RIAA vs. hackers WAR?

[alva]

I wonder who would end up with the larger warchest...

The one who organises it.
-

Maybe we can try them over here for crimes against humanity

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Would you give $5 to hit the RIAA where it hurts?

Depends. Would it be tax deductible?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sure if you can pay the fines slapped on you by the judge.

But that's not without merit. Instead of waiting for RIAA to pick and choose the battles, do it yourself. Some states are more pro-business while others are more pro-consumers. Look for a state with a good set of consumer protection laws with judges sympathetic to consumers, and hit them there.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How long before Peer to Peer networks offer anomyous downloads with encrypted files? That would throw a monkey wrench into the RIAA's plans.

Another thing - and I though this was Napster's fatal mistake, is what happens if someone goes back to a server environment in a country with rampant piracy and no real interest in what the RIAA or US judicial system has to say?

[SlowwHand]

Like that will be hard to find.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Another thing - and I though this was Napster's fatal mistake, is what happens if someone goes back to a server environment in a country with rampant piracy and no real interest in what the RIAA or US judicial system has to say?

I thought about that for a bit, though the RIAA could always try to get injunctions to force ISPs to block these servers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

All you'd have to do is show some legitimate activity from the same IP blocks, and a few other minor tricks. The ISP's wouldn't want to do it anyway, so they'd hire good lawyers, and injunctions against third parties are damned hard to obtain.

Best chance the RIAA would have (and not much of a chance) would be to get a legislative solution to get their blocking.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


Do they think this will work? First of all you can't really get any money out of the children who are a large proportion of file sharers and you can't send them to jail. Secondly, the costs of hunting down and prosecuting every single infringer are prohibitive. And if they don't go after everyone, what's the point?

Children have parents. Parents have money. Parents are legally responsible for what goes on in their homes, done by their kids. Bye-bye.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
What about counter-suits? Suing the RIAA for harassing and causing fear in people? Sure, maybe such suits would be found to be without merit, but a constant deluge of suits may give them something to think about.

Problem is they counter-counter sue for costs. Want your frivolity to hit your wallet?

[Dis]

face it guys, the RIAA has won

I for one have refrained from sharing too many files. They are going after those who sare the most files.

Most people will be scared to share their files, and they will be harder, and harder to find.

Eventually Peer to Peer use will cease to exist.

[Skanky Burns]

Say there was an ISP that the RIAA wanted to shut down in a country that didn't much care for US views. Would it be beyond the RIAA to do "black ops" to remove that particular server?

[Urban Ranger]

There's nothing RIAA can really do to remove the server. Breaking into it for rampage deletion of files would only cause it to be unavailable for some time until restoring from backups is complete. There's always the possibility of the attackers are traced back, that would be really bad news for RIAA.

I guess they can always try to hire people to physically destroy the server, but if they are caught there will be hell to pay. Even more so than just merely breaking in.

Edit: RIAA cannot really attack ISPs because they are legit businesses. Besides, lots of ISPs got some pretty competent engineers.

[notyoueither]

Hehe. You assume that hackers only go one way.

You don't think that with billions potentially at stake, they wouldn't use brown envelopes and hackers to hack the hackers?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hehe. You assume that hackers only go one way.

You don't think that with billions potentially at stake, they wouldn't use brown envelopes and hackers to hack the hackers?

No, I don't assume that. Hackers in fact only go one way. Even Kevin Mitnick didn't go around breaking into other people's systems for pay. Even black hats rarely do this sort of thing as hired guns.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Problem is they counter-counter sue for costs. Want your frivolity to hit your wallet?

The same paypal-supported fund that hires the lawyers in the first place would also pay out damages, if any.