Was the ACS site the one that released a file of Sky subsriber's names and their porn download habits? It's strange how that story keeps getting overlooked, anyone would think that the owners of Sky own other parts of our free press too.
Ongoing denial of service attacks spearheaded by Anonymous have knocked out the website of the Ministry of Sound, as well those of its payment provider and solicitors, Gallant Macmillian. Macmillan is attempting to identify and sue individuals who allegedly uploaded music from the Ministry of Sound's music catalogue. Slyckr …
The Metro mentioned 'hackers' were to blame for the DDoS, which is irking me somewhat because running a freely available program to flood a website with data/requests is NOT hacking - you can read the article online, pages 8&9 - http://e-edition.metro.co.uk/2010/10/04/index.html?p=1
Furthermore IP address information is definitely unreliable, someone I know had recently been using Sky broadband for almost 2 years after they stopped paying Sky for channels+adsl - how the fuck does Sky justify sending a bunch of names+addresses related to IP addresses to the clowns at ACS when they can't even keep track of their own users?!
...as I support the free movement of ideas, distrust/dislike the MAFIAA and detest the artificial trade barrier created by content protection ("protection racket" more like - DVD regions etc) I can't see these current actions having the desired outcome.
Why not simply defeat them at their own game? e.g.
- Advocate not buying from any major labels
- Or if one wants to buy from a major label, only buy second-hand or from the bargain bucket
- Only go to the local independent/art cinema
- Only attend live music at local/independent venues, not concerts/festivals run by the majors
- Create your own content and share it freely (or under any other terms you wish)
And so on.
There great thing about these tactics? They are not illegal and there is *nothing* the MAFIAA can do to stop it. They are, of course, a bit harder to do and require more personal investment than running a few scripts or pontificating in a forum on the intertubes.
I do hope Anonymous return to their previous good works (bothering Scientology) in the near future.
It's still going on. take a look at www.scientology-london.com , which Scientology lawyers have been unable to take down; they use a very resilient web host.
Also, it should be pointed out some of the Chanology members are so-called Moralfags who oppose DDoS and even worry about 'Anonymous' image'. Which is strange, seeing as it started out on 4chan's /b/
All Chanology (anti-Scientology) talk is strictly forbidden on the chans - for example 4chan and 711chan say so explicitly.
imo this is great news as these Mafia extortion letters need to be stopped, and justice through the courts resumed, and not the Digital Economy Act that basically allows these huge media companies to bypass our legal system in favour of independent tribunals funded predominantly by the media corporations with their hand picked stooges sitting in judgement.
what needs to be understood is that because i pay for my connection it may not be me downloading illegal material therefore i am not instantly guilty but these fecktard media industry stooges do not think the same way.
But remember the corporations behind this huge sue the world drive ppl and boycott all their services & products.
RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, PRS, IFPI, ASCAP, Ect:
# Sony BMG
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:
# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)
Anonymous are rapidly turning into the Internet bullies that they claim to be protesting against.
Download music without having paid for it if you must, but don't pretend that it's some sort of God given right.
(nb: I realise that some of the legal companies have been rather obnoxious, but you don't protest against something by emulating it...)
I observed yesterday's events. It would appear that the law firm pulled their page, in anticipation of the civil disobedience of Anonymous.
The 'target' was changed to Ministry of Sound. In the IRC chatroom, everyone was talking about 'charging their lasers' (not sure what that means) and pointing it at the MoS site.
A good source to follow is http://twitter.com/savetpb, or just search for the hashtag #savetpb on Twitter. Anonymous appear to be also using Facebook, Digg, 711chan, 4chan and eBaums World.
What is the commercial fallout for MoS being offline for a few hours? Probably not that much. I guess the intent is a symbolic protest & media attention.
I'm torn - I very strongly disagree with DDoS but feel that this issue needs to be highlighted. I fear the Digital Economy Act and the false allegations it will bring. I mean - it's utterly unworkable.
