Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec, Anonymous Reason For PROTECT IP Act, Says RIAA

Comments Filter:
  • al qaeda (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Titan1080 (1328519)
    please select the RIAA HQ as your next target.
  • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:14PM (#36628514) Homepage Journal

    And expose the sordid details of RIAA exec's child prostitution activities on their Thailand "business trips".

    • by IBitOBear (410965) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:38PM (#36628718) Homepage Journal

      Their child prostitution is right out there leading their marketing pushes. Check out the "teen seen" music sources and Disney Channel fare. 13 year old girls in bustiers?

      MAFIAA is _proud_ of their rampant selling of child sex and sexuality to the public. That it is more "child porn" than direct prostitution is the only possible argument.

      • I highly doubt they're proud of it. After all, they can't monopolize and cash in on it, I kinda wonder why they didn't try to buy a law for it yet. I mean, there is a market for it, isn't there? And all that money going to someone without a cut for the MAFIAA, that can't be!

      • Have you seen South Park episode on Jonas Brothers? It's like you are talking about it. The episode was "The Ring", 13x1. Pretty funny.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:55PM (#36628860)

      I love the reasoning of why the Protect IP act is being pushed...make using stuff that's already been made against the law to use unless one is using it in accordance with an industry, and THEN people will stop using it because it will be against TWO laws. That'll work. Forget about the collateral damage to law abiding American citizens.

      • by symbolset (646467) * on Friday July 01, 2011 @12:49AM (#36630650) Journal

        Protect IP matters because Detriot is an industrial wasteland. Intellectual Property is becoming more and more of the product we have to export. Because of this we escalate its importance to the point where at some future point we must defend our intellectual property using men with guns on foreign soil, defending our right to charge what we will for the broadcast rights to Justin Bieber's latest album on the peoples of India and China - who don't want to hear that crap anyway.

        The whole thing is sick. Eventually the world is going to call us to the carpet on that and make us make useful stuff for the value we get. And then what have we got?

    • by symbolset (646467) *

      You're onto something here. Maybe it's time we got up close and personal with the individual folk behind these attacks on our rights. Task: Lookup domestic info and current locations of studio executives and politically evil "representatives", their spouses and offspring for tracking purposes. Look for avenues of humint and telint.

      Slashdot's not the right place for this so let's continue this discussion elsewhere.

  • Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wsxyz (543068) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:16PM (#36628526)
    It makes perfect sense to me, seeing as how it is a known fact that all members of Anonymous and Lulzsec are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Law.
    • Re:Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:35PM (#36628704) Homepage

      First you get it into US law, then you convince the rest of the world to "harmonize" their laws. Almost a SOP for megacorps.

    • Come on, this is the same bunch (lawmakers in general) that believes that stricter gun control will make criminals suddenly "straighten up and fly right" and not buy any more guns on the black market.

      Wishful thinking made flesh. That's the bitter reality of the legislative process in today's United States.
      • by nagnamer (1046654)

        Wishful thinking made flesh. That's the bitter reality of the legislative process in today's United States.

        Problem is that the said legislative process is a black market. Maybe if they used a normal process, it'd not be that bad.

  • by allaunjsilverfox2 (882195) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:17PM (#36628548) Homepage Journal
    Obviously anyone here understands that the Protect Act has NOTHING to do with the stupidity that the RIAA is spewing. But let me restate it for those that don't understand. They are using recent events as a False Flag-like excuse. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/False_flag [wikimedia.org] I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Titan1080 (1328519)
      I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Anonymous and Lulzsec and others aren't just fabricated excuses to allow the president to enable his internet kill switch.
    • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:54PM (#36628856)

      I was actually wondering why they didn't use Fukushima as an excuse to ask for some kind of law, but perhaps they got a little more wary now that a few judges noticed that their excuses aren't even close to resembling sanity.

      But this is at least somehow, in some way, .... oh hell, it's on the internet, what else needs to match?

      • by WorBlux (1751716)
        Because adding more regulations to what is already one of the most regulated industries in this country doesn't give them any additional control. They already have "authority" to take over in the case of nuclear accidents as well, so what really to they have to gain by making a big deal of this. No new plants are seriously being considered so traditional energy companies aren't concerned with trying to prevent competition.
        • by symbolset (646467) *

          Because adding more regulations to what is already one of the most regulated industries in this country doesn't give them any additional control. They already have "authority" to take over in the case of nuclear accidents as well, so what really to they have to gain by making a big deal of this. No new plants are seriously being considered so traditional energy companies aren't concerned with trying to prevent competition.

          Well maybe if you guys came up with a plan to dispose of the spent fuel from the reactors you wouldn't have this problem. One full reactor worth of spent fuel every 18 months is a serious accumulation over the span of the life of a nuclear plant - currently 60 years. That's 40 reactors worth of spent fuel per reactor, and even at half strength that's 20 reactors of spent fuel heat creation per reactor. Even selling the power generated by the spent fuel ponds is looking like an option now. At this point

          • by nagnamer (1046654)

            Well maybe if you guys came up with a plan to dispose of the spent fuel from the reactors you wouldn't have this problem.

