Has the RIAA Wormed 95% of P2P Networks? 887
DancingSword was one of many to submit links to a strange story about
the RIAA hacking back by sending a worm through the major peer-to-peer networks, supposedly with a 95% infestation rate. Hoax or not?
Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the RIAA liable to hacking chages? (Score:5, Insightful)
hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
RIAA trying to scare us again?
I really doubt it (Score:1, Insightful)
I really doubt 95% of all P2Pers are running the same OS. In fact, given the mindset of Linux users in general, I would expect their representation among IP "sharers" would be much higher than the regular population. So that makes about 25-50% of targets unimpeachable, due to quality Open Source bug-finding.
In short, hoax.
Creation of viree is a crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno about all that (Score:5, Insightful)
ha (Score:1, Insightful)
Legally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*cough* bullshit *cough* (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this be FUD straight from the RIAA to scare people into not running p2p apps? Is it a rumor started by GOBBLES to create a stir against the RIAA, or is it legit?
Who cares? I'm gonna fire up my gnutella client and share open source software until the day that p2p is illegal.
Consider This (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank God for NNTP (Score:2, Insightful)
If It's True... (Score:5, Insightful)
This supposed worm disables functions of a computer. Therefore, it is malicious, as is anything that modifies system performance without the user's knowledge and consent.
If this is true (95% infection rate? Doubt it), then we have one heck of a piece of ammo to use against the RIAA, if indeed they contracted this worm. The Price Fixing settlement, in that case, is just the beginning.
If its a virus then when will the update be out? (Score:1, Insightful)
If this is a virus, as they so professionally put it, then when will the virus update be out so I can clean a system that was infected.
I do not know of many Admin's that would like to have their entire network infected with this *virus* reguardless of the RIAA's wishes. Im thinking more along the lines of K12 & College's; think of the number of problems this could rasie IF any of this is true. Last I heard creating a virus and then claiming owership of it, or braggin like a tool, is enough to get you tossed in the pokey.
Lastly, If I am following this correctly it infects the files, do you think that certain corporations will like the fact that another *corporation* is targeting their formats? Whould this not convince you to switch to another format that isnt targeted? Microsoft WMA comes to mind in this matter.
g
Dubious Legality (Score:5, Insightful)
Dubious? How is there any doubt? Assuming this passes the farmer test (it's not just bullshit in a bag), how can there be doubts it's illegal. At best, it's invasion of privacy. At worst, it's cyber terrorism as defined by the Patriot Act.
The existance of a P2P client doesn't a criminal make, especially since the example given in the article by the l33t hacker is a perfectly legal file: the public MP3s (written to celebrate each OpenBSD release).
It's junk, like the quad-browser yesterday.
The biggest thing to fear is that the RIAA will use this to make up more numbers [guidance.net.nz].
Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
I sincerely doubt that this is true for a number of reasons. First of all, if they were hired to write the software for RIAA, don't you thing secrecy would both, be part of the agreement, and be completely necessary?
Have you considered the possibility that they were hired by the RIAA to *claim* that they wrote the software, to scare people away from p2p networks?
Re:The Register is wrong.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, if the worm comes into your system over a P2P network, there's a good chance that at least *some* of your mp3s are pirated, but there's no way to differentiate pirated mp3s and those you ripped/encoded from your own CD collection.
I could easily see someone downloading a public domain work via P2P network, getting infected, and having their 40GB mp3 (ripped/encoded from legally obtained sources) library listed to the RIAA "for future prosecution."
I love the whole guilty until proven innocent attitude here. Sounds like a bad "In Soviet Russia..." joke.
This is a funny way (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL
Re:*cough* bullshit *cough* (Score:5, Insightful)
Please, I can't even believe this got posted.
