Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Piracy Crime The Internet Your Rights Online

Film Industry Hires Cyber Hitmen To Take Down Pirates 457

thelostagency writes "Girish Kumar, managing director of Aiplex Software says his company is being hired by the film industry to attack online pirates. He says if a provider did not do anything to remove the link or content hosted on its site, his company would launch what is known as a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on the offending computer server. From the article: 'Kumar said that at the moment most of the payment for his company's services came from the film industry in India. "We are tied up with more than 30 companies in Bollywood. They are the major production houses." As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Film Industry Hires Cyber Hitmen To Take Down Pirates

Comments Filter:
  • So like (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adversus ( 1451933 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:32AM (#33517110)
    21st century version of a protection racket? "Do what we say or we'll beat your connections down."
  • by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:35AM (#33517124)

    Let's see a graph of how their earnings went up during the attack.

  • Re:Really? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by telekon ( 185072 ) <canweriotnow&gmail,com> on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:39AM (#33517156) Homepage Journal
    Are you suggesting that Anonymous never forgives, and Anonymous never forgets? Perhaps that none of us is as cruel as all of us?

    The MPAA needs to learn the Rules of the Internet. []

    Ignorance of the law is no defense.

  • by spyder-implee ( 864295 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:40AM (#33517160)
    Pissing on a bonfire...
  • by jafo ( 11982 ) * on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:50AM (#33517206) Homepage
    Because DoS attacks never harm innocent bystanders like the ISP, *THEIR* ISP, or other customers of either of them.

    We have enough problems with DoS attacks launched by miscreants. So, yeah, maybe some of these ISPs don't take reports seriously, but I do know that not all "copyright enforcement" type actions are well researched...

    This one time we got a DMCA takedown notice from a software vendor in Australia for a site run by a department of a local university, for running an unlicensed copy of their software. The DMCA takedown notice was sent to my company because they "couldn't find the contact information" *FOR A UNIVERSITY*. I found it by clicking on the "contact" link on the page they made the takedown request for.

    Turns out that the university *DID* have a license for the software, BTW.

    I know it's annoying when your stuff gets stolen, but don't go attacking people.
  • Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DigiShaman ( 671371 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @12:58AM (#33517250) Homepage

    Here's a though. If computers are going to get infected anyways and turned into SPAM spewing zombies, why not modify the virus to host P2P trackers along with it? Let the blackhats and MPAA roll around in the mud and take care of our vexing problem for us =) It would kill two birds with one stone. The SPAM goes away and the MPAA gets busted as an accessory to the crime. If they don't, they still keep taking down the SPAMMERS. Win WIN!!!!!

  • by exomondo ( 1725132 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:00AM (#33517264)

    not that I condone what this idiotic company is doing. But how exactly would you manage to get an extradition for him on the basis of crimes commited in another country (where what he is doing isn't illegal), unless you can somehow show the pirates he attacked are on American soil, even then I doubt it would hold up.

    IANAL but surely the american companies hiring his company would be somewhat accountable wouldn't they?

  • Re:Er, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fluffeh ( 1273756 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:14AM (#33517342)

    Aren't DoS attacks illegal? If so, why not?

    They are, and I really wonder if Hollywood (FTFA: "As for Hollywood films, he said they, too, used his services.") wants to really be poking ANOTHER stick into the hornets nest that the internet can be.

    The way I see if, for every hundred thousand cookie cutter P2P users, there will be one who is savvy enough, annoyed enough and has the resources to return in kind to Hollywood. And there will be people like me, who don't fit in either bracket, but would certainly offer both refuge to that one person and buy them drinks for their efforts.

  • Re:Er, (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Sinesurfer ( 40786 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:28AM (#33517422) Homepage

    So.... does the EFF sue Aiplex, the MPAA or the film owner?

    (that's assuming Aiplex is careful not to upset hackers smarter than Aiplex). Do not DDOS Aiplex and if you're caught remember I told you not to do it.

  • Re:Er, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unr3a1 ( 1264666 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @01:52AM (#33517526)

    No, this is like sears fighting shoplifting by sending assassins after shoplifters.

    DOS attacks are unlikely to kill anyone, unless they rely on VOIP and can't make a call when they have a heart attack.

    It's more a store fighting shoplifting by tracking down people they think might be shoplifters and setting fire to their cars.

    Lol... I see what you did there. The problem people keep forgetting is that the film industry goes after anyone they THINK is pirating their shit. They never prove any of the accusations they use to justify their actions, which makes them FAR worse than vigilantism.

  • Re:Er, (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 0111 1110 ( 518466 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @02:53AM (#33517772)

    And when millions of downloaders decide to DDOS Aiplex Software you will have no problem with that either. Remember Make Love Not Spam []? All we need is a nice screensaver like that and we can DDOS Aiplex right of the internet. The copyright infringers outnumber the copyright holders by millions to one. I'm not sure if what they want is an all out war. DDOS attacks aren't going to solve anyone's problems. All they will do is shut down the internet for everyone. Of course there are some corporations that would love to see that happen.