Was the program anonymous were using to DoS the targets. Once it is primed with a target, either manually added, or pushed out via IRC, you have a large button marked "IMMA CHARGIN MA LAZER". This is the "Fire" button.
It basically turns your PC into a voluntary DoS Bot.
Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!
I would usually try to be a little more responsible but, as is often said... Laugh? I nearly died!
As for ACS:Law, I hope Andrew Crossley finds a nice big rock to climb under and stays there. I would however like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Crossley for a wonderfully hilarious read of his email over the weekend. It was the best laugh I have had for a long time!
To me this whole issue is bigger than the filesharers and the greed driven industries persecuting them, often with flawed or incomplete evidence. Politicans and lawmakers need to wake up in a different bed to the music industry methinks. That said, perhaps politicians and lawmakers should just, well, wake up!
God forbid the day the UK intruduces ridiculous statutory damages against filesharers, like our lawsuit-mad friends across the pond.
For the record, I am not a filesharer (I was 10 years or so ago though).
He might have no choice in the matter if this report of his possible bankruptcy is true.
From a leaked email:
“Presently I feel defeated by it and feel I should shut up shop, which will cause me to go bankrupt for certain,”
With all this hoo-ha a lot of innocents will get caught. The firms sick and tired of being attacked will simply fire out more nasty letters and they will make even less attempt at assuring guilt before demanding money with menaces.
Be prepared for more grannies and kiddies being asked to pay up for illegal porn downloads!
"The firms sick and tired of being attacked will simply fire out more nasty letters and they will make even less attempt at assuring guilt before demanding money with menaces."
The more innocent people are hit by this the better, because one of them *will* end up being the son or daughter of a Journalist / MP / Local councillor, at witch point the sticky stuff will hit the fan.
Media industry, don't you get it yet? Stop producing physical media and switch to only producing rights managed downloads and/or streams. You'll never stop piracy so focus instead on tracing the content and then prosecute the root cause of content loss. You'll make more money.
Sure, let's have some "rights managed" content. But PLEASE make sure that it then actually works for the people who pay for it. Not everyone uses Microsoft Windows and Windows Media Player, and things like protected WMA can't work at all on my Fedora installation.
The iTunes Plus ".m4a" files are fine, at least I can get a gstreamer plugin to play those. I don't know if they're patent encumbered though. The files themselves are identified as having been bought by me. I have no problem with that.
iTunes Plus doesn't have DRM, save for the email being embedded in the file. That, and a higher bitrate, is the big selling point of them. While I'm rambling, here's the full breakdown:
iTunes music, non plus: DRMed, due to RIAA demands.
iTunes music plus: non DRMed.
iTunes video: DRMed, probably because Jobs has a second hat labeled Disney.
iTunes iPhone apps: DRMed (called code signing), probably to make sure devs pay that $99 yearly fee.*
* There are valid reasons for codesigning, and it's less of a royal pain than it used to be, but still, yeesh, such a headache when provisioning profiles expire.
... seem to think that they can promote internet freedom by censoring what they don't want to see on the internet?
Isn't this roughly the same as fucking to promote virginity?
Teenagers. Go figure. Don't give 'em any more press, they aren't worth the column inches.
"Isn't this roughly the same as fucking to promote virginity?"
Well, if you know a better way to make more virgins, I'm all ears.
"So, basically, these "anonymous" twats seem to think that they can promote internet freedom by censoring what they don't want to see on the internet?"
The method can be used to display the hypocrasy inherent in other people actions...sometimes. Most people seem to have a whole lot of trouble noticing the hypocrasy in their actions, even when pointed out to them.
all these news stories 'we' the collective CommentardS rave about never make it into the mainstream news.
The DEB bill was passed in wash up and hardly raised a blip on the national news.
ACS: LAW data leak hasn't been on the national news that I have seen and I have been watching for it.
Threatening to take 10,000's interTubers users to court with little of no evidence isn't on the news just some low level consumer programme.