If the RIAA release such files... (Score:5, Insightful)
The suggestion that the RIAA might be releasing files with exploits in is worrying on several counts. Firstly, it is an invasion of privacy for such a worm to be reporting back to the RIAA. Secondly, the RIAA, in taking the law into its own hands, does not deserve a hearing based on any evidence it so collects. Thirdly, the RIAA incriminates itself by being the illegal distributor of copyrighted works. Fourthly, the second and third points are likely to be ignored by the law.
I'd certainly hope that this is a hoax - there is a far simpler way for the RIAA to get information on who's downloading files - put a bogus file out with a name conveniently misspelt, a few extra characters in or something in the ID3 tag. Do a search for this file, then View User's Other Files. Instantly, you have a list of what that person's sharing, you can download the file and get the IP address, find their ISP and deal with them. If that doesn't provide sufficient information to the RIAA in a non-incriminating way (you're agreeing to disclose the files you're sharing, right?), I don't know what does.
Re:Legally (Score:2, Insightful)
The bill mentioned in the article that would allow the RIAA and other copyright holders to crack computers to prevent piracy is not law yet.
How about the rest of the world? Europe doesn't have laws that allow copyright holders act like script-kiddies....
Typical RIAA stupidity? (Score:5, Insightful)
The SecurityFocus posting has lots of bragging about how network security tools won't find their exploit. I beg to differ. They aren't going to dodge tcpdump running on a machine that is a gateway for an infected machine. The way gnutella is supposed to work is known. To a trained eye, their "cleverly crafted" network requests are going to stick out like a sore thumb. In any case, just knowing a thing exists greatly simplifies finding it. We'll know in short order if they're hoaxing or not.
Re:Windows Clients/hosts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides,
Next, all media on the machine is cataloged, and the full list is sent back to the RIAA headquarters (through specially crafted requests over the p2p networks), where it is added to their records and stored until a later time, when it can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings against those criminals who think it's OK to break the law.
this is maybe because I am European and do not understand the subtelness of US law, but I do not understand how data stored on the plaintive's hardware can be used as evidence in a court. Everyone knows such data can be forged. If such a situation was possible, maybe one could prove the RIAA have been hacking his bank account!
Gosh I hope they are doing it! .. (Score:2, Insightful)
A political hack (Score:2, Insightful)
We're supposed to believe they've come up with a way to get a buffer overflow that affects all major MP3 players, and reports back to some clandestine P2P host which is actually owned and operated by the RIAA? I'll believe it when I see it show up in a packet analyzer -- Unless they've found a way to develop code so malicious that it even hAx0rZ other computers simply by being near them.
More likely what they've done is taken a single exploit, and said, "Gosh. Here's these RIAA guys we don't like. Let's say we claim the MP3 research we did was actually funded by them in order to shut down P2P networking. Let's claim we've got a way to get all the popular MP3 players, and then say we control 95% of the file-sharing hosts, just to spice things up.
"Now we have this exploit which is pretty impressive on its own, but now it gets carried by the RIAA scare, and gives them even more of a bad image, since we're saying they're hiring people to hack computers for them."
Who here honestly thinks the RIAA wants to walk into court, carrying reports from hacked computers as evidence? That kind of evidence doesn't just damn the filesharers. And for such an illegal contract, why would the NDA only cover technical details? You know the RIAA would be at least smart and paranoid enough to restrict any and all mention of the hack.
Re:Creation of viree is a crime (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Windows Clients/hosts? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the OpenSSH bug... it was discovered by ISS, announced and fixed by the OpenBSD team, and then, a week later (or so), they released an exploit. All they did was make a diff of the two versions to find the security problem, then write a small script that exploits it... That's more tame than almost all other exploits, since they did not find it themselves, and did not have to do much work to exploit it, since it (the bug) was already explained in detail.
