4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
4chan DDoS Takes Down MPAA and Anti-Piracy Websites
http://torrentfreak.com/4chan-ddos-takes-down-mpaa-and-anti-piracy-websites-100918/
9 comments
RIAA and MPAA really need to come to their senses. They just can't buy more black hat firepower than disenchanted script kiddies will unleash against them for free. This is almost identical to the repercussions (having their websites defaced) of their attempts to pollute P2P networks with virus-infected seeds. They're really not good at this wannabe cyber-warfare game, and should be held responsible for misconduct, like any other netizen.
The only way they can get out is to hire 4chan.
They'd have to pay in lulz, of which they have none.
Dear RIAA/MPAA,
Although Anonymous is not your personal army, and when Jesus asked them their name, they replied "My name is Legion, for we are many", and by many, they mean over 9000; and they're also a front for the Marcab Confederacy....
They take large sums of unmarked, non-sequential large denomination bills, and don't skimp on the briefcase. Deliver it to moot's beachfront property in Mexico.
Although Anonymous is not your personal army, and when Jesus asked them their name, they replied "My name is Legion, for we are many", and by many, they mean over 9000; and they're also a front for the Marcab Confederacy....
They take large sums of unmarked, non-sequential large denomination bills, and don't skimp on the briefcase. Deliver it to moot's beachfront property in Mexico.
What? That totally sounds like the argument for a Quentin Tarantino movie.
I might be missing something here but surely a web presence is not vital to either of these organizations, and while it might be satisfying to DDOS them it doesn't accomplish much.
Also www.aiplex.com appears to be back up.
Also www.aiplex.com appears to be back up.
Reminds me of the whole "refusing to be interrogated for entering my own country" incident.
You're not sticking it to the man, you're sticking it to the low-level employee who is punching the clock for the man but doesn't actually have any say in steering procedure.
And I guess that's fine if you want the publicity. But that's all you're going to get out of it.
You're not sticking it to the man, you're sticking it to the low-level employee who is punching the clock for the man but doesn't actually have any say in steering procedure.
And I guess that's fine if you want the publicity. But that's all you're going to get out of it.
That was more interesting because nobody was really sure as to whether or not you had to answer those questions. Turns out you don't.
This is silly, though, because there is little point in bringing down a website that nobody visits. If a tree falls in the forest...
This is silly, though, because there is little point in bringing down a website that nobody visits. If a tree falls in the forest...
I believe to us it seems like a futile attempt, they should really target mail servers (which appear to be hosted by microsoft anyway). But to these not so tech-savvy people, I think it's enough to annoy them.
They seem to be fighting fire with fire but the fire of DDoSing a torrent file server burns brighter.
They seem to be fighting fire with fire but the fire of DDoSing a torrent file server burns brighter.
For the young guys out there, you should know that DOS is illegal. If an individual is caught doing this, they could end-up in jail or in the least get a criminal record. So, if you want a decent job and to be a productive member of society, don't DOS websites.
Your IP address is not anonymous.
Your IP address is not anonymous.
Also for the young kids: illegal is not always synonymous with immoral, and sometimes to be a productive member of society you have to step across that line.
DDoS or human flesh search would be morally acceptable IF there were no other recourse in society for justice. In china the government is authoritarian and the people have human flesh searches as their effective form of justice. But to condone illegal activity for change in places like the united states is to suggest that there is critical flaw in the democratic process. Is there? Because if there is then we should acknowledge that and fix that too instead of relying on mob rule all the time. The only person I can see who morally justifies this (for him/herself) would be some teenager who has never been allowed to vote (thus not having any other recourse for change). But I think its irresponsible to encourage these who must be kids to take the illegal route to get what they want if there is a viable legal route. Write your senator or something, don't cheer the mob on. Make sure you're not operating on impulse.
The MPAA has powerful lobbyists. I can see people being disenfranchised pretty easily, at which point, what's your recourse? Vote in the next guy who'll be just as easily swayed? I don't agree with DDOS'ing people, but I can understand how some people might think it's one of the few options which might bring about change.
Sometime it is better to employ a taoist strategy of doing nothing and let them create their own demise. If they are targeting P2P users, than it let them know not to pirate that content and consume somebody's else. If that somebody else is smart, than he could enter into a mutually beneficial relationship rather than wasting money to try to fight piracy.
So you're saying the system is broken? It very well could be but you honestly think any of these kids checked to see? And if they have tried doing it legally and fail then I would like to see more fight towards that issue, as in my opinion it's a bigger issue if corporations are controlling our gov't than them attacking a few pirates.
