So, the IFPI's site got shut down... and how many people noticed and cared? I know I've visited it a few times (in a "know your enemy" context) but I would imagine this isn't going to affect any of the major players in the copyright troubles or the general public. I guess it is kind of like picketing somewhere that no one really wants or needs to visit.

    While I would not wish to recommend or encourage illegal action, it is possible that targeting (lawful) content distributors would be more appropriate and ha

  • Now the US govt has all the evidence they need to declare file sharers as terrorists/collaborators. Get ready for police action with full UN approval. ACTA's secret rules probably allow deadly force.
  • by rh775 (963558) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:24PM (#34361238)
    The best response to these types of organization is not through government or peaceful resolution. Even by stealing the media these organizations represent you are part of the problem which limits human potential. We can all stop buying (or even stealing) music that these organizations control. If you enjoy music and film, learn to create something of your own and share it. Subvert the organizations, not their websites/servers. Go to free, live performances, learn an instrument, write a screenplay or lyrics, share your creations in public or over the internet.
    • by airfoobar (1853132) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:46PM (#34361354)
      Even if everyone stopped buying from those companies, they'd still find a way to make themselves a tax. You'll be buying Lady Gaga songs every time you pay your water bill.

      The only way to fix things is to: 1) make corporate lobbying illegal and put all politicians' dealings in the open, and 2) perform an evidence-based reform of copyright law to restore it to a reasonable length and scope.

      In doing those things, a lot that is wrong with America will automatically correct itself. Alas, things may already be beyond repair...

    • by Jaktar (975138) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:56PM (#34361414)

      Unfortunately, if we stop buying their media, they'll simply assume we're stealing it anyways because there is *no way* that their profits should ever shrink. It is the best option and the easiest to implement though and it's the method I've been using for quite some time already.

      • by ScentCone (795499)
        if we stop buying their media, they'll simply assume we're stealing it anyways

        The people who create the entertainment that everyone is ripping off won't notice when there are no longer thousands of web sites dedicated to ripping off those works?
        • Correct.

          IT, HR, PR, Legal and the C*s don't communicate with each other. PR will continue to gripe about "Pirates", regardless of whether or not they exist. The Legal dept will continue to go after targets no matter how responsible they are for things. The C*s will blame everyone except themselves for lower sales, because anything else would be their fault, and they'd get the boot and have to take their golden parachute to the ground, rather than staying in the money making role.

          Upton Sinclair: "It is d
    • by AudioEfex (637163)

      It's a lovely thought but "share your creations in public or over the internet" is what we have on YouTube, and quite frankly I've seen enough "America's Funniest/Stupidest/Most Ridiculous/Embarassing" home videos. ;-)

      The truth is, even though the Internet supposedly brought the "power to the people" in terms of distribution, it really hasn't. It's turned into a way for the big companies to market even more. For every Justin Bieber who makes it from YouTube to known artist, there are 100,000's of thous

  • by Palmsie (1550787) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:42PM (#34361324)
    It seems many here are quick to criticize the immaturity or pointlessness of launching a DOS on some arbitrary website no one ever visits, which is their right. However, I think launching an assault on a website (especially as Anonymous) serves a very important purpose, both functionally and symbolically. It conveys a very direct voice of opposition against companies shutting down websites like TPB or (as we've seen just this week) other torrent domains without due process. It is very clear that those companies and politicians have no idea how these websites function. Rightly so, they are made in a tiered and complex fashion so as to spread, eliminate, or avoid liability, as is the case in the OP (e.g. i-frames, torrents with no trackers, using only links to other sites but not actually hosting any illegal content). However, this isn’t an excuse for the judicial system to say that merely because a system is too complex to understand that those who are genuinely innocent should be lumped in with the guilty. That is ridiculous and I’m sure no one would agree with such a verdict. So while many people on Slashdot might complain about the point of DOS’ing a website, it says very loud and clear to those ignorant parties that people won’t stand for this kind of tyranny. Good for them, I say.
    • by Haeleth (414428)

      What the companies and politicians know, and piracy apologists are repeatedly failing to grasp, is that it doesn't matter how the websites function.

      If the end result of visiting a certain URL is that the visitor is assisted in acquiring copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder, and the site at said URL has been designed with that goal in mind, then it really doesn't matter how many iframes and trackerless torrents and mere links and so forth there are.

      The end result is the same. T

      • by hedwards (940851)
        It does indeed matter a great deal. What you're proposing is the ends justify the means. After all the piracy wouldn't happen if the ISP cut them off, now would it?

        If you think that the piracy apologists are bad, just look at folks like you that will go to any length to justify placing the blame on the middle man, that doesn't even possess or transmit the copyrighted materials in the first place. And you end up with all sorts of constitutional problems in doing so. Violations of due process and privacy a
  • protest? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sletraBydnaR (1491469)
    Nice move. Protest the loss in court by doing something illegal.
    • not uncommon (Score:2, Insightful)

      I'd say it's not very different from demonstrations and riots. While in most cases it's questionable - sometimes it's the only way to be noticed.
  • Parasites? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cornicefire (610241) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @07:55PM (#34361404)
    I know that many of the corporations are pretty sleezy and they make money off the backs of the artists, but the pirate sites do exactly the same thing. At least the corporate suits give a few percent to the artists. The pirate sites keep it all for themselves. If you're going to do this thing, study the masters like Richard Stallman and write something intellectually coherent about intellectual property. Make a solid argument and it's more likely to be respected.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hedwards (940851)
      Unfortunately there's a lot of people out there that aren't capable of comprehending that copyright infringement is anything other than theft. Even on /. you see an embarrassingly large number of posts that claim that copying is theft. In no jurisdiction that I know of is copyright infringement a form of theft.

      Beyond that people, in the US atleast, aren't educated in rhetoric, logic or debate. Which tends to make such discussions a waste of time as the only way of winning an audience like that is to scar
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Amorymeltzer (1213818)

      Take a poll of the American/Swedish/European/World population. See how many can tell you one thing (aside from sword-fighting ninjas) about RMS and how many can tell you one thing about file-sharing or Anonymous. We all know the number will weigh heavily in favor of the latter. People remember Napoleon, not De Tocqueville.

  • truly, they were multiply-sourced in the DOS attack.

    MSDOS was finally good for something. anyone got a torrent for the latest release?

  • by Infernal Device (865066) on Saturday November 27, 2010 @11:24PM (#34362328)

    A DOS attack! That'll show 'em!

    A bunch of internet vigilantes perform a Denial-of-Access-to-Information Attack in an attempt to get a court judgement in another country overturned in the vain hopes that the majority of people won't view them as little more than spoiled brat troublemakers ...

    You know, MLK and his people braved fire-hoses, dogs and shotguns at close range.

    The worst you guys have is running out of Mountain Dew and porn.

Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it.

Working...