Re:Remember (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd like to see the RIAA in deep ****
---
RIAA (Royalties Is All we Accept
Bugtraq Source (Score:5, Insightful)
And the #1 Reason this is probably a hoax.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, let's say this isn't a hoax. Big Effing Deal. So the RIAA gets one day to make the P2P networks all DDOS themselves to hell. Yippie. That's just one day of interupted service. Within hours of this hyrda going off there will be virus definitions and patches from all the anti-virus vendors to fix the issue. And all of the software that is being exploited would also recieve patches.
Does anyone seriously believe that any significant percentage of P2P users are going to suddenly say "wow the RIAA has been right all along I better start paying for things" because they get exploited by Hilary & Friends?
I mean seriously here, the dilema is: a) Don't pay for anything and risk getting hacked by the RIAA *maybe* once. b) Pay for everything.
Wow that's sure gonna be a tough choice for the P2P crowd. What an insane waste of money for the RIAA to even bother with this nonsense.
Re:Dubious Legality (Score:3, Insightful)
> just bullshit in a bag), how can there be doubts
> it's illegal.
There can also be no doubt that there would never be a criminal prosecution. The best we could hope for would be that the ISPs would file a lawsuit and get an injunction ordering them to stop.
> The existance of a P2P client doesn't a criminal
> make, especially since the example given in the
> article by the l33t hacker is a perfectly legal
> file: the public MP3s (written to celebrate each
> OpenBSD release).
The RIAA objects to the existence of such music: they make no money from it. Their goal is more ambitious than just stopping unauthorized copying. They want to make distribution of music outside their control impossible.
> It's junk, like the quad-browser yesterday.
Very likely.
Re:Hoax (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you considered the possibility that they were hired by a group who wants to make the RIAA look more evil (or perhaps are acting on their own), and the RIAA actually has nothing to do with it?
Re:The RIAA as a terrorist organization (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:*cough* bullshit *cough* (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's interesting, and I'm glad it was posted, although my first reaction was the same as everyone else, BOLLOCKS! But as lots of other people, including the mighty Register have pointed out, Gobbles has a good record for making apparently silly claims, letting people scoff, then proving them wrong. I think the real story is "Gobbles makes outraegous claim, what the hell is he up to?"
Speculation: Theoretically, I guess it's possible that there's an overflow in a library widely used in mp3 players. Remember the SMTP vulnerabilities last year, or the zip library hole that affected everyone from RedHat to Microsoft? Heh, that's the trouble with those pesky BSD licensed libs ;) Suppose Gobbles did find a zero-day hole. Remember that 95% of p2p users are going to be Windows users, so they're probably all using the same OS libs in their clients - for network access, say, if not for mp3 playback. Bear in mind that this worm would be pretty silent - it wouldn't be throwing rude messages up on the screen, it'd be sneaking around and trying to hide itself... Suppose it was only released in the wild a week ago. Perhaps it used the Kazaa auto-updating features to distribute itself over the network . Hmmm, this is actually starting to sound feasible. Now, obviously if the RIAA hav done this, then they're in deep, deep trouble: even the copyright mafia and Bush junta would have a problem trying to make out that this is anything but deeply criminal action. Posit: Gobbles, or another ethically challenged researcher, decides to try to discredit the RIAA... what better way to do it? Can you imagine the 9o'clock TV news headlines if there turns out to be a whiff of fire behind the smoke?
Re:Sue RIAA for screwing legal data? (Score:3, Insightful)
That was why, when I submitted the item, I wrote:
Since I can't afford the bandwidth to http-serve 23-minute audio-files ( meditation-'tapes', I'll be putting them up sometime after my next retreat in Apr... ), I have to use a p2p system to spread-out the bandwidth, but thanks to this *IA* terrorism ..
( George Bernard Shaw wrote something about "all professions are conspiracies against the laity", didn't he? ) .. using gnutella-net won't work:
I'd be setting myself up in their frame-up job, no matter what files I make public, if this is true -- as another observed, it sends-back an all media files on my system listing to the RIAA, even though that doesn't match what my system would be sharing...