The removal of innocent until proven guilty in Internet copyright issues
So clearly the mainstream news where Government Policy can be influenced is turning a blind eye to everything happening on the Hintertubes. So what other option is there? Allow the development of the web to be directed by people whose only motivation is to make money without actually creating anything or contributing anything to the technology.
I think not. The internet was build using open/free technology and was nurtured using a collective non profit ethos. This is just a reminder. Intel and others do not drive the internet. It is driven by people young and old that are just out for a laugh.
I haven't taken part in any of this mischief but I do think some of these companies have brought it on themselves.
Now children, that there is what you call a straw man argument incorporating a false premise. These things make the people who say them feel biiig and clever for a few minutes. Be careful and don't fall into the trap of arguing with them though, because they will almost certainly try to bite your head off.
These solicitors/lawyers really are deserving of the indignities they suffer for if their intelligence matched the usurious fees they gather for using legal assistants to harass InterNet users based upon the flimsiest of 'evidence' they would use better judgement.
It is really amusing to see how these self-praising societal leaches react to receiving modern retribution from friends of these lawyers victims.
P.S. I am sill waiting for my 'letter'.
"These solicitors/lawyers really are deserving of the indignities they suffer for if their intelligence matched the usurious fees they gather for using legal assistants to harass InterNet users based upon the flimsiest of 'evidence' they would use better judgement."
Well, it's a scam at the end of the day.
All they are doing is obtaining addresses and sending threatening junkmail for spurious amounts which have no relation to actual loss incurred.
Ask yourself why nobody has been taken to court. Much cheaper to send out letters than take 5000 people to small claims. The outlay for that would be £150,000!
Not exactly worthwhile when you'd just end up with a few judgements for the cost of a few DVD pornos.
I love the way the media have skimmed over the legalities of this scheme. It's a scam, just like private parking companies who pay £2.50 to the DVLA to send threatening junkmail to car owners.
Well, the likely demise of ACS:Law has hastened Cramer Pelmont Solicitors to position themselves for a little extra business. They have appearently even hired one Terence Tsang of ACS:Law/Davenport Lyons infamy. Also, Gallant Macmillan are on the march against PlusNet (to be heard January now I believe, due to the weekends hilarity).
Over on the BBC I read with interest comments from a (BT owned) PlusNet rep: "The incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people's confidence in the current process," Er, confidence? What confidence? You mean like the confidence in the Digital Economy Act introduced by the grubby mits of that oft' unelected weasel Mandelson? Confidence? That would be none then :o)
They went on to say "We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. The data leak with ACS:Law prompted us to take further action today." Personally I read that as meaning 'Just like with Phorm, we do what the feck we want, when we want and how we want. We only give a toss when we get caught acting irresponsibly or possibly illegaly. Only then do we pretend to care.'
There's a long-term trend developing here, especially at BT.
As I said in a post above, this whole issue is about much more than just 'illegal' P2P filesharing and the entertainment industries.
no, the fact is, the news is only interested in the big scandals and stories...
most news tv was so busy reporting the ryder cup, another big political conference, Red Ed, etc...
That they totally missed that Tony Curtis had died!!!
As for computers - they can only just grasp what 'an internet' is...
<posh voice> " er, is it some kids messing about?? naughty boys, go and play, and dont be late for dinner... "
I noticed a minority of the comments are condoning the actions of Anonymous, but you should get the facts straight. Anonymous retaliated after the MPAA hired Aiplex to DDoS torrent sites including The Pirate Bay.
A legal company paid another legal company to carry out an illegal act in attempt to censor and take down sites that they disagree with. All Anonymous done was fight fire with fire, and they did this successfully.
I feel sorry for the people that have had their data leaked, however most people (from what I've read elsewhere) have solely focused on the internal emails going back and forth which highlights that (a) ACS Law know they are on shaky ground on getting convictions in court due to lack of evidence which (b) shows this to be a scaremongering exploitation scam to make Andrew rich.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021