July 30, 2002

9:55 AM

D-O-S attack disables RIAA site. Do you think someone's trying to make a point about one group lobbying for the power to shut down individual's computers if they SUSPECT them of doing something they don't like, and another group ALREADY having that power?
posted by thunder (25 comments total)

Of course, I realize that 'having the power' and whether or not its LEGAL is two different issues. But still, I also have to admit that reading this headline made me grin.
posted by thunder at 9:57 AM on July 30, 2002

RIAA.org

Still is down, but I have a feeling that this might be due to another DDoS method.
posted by Localemperor at 9:58 AM on July 30, 2002

It makes me grin a bit too, but I fear it'll just add fuel to the fire.
posted by holycola at 9:59 AM on July 30, 2002

RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen said in a statement that Berman's bill was "an innovative approach," adding that "it makes sense to clarify existing laws to ensure that copyright owners--those who actually take the time and effort to create an artistic work--are at least able to defend their works from mass piracy." emphasis mine
this newspeaking broad stepped straight out of 1984. is there anybody left who DOESN'T know that copyright OWNERS are almost NEVER the creators of the work. Rosen and ilk take care of that little issue in the contracts they dangle in front of the talent. i'd really like to see something nasty happen to her and valenti.
posted by quonsar at 10:02 AM on July 30, 2002

"Don't they have something better to do during the summer than hack our site?" asked the RIAA representative, who asked not to be identified. "Perhaps it at least took 10 minutes away from stealing music."

Uhhh, don't you have anything better to do during the summer than find new ways to screw consumers out of every last dime?

And, tell me one more time, why did CDs cost at $5 more than tapes for the past ten years? A CD costs much less to make than a tape. The information that you're selling is the same on both... Hmmm
posted by zekinskia at 10:03 AM on July 30, 2002

Ha-ha!

/Nelson voice
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:04 AM on July 30, 2002

A DoS attack on the RIAA's site is a horrendously bad idea. This just adds more fuel to their fire. Is there any need to piss off Hilary Rosen more?
posted by mathowie at 10:04 AM on July 30, 2002

Well, maybe the more fuel gets added, the faster the whole thing will burn itself out, and, like a phoenix, be reborn, hopefully into something USEFUL - LOL.

I wonder if this will have any effects on how congress views the proposed bill to allow the RIAA et al to shut down OTHER people's computers, and if so, what kind - fear of hackers? Justified feelings? A better understanding of what kind of power the bill is suggesting?
posted by thunder at 10:04 AM on July 30, 2002

Arrr we be firing a warning shot across t' bow before we board, pillage and sink the scurvy dogs of HMS RIAA.org. I'll see Captain Rosen hanging from the highest yardarm, split from stem to stern...

Isn't this just what pirates do? Or is use of the terms pirate and piracy a cheap way of sensationalizing the rather dry issue of copyright violation?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:10 AM on July 30, 2002

Ya gotta consider, though- it's doesn't speak well to their ability to execute on plans to infiltrate people's home computers when they can't even protect themselves from one of the most well-known and preventable attacks.
posted by mkultra at 10:11 AM on July 30, 2002

User Friendly has an opinion.
posted by NsJen at 10:16 AM on July 30, 2002

Someone on /. suggested that The article cites no source for the information, besides the RIAA itself. Can we be sure that it actually happened, and wasn't just a way for the RIAA to make themselves look like the victim in this whole situation? Hmmm.
posted by thunder at 10:20 AM on July 30, 2002

This was a bad idea. The general non-tech-savvy public (which also happens to include most US lawmakers) don't understand the difference between a DoS attack and, say, getting past server security and damaging or defacing a site. It all "hacking" to them. More impetus to get their stupid law passed.

DoS attacks are a huge waste. What, did they think that making the RIAA site inaccessable for a few hours was going to change anything?
posted by scottandrew at 10:20 AM on July 30, 2002

My first thought was that the RIAA did this to themselves, deliberately so that they can play the victim and, as other have said, gives their crusade more supposed credibility.
posted by Danelope at 10:33 AM on July 30, 2002

There probably isn't any need to "add fuel to the fire" if this is indeed an external attack. But it sure is a hoot to see the RIAA smacked around so easily and to hear more idiotic spoutings from them. However, if it is just a publicity stunt, they must be really desperate for attention by making themselves look completely ridiculous.
posted by twos at 10:46 AM on July 30, 2002

What do you guys mean when you say it will just add fuel to the fire. The fire's already blazing. These a**holes are one step away from making all hacking PROTECTABLE BY LAW. Do these idiot congressmen really believe that only the RIAA will use the "copyright protection" sham to escape prosecution for hacking?

I think we are seeing the first fuzzy outlines of the future of the internet: HACKER WAR!
posted by sic at 10:49 AM on July 30, 2002

My first thought was that the RIAA did this to themselves, deliberately so that they can play the victim and, as other have said, gives their crusade more supposed credibility.

Like Hitler and the burning of the Reichstag! Sweet.
posted by Tin Man at 11:23 AM on July 30, 2002

My first thought was that the RIAA did this to themselves, deliberately so that they can play the victim and, as other have said, gives their crusade more supposed credibility.

Yeah, me too. Not that people don't hate the RIAA, they do. And not that most people don't want to see the RIAA off the net...I think many people are happy about that also.