So, I'd be forced to use either Freenet [freenetproject.org] or GNUnet [ovmj.org], even though that'd mean contributing to serving stuff I really don't believe-in...
And the comments about "free speech means accommodating what one doesn't agree-with, censorship is inherently wrong" I don't buy, either: any immune-system is censorship, and I wouldn't want either me, my friends/loved-ones, or my system without an infection-stomping, virus/bacterium/paramecaeum/worm/trojan-censoring immune-system, eh?
I don't find suppression-of-diversity, enforcement-of-conformity, or 'obedience/authority' religions valid ( they suppress not merely speech, but living, god-itself/essence-of-gnosis-itself given essence-of-one ), but open inclusive harmony still need silence the predator/tumour determinations that murder whole-culture ( or whole-ecology, or whole-community, or whole-family ) wellbeing...
To put it otherly: wellbeing is exclusion of disease, they are mutually exclusive, so mistaking the wellbeing/disease dimension for some political 'dimension' isn't correct perception...
.. ah, sorry for getting slightly sidetracked, but the issues are entangled so...
Re:Is the RIAA liable to hacking chages? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it was law it would only protect the RIAA if they only hacked machines in the US. Which wouldn't be easy to do. Imagine how silly the US government would look refusing an extradtion request for a "terrorist suspect" too.
Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
> Things to keep in mind:
> 1) If you participate in illegal file-sharing
> networks, your computer now belongs to the RIAA.
Im sure glad there are no illegal file-sharing networks yet!
> 2) Your BlackIce Defender(tm) firewall will not
> help you.
> 3) Snort, RealSecure, Dragon, NFR, and all that
> other crap cannot detect this attack, or this
> type of attack.
Admitting its an attack, and admitting you are purposly designing it to avoid current defences, that will look good to a judge.
> 4) Don't fuck with the RIAA again, scriptkids.
Oh, your 13 years old?
> 5) We have our own private version of this hydra
> actively infecting p2p users, and building one
> giant ddosnet.
So any future DDoS we now can blame on these people who openly admitted to it.
GO get em yahoo and ebay!
> Due to our NDA with the RIAA, we are unable to
> give out any other details concerning the
> technology that we developed for them, or the
> details on any of the bugs that are exploited in
> our hydra.
An NDA is a legal document which cannot in any way override existing laws.
They admit to breaking numerous laws, and yet think a legal document will protect them?
I guess they really must all be under 13.
As a matter of fact, if my PC acts strange in any way shape or form, they now have opened themselfs up to a lawsuit.
They also claim the RIAA now has an illegally gained list of the perfectly legal files on my harddrive. This would be the perfect time for a large company to sue and request discovery, which would allow someone (generally feds, but still) to collect evedence (IE take any/all of their servers on the public network which ever have/had connections to a p2p network) which will cost them time and resources and frustrations. Then hopefully some evedence will be found as well.
My only wish is that alot of companys able to afford the legal fees open petty lawsuits aginst them for admitting all the crimes they have commited, if for nothing else than to cause them grief. Can also be used to harass the RIAA a little (Would be much better if the RIAA admitted this was true, but that will never happen.)
Turn the stupidity of the system aginst the enemy for a change.
Re:The Register is wrong.. (Score:5, Insightful)
isn't it a no-no to put your legally ripped-from-cd tracks into your "share" directory for others to copy?
all digital media on the system is cataloged, and the list is sent to the RIAA.
So what exactly makes you think it'll only search your shared folder?
If you wanted to... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Coders are, I'm sure, crawling through their code to look for and fix any security holes,
- Users are running firewalls and packet analyzers to check for any worm-like behavior,
- Some P2P users are taking a second look at checksums.
If such vunerabilities exist, I'm sure they won't for much longer. If the Berman bill ever becomes law, there won't be much to hack.
Re:Dubious Legality (Score:3, Insightful)
No if this BS were true, everyone invloved would be in deep, deep shit.