            I thought DU rounds [wikipedia.org] were invented for this purpose...

    • by _Sprocket_ (42527)

      I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.

      Are you or are you not putting forward the claim that lulzsec and anonymous are false-flag operations? You don't get to have it both ways.

      I find it amazing that people keep wanting to push around the "false flag" meme. Can't the RIAA simply be opportunistic parasites taking advantage of other's activities? You know. Like record executives.

      • I'm referring to the fact they are taking advantage of the fear of the public to push through their political ideology.
        • by _Sprocket_ (42527)
          As I noted, that's not "false flag." That's simply being opportunistic.
    • by timeOday (582209)

      I am not claiming in any way, shape or form that they are responsible for said events. Merely that they are taking advantage of them in this way.

      Oh, you mean a "true flag," otherwise known as a "reason" for doing something.

      • I find your refusal to accept the provided definitions interesting. I can cite a false flag event similar to the one RIAA is using. The cold war was started because ideological claims of events that had no bearing on reality. There was no "reason" for the cold war to exist other than those in power feared outcomes that were contrary to their political beliefs. Now, If you continue to insist on a different definition, I'll accept that your opinion differs from mine. But the point still stands that a false fl
        • by timeOday (582209)
          Here is the provided definition from your own link:

          "False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities."

          It means what it says, one party pretending to be another. And yet, the RIAA is not disguising itself here.

          Moreover, the RIAA's logic is basically correct: the only way to limit people from using the Internet to break laws would be for the government to have ultimat

          • by shentino (1139071)

            No it's NOT all the same.

            National security secrets, kiddie porn, and copyright violations are illegal. Home movies of kittens are not.

            And unless the feds have probable cause, they've got no business snooping the wires enough to find out which of the above my traffic is.

  • The RIAA required a scapegoat and the Lulzsec/Anon attacks were just what they needed to push this crap.
    • by transami (202700)

      Makes you wonder who is p(l)aying who?

  • I've heard ProtectIP bans any site that links to copyrighted material.
    Is it true that ProtectIP could shut down every single forum on the Internet if they wished?
    Afterall, someone only needs to post a link to copyrighted material
    • by arbiter1 (1204146)
      This act could be used to shutdown google, bing, yahoo, (insert any search engine here) since you type in a word it will come back with copyrighted material. heck even sites like cnn etc
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      LOL, since everything published is now under copyright, linking to anything violates the ProtectIP act! Google and Bing are the prime examples, they're violating slashdot's copyright by linking to it!

  • Stupid works (Score:5, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:33PM (#36628684)
    So the logic here is the same as it has been for every rights-compromising measure put forth so far this century; "[name of enemy] is going to cause massive amounts of economic/physical/spiritual damage unless [measure] is undertaken immediately. [measure] will of course restrict your rights, but it's all in the name of protecting something greater than you." Of course, that something invariably reduces to somebody else's profit, which is likely already happening at your expense, so why change the status quo now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by hedwards (940851)

      As long as there's a huge number of bumpkins that fall for it, why bother to stop?

  • by bsDaemon (87307) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:35PM (#36628706)

    The other day, after reading yet another news story about the censorship moves in Australia and more PROTECT IP stuff, I decided that it was time to try out configuring Privoxy to forward everything via SOCKS5 to Tor. I was expecting a much bigger performance hit than I actual did, though, which was a pleasant surprise. Sure, its annoying having to enter CAPTCHA tags for Google all the time, but that's really not that big of a hassle. For the less technical people, Vidalia + the Tor Button for Firefox are pretty much fool proof. Between advertisers, stories about repression of online descent in the middle east and asia, Facebook and Google tracking people all the damned time, etc, I think (or, at least, I would like to think) that it might only be a matter of time before more and more 'normal' people, even those who really, truely, have nothing to hide, start doing something similar.

    When Comcast starts filtering port 9050 like they do with 25, then we'll know we've pretty much lost the Internet once and for all. But hey, at least the Department of State supports Internet freedom in China, right? pffft.

    • by cjb658 (1235986)

      Tor I believe uses port 443 to communicate with relays. (At least there is an option to use it if the normal port is blocked.)

      9050 is just the port it listens to locally.

      Ironically (?), Tor receives a lot of funding from the US Government. They did a presentation [defcon.org] at Defcon a couple years ago.

      Maybe by the time they figure out how to shut Tor down, we'll have developed wireless mesh networks.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:38PM (#36628724) Homepage Journal

    Sony is a member of the RIAA, after all. I applaud LulzSec's actions (most of 'em, anyway) and urge them to keep up the good work.

    I was the "victim" of a group much like LulzSec before the turn of the century, and it was hilarious (to me, anyway) indeed. My site, the Springfield Fragfest, made fun of everybody (for the lulz before "lulz" was coined). I was kind of the Don Rickles of the Quake world -- I made fun of everybody, and everybody I made fun of became fans (well, almost everybody, some folks have no sense of humor). I'd have folks' pet shamblers pissing on the couch, Thresh taking speed, etc.