But, from a meme standpoint, they have more to gain than to lose...ergo, I call bullshit on the RIAA and color this a publicity stunt.
posted by dejah420 at 11:31 AM on July 30, 2002

Is there any need to piss off Hilary Rosen more?

Several, I should think.

1) Attempt to make her aware of the level of opposition and resentment that her policies provoke among her customer base and the public at large;

2) Provoke her to take even more drastic and dire steps, helping even the most dull and self-serving congresscritter to see her evil and transgressions;

3) Get more media attention to the problem, alerting more of the public to what she is doing.

You imply that if we DON'T piss her off any more that she will somehow relent and give us a break. This seems patently untrue to me, given her well-demonstrated greed and commitment to her goals and methods. There can be no accommodation, no appeasement. It is a pretty black-and-white break between two views of profit and property, and one must (and will) win utterly, destroying the other.
posted by rushmc at 12:00 PM on July 30, 2002

I'm quite curious about how record sales are going. I recall the RIAA blaming Napster, in specific, for poor sales. With Napster, and a good chunk of other mp3 swapping options now gone, they should have improved substantially, right?

I mean, if they didn't, well, that would imply poor sales were due to consumer disinterest and an overall drop in quality, not people trading mp3s online, and we all know that could never be true!
posted by Kellydamnit at 12:40 PM on July 30, 2002

The RIAA is a lobby group. They produce nothing. They are a mouthpiece for the Big 5 Record Labels. Their entire reason for existence is to change public policy by presenting arguments such as 'fighting for the copyright holders' which are not the songwriters, singers or members of the band.

Hillary Rosen is the wrong target. You are the right target. Until you stop buying CD's, listening to commercial music, and using the power of your keyboard, you will be doomed to eating this crap not only for your life but also for the lives of those folks who are not connected to the web yet.

Stop bring up the same old tired argument about how cheap CD's are to produce, and whining about how much it costs to buy them, as you are all still doing it.

That is not the point. The point is that every CD you buy continues to support these folks. Every Blank CD does as well.

Section 1004 of Title 17 Chapter 10 of the United States Code

Section 1004 of Title 17 Chapter 10 outlines the Royalty fees that are paid by the manufacturer of Blank digital audio recording medium either here or imported.

Digital Audio Recording Media.-The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording medium imported into and distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 3 percent of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such medium shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such medium.

The later sections of this part of the US Code goes on to outline where the money goes. If you read it , it is not going to the creators but to the copyright holders. If you have been following the dots, the copyright holders are the Big 5, who fund the RIAA.

Congratulations! you are still propping up the RIAA!!

The only way you will be able to create change is to cut off their money. To do that you will have to keep your money in your pocket.

Take a moment and write, fax and email your representitives in Congress for the US readers and outline your opposition to these bills.

Or you can continue to fire blanks at people who will not change.
posted by headlemur at 2:52 PM on July 30, 2002

very true,
we are the best target. try convincing people to stop buying music... i know i can't stop. at the same time, i literally haven't bought an album on a big 5 or any of its subsidiaries in 6 months. not because i'm mad at the riaa (i am), but because they have no compelling product.

from the outside looking in for so long (today i finally got in), it seemed to me most mefi's are either classical, jazz, or indie rock (the mainstream based on irony) types. so we are already doing what we can do.
posted by the aloha at 3:18 PM on July 30, 2002

I agree about not buying music. It would be fun to watch the big labels squirm and flail about for new excuses how it's not their fault their crap isn't selling.

However, I'm not going to feel bad about buying CD-Rs. I can't believe the Big 5 make nearly the same money if I buy CD-Rs in bulk for 30 cents a piece as they do when I buy the latest Britney CD for $18. It would be interesting to know what the amounts are.

One final note: if you like independent music, you can get your MP3s legally at emusic for $10-$15 a month. The artists get paid, you get good music, the big labels get screwed. Everyone's happy :)
posted by Triplanetary at 3:42 PM on July 30, 2002

H4w! Fuckin' assholes deserve it.

I recently found out that I'd unwittingly bought what appears to be my first corrupt CD (Weezer's Pinkerton). My DVD player made some very unpleasant sounds and Windows crashed when I tried to play it. At first, I thought it was hardware failure, but Frank Black's Teenager of the Year worked like a charm, and when I tried it a second time the DVD player choked again. There's no way in hell I'll get my money back or get this CD exchanged because I bought it two months ago, and I cannot find the receipt. I'll never buy another Weezer-album again, and from now on I'll always test my CDs in the DVD player right after purchase.

The Swedish Consumer Agency has apparently received several complaints about this lately. It's been all over the news. I wouldn't be surprised if the record companies will have to put big warning stickers on "copy-protected" CDs here soon.

BTW, I was about to buy Doves' The Last Broadcast today but I refrained since the clerk couldn't guarantee that it would play on my computer. It said, "this label information is the subject of copyright protection" on the back of the sleeve. WTF does that mean? Does anybody know if this album is "copy-protected" in Europe?
posted by livingdots at 5:11 PM on July 30, 2002

One final note: if you like independent music, you can get your MP3s legally at emusic for $10-$15 a month. The artists get paid, you get good music, the big labels get screwed. Everyone's happy :)

Especially Universal. Although I'd still reccomend them, as that way you'd send the message that you really want un-shackled MP3s, without all this DRM crap.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 8:24 PM on July 30, 2002