Stealing Entertainment (Score:1, Insightful)
Our copyright laws provide the economic incentive that allows a business to invest millions hoping for a return on its investment. Can a studio afford to invest in the special effects needed to make "Spiderman" or "Star Wars" come to life if the film is e-mailed around the globe within days of its release ? or even before? If an online music file exchange service replaces legitimate music sales, can a music company promote and market dozens of fresh new sounds hoping that one of those artists will be lucky enough to find an audience?
These creative businesses, as well as the videogame, software and book publishers, make this risk/reward calculation every day. The result is that, today, the United States is far and away the world's largest producer and exporter of the creative works that entertain, inform and educate the world. How much longer will that remain the case if "never buy another again" resounds as a rallying cry across the Internet?
One thing that we learned from Napster is that industry has been too slow to respond to new technologies and consumer demand for new ways of delivering music. Consumers and policy-makers, myself included, have been impatiently waiting for Hollywood to fulfill its promise of a fully stocked, easy to use, electronic marketplace. Some ask, "If KaZaA can do it, why can't they?" That one's easy ? online music file swapping sites pay nothing for their "inventory" of creative material, so they have few costs, need little revenue and run few risks. It takes a lot longer, and a lot more investment in technology and online security, to build a business that deals fairly with creators, entrepreneurs and other contributors, rather than just ripping all of them off.
Over the past few years, we have seen the Internet explode into a revolutionary tool for business, communication, entertainment, education and commerce. Even so, the Internet is still in its infancy, and we are still struggling to determine how and when we should apply our existing laws to this new and growing medium.
The United States is the world leader in intellectual property. We export billions of dollars' worth of creative works every year in the form of software, movies, recordings, and other products. In addition, the contribution of the American copyright industry to the strength of the overall American economy is significant. The core copyright industry is the largest exporter of goods from the United States and employs more than 7 million Americans. Copyright industries are responsible for 5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.
However, recent statistics show that copyright piracy is growing exponentially. There are billions of unauthorized music downloads per month. Last year, record sales in the United States were down 10 percent. The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it already loses more than $3 billion annually to the sale of illegally copied videotapes. By some estimates, more than 350,000 movies are illegally downloaded every day. With the recent economic challenges to this industry, reducing the impact of digital theft becomes even more critical.
Pirating works online is the same as shoplifting a videotape, book or record from a store. Imagine the same situation occurring with tangible goods that could not be transmitted over the Internet, such as copying popular movies onto hundreds of blank tapes and passing them out on every street corner, or copying personal software onto blank disks and freely distributing them throughout the world.
Few would disagree that such activities are illegal and should be prosecuted. We should be no less vigilant when such activities occur on the Internet. We cannot allow the Internet to become the Home Shoplifting Network.
There are several legislative proposals pending in Congress pertaining to online content and digital- rights management. However, the ultimate success of any legislative effort dealing with the application of copyright law to the digital environment depends on a simultaneous commitment to fighting a war on piracy in all its forms.
This war must occur on several different fronts, including the commitment of adequate resources to law enforcement, industry cooperation and consumer education. Only when the war against piracy is effectively waged and won will businesses and consumers move in significant numbers to the online marketplace.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte is a Republican from Virginia.
Re:The Register is wrong.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:2, Insightful)
How do they know how many media players they haven't infested if they have no way to catalogue them?
Let's see, how many languages can I say "liar' in? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the fact that these programs have exploits is no surprise, but one media clip (probably MPEG (maybe MP3)), since while Windows Media Player and WinAMP offer universal playback, do ALL of them? Could one file even hit exploits in all these programs?
Second, since each is likely to have a different vulnerability, the amount of worm data in a file would be a decent chunk. Wouldn't it be noticed?
Third, an NDA would state that there can be no mention of it until it is ACTIVATED and USED. Now, Ad-aware-style programs will pop up to clean it if it exists.