If a law is unjust you IGNORE it. You don't take enforcement into your own hands, much less anonymous enforcement. If you truly believe what you fight for you'd come out and be proud of it because you know you're right. But nothing says uncertain motives more than cowering behind anonymity for a cause.
If a law is unjust you IGNORE it. You don't take enforcement into your own hands, much less anonymous enforcement. If you truly believe what you fight for you'd come out and be proud of it because you know you're right. But nothing says uncertain motives more than cowering behind anonymity for a cause.
Civil disobedience has a long and recognized history and plays an important role in democratic societies as much as any other kind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
It very well could indicate a flaw in democracy, nothing is perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
It very well could indicate a flaw in democracy, nothing is perfect.
Civil disobedience is a very well-defined term in its proper usage, and does not extend to all forms of "breaking the law because you're angry about something".
Civil disobedience goes like this:
1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt)
2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly.
3. You get arrested and punished.
4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law.
DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.
Civil disobedience goes like this:
1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt)
2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly.
3. You get arrested and punished.
4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law.
DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.
What would you classify John Brown's raid of the Harpers Ferry armory as?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry,_West_Virginia#Jo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry,_West_Virginia#Jo...
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia.
Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones.
If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.
Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones.
If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia
An impossibly broad definition -- it encompasses all crime.
An impossibly broad definition -- it encompasses all crime.
Well assuming you consistently do it, then yes it would be civil disobedience.
Just because you're civilly disobeying doesn't make it right.
Just because you're civilly disobeying doesn't make it right.
Well, I'm not American and I'm not especially familiar with all the details of US history, so this is the first I've heard of this particular event. However, I'll have a read of the wikipedia article (there's a longer article about the actual event linked from the one on the location) and see what I think.
Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.
Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.
Do you live in the US?
What's the relevance?
We'll, we're discussing the MPAA, which is an American organization, American civil disobedience with regard to Rosa Parks, Harpers Ferry and the catalyst for the American Civil War.
When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
No what 4chan is doing is akin to telling a white person to go to the back of the bus in retribution.
Of course nothing is perfect, which is why if you don't believe in the democratic and judicial process then you might as well have anarchy and take everything into your own hands. We don't have a government because it's perfect. We have it because it allows us to funnel all problems with respect to it. A standardized process with which to improve society instead of having mobs act on impulse everytime they get angry.
Of course nothing is perfect, which is why if you don't believe in the democratic and judicial process then you might as well have anarchy and take everything into your own hands. We don't have a government because it's perfect. We have it because it allows us to funnel all problems with respect to it. A standardized process with which to improve society instead of having mobs act on impulse everytime they get angry.
No, it's like telling George Wallace to go to the back of the bus. If the MPAA wants to be the chief asshole of the internet then they don't get to play in it with the rest of us. It's not the downfall of society, it's just a little mischief to compensate for an obviously broken democracy. It has always happened and always should.
Then let us shed some blood and refresh the tree of liberty. Who cares about the MPAA. Let's DoS the government so we can fix it. For if we ignore the root of the problem we'll have to keep being mischievous to compensate for everything, and then what are we? We would no longer be civil, and disobedience would govern us. Seriously what's the problem? Government or one anomaly that is the MPAA? If it's the former then well need more than a little mischief. We'll need revolution (or at the least major reform)! If the latter, then why the mischief, go through proper channels.
Or maybe this is about having our constitutional right to bear cyber arms (and use at will). In which case I would encourage every cyber citizen to ignore the unjust anti-DoS laws and proudly use his/her low orbit ion cannons at will. that would be civil disobedience.
Sure we're angry at the MPAA. We can choose not to accept their terms (by not buying or pirating). Or if you don't believe in copyright, pirate the stuff and take on the legal consequences. But stooping to their level is dishonorable, and questionable in motive. Sure these dos guys are probably kids but we should encourage them to hold back and fight back honorably.
Or maybe this is about having our constitutional right to bear cyber arms (and use at will). In which case I would encourage every cyber citizen to ignore the unjust anti-DoS laws and proudly use his/her low orbit ion cannons at will. that would be civil disobedience.
Sure we're angry at the MPAA. We can choose not to accept their terms (by not buying or pirating). Or if you don't believe in copyright, pirate the stuff and take on the legal consequences. But stooping to their level is dishonorable, and questionable in motive. Sure these dos guys are probably kids but we should encourage them to hold back and fight back honorably.
What, precisely, has the MPAA done that is so wrong?
Personally I'd take the copyright debate a lot more seriously if I could separate the folks who have legitimate and well thought-out points to make about the weaknesses of existing copyright law from the folks who just want to get stuff for free.
Personally I'd take the copyright debate a lot more seriously if I could separate the folks who have legitimate and well thought-out points to make about the weaknesses of existing copyright law from the folks who just want to get stuff for free.