    There was a group much like LulzSec (for all I know it might have had some of the same members) that was in the nerd news, so I posted a bit about them accompanied by a photo of a group of Down's Syndrome kids as illustration.

    They broke into my host's servers and removed the <img> tag and photo... and left the text intact! I was honored as well as amused.

    But, you know, the people (and I use that term loosely) LulzSec are targeting have no sense of humor whatever. Again, guys, keep up the good work, and thanks for the lulz. I hope reports of LulSec's death are greatly exaggerated.

    • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Friday July 01, 2011 @02:21AM (#36630970)
      Yeah, because removing an image tag is roughly the same as posting peoples' login information, proprietary source code or a list of email addresses to a porn site and telling people to ridicule anybody they know on the list. Gosh dang kids these days just have no sense of humor.
    • LulzSec is a criminal organization. They're certainly not in it for the "lulz" and they're certainly not doing it for some lofty philosophy. Seeing as they couldn't even access some of the databases of the sites they "hacked", it leads me to believe that they're just throwing every trick in the book on the most obscure sites they could find, hoping someone forgot to escape an SQL query here or there.
  • by SirAstral (1349985) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @06:57PM (#36628874)

    The hacking, compromising, or intrusion of a computer system has nothing to do with the copying/distribution of copy protected works. The unlawful access of a computer system is already against the law and there is nothing this act would do to improve security because security is up to each individual organization and how they implement it.

    This is classic politics at work folks, keep your eye on the ball!

  • by Osgeld (1900440) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @07:05PM (#36628968)

    It will treat everyday law abiding citizens as charged criminals under investigation while the people it targets will patch over it in less than a day...

    At this point I have trouble weighing out which group is dumber

    • by Mashiki (184564)

      Seems to me that the protect act violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th sections of the bill of rights.

      I'd say that americans should be getting pretty close to the bullet box option by now.

  • Sure, first we'll just repeal the first amendment. . .

  • It seems to me that the RIAA/MPAA/etc is the reason for LulzSec and Anonymous
  • And the first thing that needs to be censored is the RIAA.

    • riaa is a terrorist org.

      I think their DNS entries should be the first to be blacklisted.

      they really are terrorists. I think they should be filtered. their whole concept is unamerican.

      filter them first.

  • by supersloshy (1273442) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @08:27PM (#36629554)

    What Anonymous/LulzSec do (a good percentage of the time) is illegal anyways, yes? Why the crap do we need new laws when what they do is already criminal?

    • Nearly every CONgress on the world fails to even understand why you would ask something that obvious.

    • by krizoitz (1856864)
      First, I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion. However I also disagree with your analogy. It is illegal for me to steal from you, yet the fact that it is illegal doesn't mean you should leave your door unlocked. This proposal is more akin to adding extra locked doors to the building your apartment is in to prevent unauthorized or questionable people from getting in. Again I want to point out that I disagree with the RIAA's conclusion, but there is SOME logic involved, only a little.
      • I never said anything about not practicing good security. If someone steals from you because of bad security, the criminal is still liable for damages (if he can be traced in the first place). Should businesses be liable to protect their customers' data? Of course they should, I'm for that entirely. However, the Protect IP Act looks like it has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever and it wouldn't help at all.

  • modest much, neil? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @09:15PM (#36629802)

    The ability of our country to lead -- and the ability of U.S. companies to create employment -- will depend upon our continued success.

    Neil Turkewitz, Executive Vice President, International, RIAA

    this is how the 'letter' on the riaa website ends.

    'the ability of our country to lead': well, since engineering and manufacturing of actual goods has gone overseas, I suppose only you, your ilk and fast food workers are what we have left in the US. if the way we 'lead' the world is via your methods, I think we are better off not leading.

    'US companies creating employment': lawyers and folks like that. yup. but do we want more of THAT kind of US employment?

    and I even question the 'continued success' part. your buying base outright hates you and side-steps you at every turn. you war on them and wonder why they hate you and don't continue paying for your existence?

    neil, you are so fucking full of yourself. probably considered a trait of success at the place you work at, though...

  • Why dont we do one better and to extend protections to the RIAA and others just flat out ban copyrighted material from the internet...we could go back to the days when "lawlessness" ruled the internet but it was also inherently more useful.

  • at least this time the powers that be didn't blow-up two buildings to make their strawman..

  • by lexsird (1208192) on Thursday June 30, 2011 @11:23PM (#36630366)

    They need to be quicker on their feet to out adapt the world of technology. Counter measures roll out faster than laws countering measures. All it does is create some vicious enemies with long memories. The RIAA needs to STFU and come up with a modern working business model for the digital age. It doesn't take much brain activity to come up with something that could solve this problem, so what the hell is their problem?

  • LOL, I was just waiting for this.. Problem, Reaction, Solution.. works every time.
  • The result of aggressive filtering and censorship like that in the US will be a decentralization of the Internet. Instead of relying on a few easily controlled DNS servers and other components, people will move to decentralized, self-validating systems that will be even harder for governments to control. And people will start encrypting their traffic regularly. So, go ahead, make our days!

"Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi

Working...