Fourth, how many files would this have to be to get 95% of P2P users? The only way it could is by infecting every file you share, but SOMEBODY would have to notice that, whether the file size changes or some A/V data is thrown out.
Also, the idea of "specially formatted P2P requests" to inform RIAA is laughable. Even if the P2P software itself were compromised, a firewall user could notice it. Furthermore, consider the average media collection - hundreds of MP3s. Considering it would have to send artist name and song name, the amount of data would be well over 1MB unless compressed, and even then on dialup users it would have to be staggered.
Also, what kind of backend would this take? Multiple servers, a huge internet connection. Considering how big the P2P networks are, wouldn't this have to be a massive monitoring system? There aren't that many locations with these resources INSTALLED, so finding the facility would not be hard.
And why mention you have a IDENTICAL worm that you use to build a DDOS NET? Simple. Get those who don't care about privacy too much kicked up about that.
Finally, this sounds very strangely like RIAA-induced hypnosis - here are a few lines which show that they probably are lying and not even working with RIAA, just agree with RIAA's ideas.
"victim" (not the hard-working artists who p2p technology rapes, and the RIAA protects)
4) Don't fuck with the RIAA again, scriptkids.
Until we became RIAA contracters, the best they could do was to passively monitor traffic. Our contributions to the RIAA have given them the power to actively control the majority of hosts using these networks.
There are some spelling mistakes. There are factual holes that they cover with the claim of an NDA. In short, the probability of a hoax is about 98%.
Gobbles was -kidding-, but has a point. (Score:3, Insightful)
He's trying to make a point - that running all this P2P crap blindly on your systems, -especially- Windows boxes, is a security nightmare.
Think about it; he's managed to get thousands upon thousands of people worldwide nervous and antsy about whether or not their boxes are in a semi-0wned condition. Why?
Because it's within the realm of possibility that something like this could be done. Not by the stupid RIAA, who can't even secure their own Web site, but by somebody a) more skilled and b) motivated to do something Really Bad, like build (and use) a gigantic DDoS network, or steal any kind of account/password info it can find, or any kind of documents which might contain proprietary information, etc.
The intellectual property aspect of filesharing aside, I personally think that anyone who runs a P2P app is asking to get burned. There simply hasn't been the kind of scrutiny turned on these things that we see on other types of apps and utilities (and we already know that the concept Gobbles is preaching about is valid due to the earlier KaZAa worm, etc.).
Re:Dubious Legality (Score:3, Insightful)
Retrieving a list of file names from someone should not be enough to prosecute them. I believe in order to prove you had a copyrighted file, the RIAA would have to download the entire file from that person and then listen to it to ensure it is what they thought it was. Nothing prevents me from creating thousands of fake files and giving them arbitrary names like "Metallica - Ride the Lightning.mp3". Having a file with this name is NOT illegal. I would also have to assume that the RIAA would have to provide some logs above and beyond what a P2P client has that shows where they got the file from and what time, maybe traceroutes and and traffic logging?. There are already tons of bogus files out there, wether they were planted or there by accident there is a chance you have a file name that is not what you think it is. I find it odd they have the power to mail abuse@your.isp and getting anything accomplished with that. You need solid evidence, you will not get arrested for having a file named i_tape_little_girls.mpg (although it may raise questions), but somehow you have less rights by having popular_song.mp3. It is obviously the corporate intrests involved that this is heading where it is. You need solid evidence to support a violation of the law for everything else in the world except for proving copyright violations.
Re:Windows Clients/hosts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*cough* bullshit *cough* (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't matter about the Berman Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
If for instance they got a UK users there are a number of UK laws that would be applicable includding the data protection act. In short the RIAA would be guilty of illegal activity for mearly trying to get details of the contents of my HD without a court order. Downloading that knowledge and altering files on my PC would be seen as a serious infringement of a number of laws and I could reasonably expect to win very large damages in a UK court, irrespective of whether there was illegal material on the PC or not.