  • by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @03:06AM (#33517840) Homepage Journal
    The Music and Movie industry will (one day) regret that they instigated a never ending escalating arms race against *everyone*.

    It is a bad business model to go out of your way to piss off *the entire known universe*.

    One day somebody with enough brains and too much anger will trump your sorry ass and you will take *years* to recover (even slightly) from the mountain of suffering that will be unleashed against you.

    Have these people forgotten Nagasaki and Hiroshima? EVENTUALLY somebody says "STFU or I *will* make you regret it".
  • Re:Er, (Score:2, Interesting)

    by uxbn_kuribo ( 1146975 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @06:07AM (#33518654)
    In all of the examples you've cited, you're depriving a person of the actual physical property. Your analogy is flawed. 1) Shoplifting a couch deprives the store of property in the form of a sale that the store would have potentially made. For piracy to apply to this analogy, you would have to assume that the pirate would buy the software, when in fact he may only be getting it because it's there and free. 2) Again, you're depriving another person of this vehicle. For piracy to apply here, the pirate would have to steal the software off of someone's computer, and then delete it, and THEN seed the machine in such a way that it can never be put back onto the machine. 3 & 4) Now you're just comparing piracy to violent crime.
  • Re:Er, (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dr_Barnowl ( 709838 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @06:41AM (#33518808)

    or I have to wait 6 months

    You lost my sympathy right there. I've downloaded ISOs to replace lost or damaged game CDs (my pirate copy of Halo is right there in the case next to the original which you still need for the DRM, since I haven't risked cracking it). I'm quite comfortable with recording hundreds of GB of films from TV because when it comes down to it, I just paid to see them a different way. I can even see your point of view about regional availability, although when it comes down to it, there is this thing called the postal system.

    But impatience? The rate of new stuff arriving is constant anyway - enjoy the stuff arriving now, wait your 6 months, and remain entertained. It's not like it's a frickin' vaccine. You can do without it for a while, and meanwhile, there's the vast influx of other stuff that was released 6 months ago.

  • Re:Er, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AmonTheMetalhead ( 1277044 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @06:47AM (#33518834)
    Impatience? It's the principe of the thing, there is no justification for not releasing a movie (or cd) globally.
  • by He who knows ( 1376995 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @08:05AM (#33519270)
    How can an Indian company try to use the DMCA laws that only aply in America (at the moment) to try to force websites that probally are not based in America to remove copyrighted material belonging to mainly film companies based in India.
  • Re:Wrong wrong wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:15AM (#33519948) Homepage

    If the law were not corrupted to favor the corporations then nothing that Jamie Rasset was sharing would have been in copyright. It all would have EXPIRED into the public domain by the time she was engaging in her piracy. The flagship RIAA anti-piracy case isn't even about current works. It's about "moldy oldies".

    Copyright is one of those area where the law itself is grey.

    Your rights are supposed to expire.

    Some infringers are worse than others.

    Some "infringement" is perfectly legal and ethical.

  • Re:Er, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Thursday September 09, 2010 @09:55AM (#33520798) Homepage Journal

    "Moral people" as you would like describe them are extremely, extremely rare.

    On the coontrary, most people are moral. It's just that nobody agrees on what's "moral". For instance, some think violence is always immoral, others think that violence in defense of self or property is moral, and some think punching someone in the face because they've been verbally insulted it moral.

    The Muslims and Baptists think drinking alcohol is immoral. Some people think any kind of sex except the missionary position is immoral. Some people* think dancing is immoral.

    Some think brealing the law is immoral. I think some of the laws themselves are immoral.

    Someone who you consider to be immoral simply has a different version of morality than you.

    * Q: Why won't baptists have sex standing up?
      A: They're afraid someone will see them and think they're dancing!

  • Corruption (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples@gmail.BOHRcom minus physicist> on Thursday September 09, 2010 @10:34AM (#33521532) Homepage Journal
    The key word being "approximate". Trade groups for big businesses have more money with which to lobby legislators and contribute to their election campaigns than organizations that serve the public interest. Does EFF have an affiliated PAC? If so, I have some money that I'm itching to donate.
  • Re:Wrong wrong wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mea37 ( 1201159 ) on Thursday September 09, 2010 @11:32AM (#33522562)

    "Some "infringement" is perfectly legal and ethical."

    You almost had a point, and you had to go and ruin it with this gem.

    Infringement is a legal term, so I'm not sure how you can claim that some infringement is legal. The law identifies some circumstances (like fair use) in which an act that would otherwise be infringement is not, by virtue of those circumstances, infringement. (See, e.g., U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, s107.) Such acts are perfectly legal, but then again they are not infringement.

    Some infringement should be legal (because, as you note, copyright terms are out of control). You can argue that violating such laws is ethical, if your ethical code endorses civil disobedience. However, you need to remember that civil disobedience includes accepting the social and legal consequences of your actions, even though those consequences be improper and even though your goals largely involve abolishment of those consequences.

Who goeth a-borrowing goeth a-sorrowing. -- Thomas Tusser