> What, precisely, has the MPAA done that is so wrong?
I know right? If they did something wrong point that out. Attacking them because you think they're assholes and you feel like it is just plain immature.
I know right? If they did something wrong point that out. Attacking them because you think they're assholes and you feel like it is just plain immature.
> But to condone illegal activity for change in places like the united states is to suggest that there is critical flaw in the democratic process.
The USA isn't a democracy. Not formally, because it doesn't have universal adult suffrage, and because votes aren't of equal value. Not practically, because the electoral system means that no-one outside the two big parties can get anywhere. And that's even before we look at abuses of the system such as gerrymandering, or votes not being counted properly.
The USA is in practise run by corporate interests such as the MPAA and RIAA. A good example of this is the ACTA treaty, negotiations for which started under the Bush administration and continued seamlessly under Obama. So lacking in democratic oversight is this that lawmakers aren't even allowed to know what's in it.
The USA isn't a democracy. Not formally, because it doesn't have universal adult suffrage, and because votes aren't of equal value. Not practically, because the electoral system means that no-one outside the two big parties can get anywhere. And that's even before we look at abuses of the system such as gerrymandering, or votes not being counted properly.
The USA is in practise run by corporate interests such as the MPAA and RIAA. A good example of this is the ACTA treaty, negotiations for which started under the Bush administration and continued seamlessly under Obama. So lacking in democratic oversight is this that lawmakers aren't even allowed to know what's in it.
[deleted]
Oddly, while giving a tutorial on how to be a part of the DDoS, the article misses out the minor detail that it is in fact illegal.
Participating in a distributed denial of service attack is not necessarily illegal. There has to be some intent on the part of the visitor to cause damage. You could get involved in one just by innocently visiting a malicious web page which makes your browser download large files from the victim. Or suppose I set up an under-sized server with a very popular web application, the server might collapse under the load, but my visitors would not automatically become criminals when my server went down.
If you look at riaa.org with the intention of helping out the DDoS, it is illegal. If you do it innocently, it is not.
The question of whether your mens rea can actually be proven is an entirely different question from whether it is illegal.
The question of whether your mens rea can actually be proven is an entirely different question from whether it is illegal.
My comment was in the context of the article. I'd say firing up LOIC is plenty enough intent for it to be illegal.
I don't know about the rest of you but I've thought about firing up LOIC just so I could say I fired up a Low-Orbit Ion Cannon. Who cares about DDoS-ing. :)
But following the tutorial of the OP demonstrates with some certainty intent to cause damage.
The earlier attack on the Scientologists sent at least two guys to prison:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/guilty-plea-in-scie...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/guilty-plea-in-scie...
No, if you innocently view a page on an underpowered server, you are not part of a denial of service attack and are, by definition, innocent. A Denial of Service attack is explicitly malicious.
A Distributed Denial of Service attack can be made up of a bunch of people innocently viewing a page on an underpowered server though. The people clicking on a link don't have to know they are part of an attack, even if the link was made expressly to bring a site down. A link on 4chan or any large website can easily bring down a site, especially if it's to a resource heavy page.
There are evil things which are legal and illegal things which are not evil. Whether something is illegal or not doesn't effect whether it's bad. Only that there are a certain class of consequences involved.
I think they need a new target. This would make more sense five or so years ago as these organizations have bended to the market. I can now for free use YouTube or vevo listen to any song I want either on my pc or thru their iPhone apps. Similarly use hulu , Justin TV or YouTube to watch for free mpaa content.
Yeah, if you live in the United States. If I wanted to see, say, the Lost finale before it was spoiled to oblivion I had two options:
a) BitTorrent it. b) Scream in agony.
a) BitTorrent it. b) Scream in agony.
[deleted]
we had efnet, they have 4chan
kids will be kids
kids will be kids
We target the bastard group that has thus far led this charge against our websites. [...] We have the manpower, we have the botnets, it’s time we do to them what they keep doing to us.
What else, they stabbed us in the back? I know I'm breaking Godwin laws here but that's some pretty sickening Kristallnacht rhetoric there.
What else, they stabbed us in the back? I know I'm breaking Godwin laws here but that's some pretty sickening Kristallnacht rhetoric there.
Also Sean Hannity's forum, but for some reason nobody noticed that. (it's back up now)
Leave 4chan alone. Young freaks (and, oh, oldfags) have the same right to crowd together as everyone else. ^_^
“Orakio -> #programming: I mean I hate scientology and I don’t need to be in some group called anonymous to express that hate.” – zf04
Same can apply with anti-piracy. Anonymous = noobs.
Same can apply with anti-piracy. Anonymous = noobs.