I'm assuming that US law is the same as UK law in that illegal methods cannot be used in order to obtain evidence and any case based on that evidence would have to find not guilty?
Oh, how I love a good hoax in the morning (Score:2, Insightful)
IANAL, but believe me, any and all governments land hard with both steel-shod boots on the backs of people who spread worms and viruses. Look what happened to the asshole who created melissa. Multiply by a couple of orders of magnitude and there it is. Life in prison.
This may NOT be illegal! (Score:2, Insightful)
A search is not legally considered a search if someone voluntarily shares the information with the public. For example, the police can get a list of the phone numbers you've dialed and see your bank records or look through your trash without a warrant. As people are voluntarily sharing lists of their mp3s over p2p networks, compiling the very same list for use in a criminal prosecution would absolutely be legal.
Now, the RIAA is on shaky legal ground because of the method they've used to compile the list -- they would certainly be liable for any damage they caused to your machine via this exploit -- but proving actual damages would be very difficult. And, as far as I know, they'd be well within their (legal, not moral) rights to prosecute you if you went after them for hacking your machine. They might not be as stupid as they seem...
Why are you all so gullible? (Score:5, Insightful)
"My Subnetwork ping redistributer is down! I need to reboot my LAN before the virus infects my ethernet cable and gets everywhere!!!"
And yet I see people saying "this is probably not true" or "this may be a hoax", or "if they're doing this it should be illegal!". Come on. For Christ's Sake, this is totally idiotic and anyone with an iota of computer knowledge should immediately dismiss it.
I don't care if Linus Torvalds himself came out and said he'd done it, I'd laugh and point.
Re:outbound network monitoring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
xmms running as root? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gobbles??!?! Case closed - it's not real. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gobbles?
Jesus, then it's probably not real.. anyone remember his "security alert" [attrition.org] about awhttpd? Basically, the "vulnerability" he described was Lynx retrieving the file from his local filesystem via a file:// URL-type.
A reply, showing just what an idiot this "Gobbles" is is here [hcsw.org]
Re:If you can't beat 'em (Score:1, Insightful)
An Anonymous Coward, neither French, nor American.
rule breaker (Score:5, Insightful)
the RIAA and the MPAA dropped the ball and now want someone else to clean up their messes. let them clean it up. don't allow any industry to become vigilantes protecting its own interests. banks are not allowed to hunt down suspects in robberies. it would be a terrible precedent to set.
these "free" copies being distributed on the internet are lower quality than the originals they come from. if the free stuff bothers the industry, the industry should give consumers a reason to buy original copies other than, "we want you to." put DRM all over it. require new players, whatever. but make sure the consumer has incentive to accept all of that. do not bite the hand that feeds you. the industry feels cheated. if consumers didn't feel cheated by what they are offered, they wouldn't go looking elsewhere for free alternatives. if the content were compelling, people would pay for it.
Re:Remember (Score:2, Insightful)
Terrorism is what the guys we don't like are doing.
Re:Remember (Score:3, Insightful)
A: I wouldn't put it past the RIAA, they may be at their last straw...
B: But then again, if it is, that might be the end of them when they're figured out
C: So, I doubt the RIAA would be that stupid. If they did that it would just make them look even more bad than they look now, and they would have a hell of a big lawsuit on their tail, so I doubt it is them.
So what is it? In any scenario, I think the RIAA will get some grief for this.
Never buy another again (Score:5, Insightful)
As a professional in the IT industry and as an American citizen (NOT CONSUMER!), I care so much more about the usurpation of the American political process by and transfer of control over my rights regarding my personal property to big (mostly global) corporations than I do about what you mischaracterize as "piracy" -- piracy is commercial activity, passing out tapes for free on the streetcorner is not, and may even be protected under the Audio Home Recording act -- THAT I SIMPLY WON'T SPEND ANY MONEY ON ENTERTAINMENT AGAIN!
Read this, Rep. Goodlatte -- if that is really who you are -- over the past 5 years my income has been significantly higher than the national mean, due to my profession. I have spent an enormous amount of money on entertainment, computers and consumer electronics.
But with each step further into my home that the Entertainment industry attempts to exert power, my consumption has dropped and will continue to.
I do not, AND WILL NEVER own a DVD player thanks to CSS, region coding and other corporate attempts to control my private behavior.
I do not, AND NEVER WILL own an HDTV thanks to the broadcast flag and rules and legislation being proposed which seem to be designed to make things like the Linux computer which so empowered me (by, for instance, providing me with a learning platform which I used to leverage myself into this income bracket in the first place) illegal.
When ALL TV broadcasts are digital and protected, I won't be watching TV, and I'll just be one high-income but UNREACHABLE to advertisers "permanently potential consumer" thanks to you. Ask GM, Proctor and Gamble, and Pepsico how they feel about that. I will also be unable to view your campaign ads or those of like-minded fools who run for office in my district.
When ALL movies are only rentable on DVD (about 50% are only on DVD at my local Blockbuster now), I'll stop renting movies, AND MPAA MEMBER COMPANIES will stop receiving that much more of my large income -- as a frame of reference, I currently rent about 3 movies a week. By then, maybe even my wife will be so incensed that I'll be able to convince her of what I've been unsuccesful at convincing her in the past -- that we should stop going to movies alltogether.
If it gets to the point where music is only available on media or devices that are likewise crippled, I'll DISCONTINUE ALL MUSIC PURCHASES. I've already greatly curtailed my previously prodigious music buying behavior due to my outrage at this whole DRM regime bullshit.
And you know what? That's all fine by me. I own a guitar and a computer that can record music; I'll make my own music, and probably even give it away -- PROBABLY BECOMING ONE OF JUST MANY PROVIDING COMPLETELY FREE COMPETING PRODUCT for "consumers" to choose over that of your corporate pimps.
I have friends who own conventional and digital flim equipment.
I have a computer with which to compose and disseminate my views.
Unless you plan on making all means for individual citizens to produce their own entertainment and their own news media, you'll eventually fulfill the exact opposite goal of all this legislation; you'll help impoverish the very companies you're trying to protect. Let's see if they continue to fund your campaigns then!
Our forefathers died for (and grandfathers fought world wars for) freedom, NOT FOR DISNEY!
But I guess you can't tell the difference.
Re:Never buy another again (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Never buy another again (Score:3, Insightful)
I have not been this disillusioned with American politics in over a decade.
I switched parties (from Independant to republican) so I could vote for McKain in the primary in my state, only to have the corporate-and-soft-money machine of the Bush campaign screw him in South Carolina before my state's primary even happened.
Now, McKain/Feingold has passed, and the corporatae stooges at the FEC gutted it. I'm willing to wait a couple of years to see if McKain succeeds in his vows to go to court to overturn the FEC's rules as obvious executive flouting of Congress's power, and to fight to have the FEC commisioners replaced with people with even a shred of integrity.
In the meantime, you can keep up your anonymous posting lamely equating your brand of limp-dick cynicism with growing up to like asparagus. People like you not only piss me off, but are fucking up our country bigtime. Nobody even vaguely remembers what the word "sacrifice" means anymore, apparently.
If shit doesn't start to get better, I'll not only stop buying the corporate crap that has apparently come to be our country's entire raison-d'etre (rather than individual liberty): I'll refuse to work or contribute positively to our economy at all; I'll agitate for a general strike; I'll hoof it all over this fat, lazy country to help save it from its complacent self by contributing time to the campaigns of any political candidate I can find with some integrity and vision; I'll do everything legal in my power to disrupt this whole stinking, corrupt system, to deprive these cynical "this Lear jet is my bonus for laying off 30,000 workers at a time of record profits for my company" evil scumbags of their livelihood. Get it?
Make your bet, but you'll lose your $1000.