backtop


Print 87 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Jan 16 at 3:17 AM


Underground releases are usually accompanied with elaborate "NFO" files, such as this one.
Hackers vow to destroy P2P, “one step at a time”

Private BitTorrent tracker Feedthe.Net was recently attacked by a group of hackers claiming to be members of the underground release ‘Scene.’ The group released a text file containing intimate personal details about one of the site’s administrators, Brandon Taylor.

The text file – called an NFO file – was signed by “CELLKiLL,” with a subtitle that describes the group as “Destroying the P2Ps, One Step at a Time.”

According to TorrentFreak, FeedThe.Net is the second such BitTorrent tracker to fall prey to CELLKiLL’s vendetta.  Late last year, SuperTorrents and its administrator Ersan suffered grievous security breaches, with the attack culminating in a lengthy NFO describing the site’s security systems as well as the theft of $2,000 from the site’s PayPal account.

While it may not seem so, it appears that the world of P2P file sharing is under siege from both the legal content industry, as well as the very groups who supply the scene with releases -- many “warez” groups are just as picky about distribution as the content providers they steal from. Oftentimes, release groups have approved channels for distribution as well as strict formatting rules, and historically they have not taken kindly to interruptions.

It appears that this specific attack was a direct reaction to Taylor’s behavior, as the group accused the FeedThe.Net of stealing “thousands and thousands of releases from the scene” and then banning sites that he claims stole from him. Despite this, the attackers’ agenda is not completely clear; CELLKiLL offered a number of different possible intentions without stating specifically what – or who – it was working for.

The NFO file closed with a warning, stating that there are more attacks yet to come: “We have yet again erased another torrent admin from existence. Other Groups (sic), do your part to make the scene what it was in the beginning. Secure.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Honor among thieves?
By ice456789 on 1/9/2008 6:25:30 PM , Rating: 5
"How dare you take what I have rightfully stolen!"




RE: Honor among thieves?
By Polynikes on 1/10/2008 11:53:10 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why the hell do they care HOW their releases get distributed? Isn't the whole point that it should be free for all to acquire by whatever means necessary?

Or am I missing the point of pirating?


RE: Honor among thieves?
By aharris on 1/10/2008 12:38:40 PM , Rating: 5
These hackers require recognition for their efforts in order to inflate their ePeen.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By Polynikes on 1/11/2008 1:24:29 PM , Rating: 2
So it seems. Poor bastards must have no self-esteem at all.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By Shwanzig on 1/12/2008 7:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Aye, this has 4chan all over it.

People want more people to dl their torrents, so they seem that much cooler.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By HighWing on 1/10/2008 1:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
At one time that was the war cry, but as someone else already mentioned many hackers now are only it it for the fame. And because of the larger and more open web, many hacking communities suddenly found themselves easily being discovered themselves. In response many closed their doors tight and will only allow new members by request from more then one existing member. IMO many of the ones on the front act more like High School Cliques then what Hackers used to be.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By SiN on 1/10/2008 2:23:04 PM , Rating: 4
you know i really miss those good old days when the information was free and the power of knowledge was easy to obtain. now everythings locked down tight. and every click you take is a firewall you have to pay the privillage to pass.

yes i mean to say that to do anything on the net it costs you. and the things you get are not what they once were, but watered down and diluted.

I welcome back the old days anytime... horay to the 90's.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By shabby on 1/12/2008 11:52:34 PM , Rating: 3
Originally warez content wasnt meant to be distributed to little johnny like it is today, it was only meant for those in the scene.
Back in the day you had to know a lot of people who could vouch for you to be given access to a site, and even then you had to move releases around to keep your ratios up before you could download something for yourself.
Now you just go to goggle, type in "300 torrent" and you have your release... its too easy and the people rip/crack/curry dont appreciate it.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By acme420 on 1/11/2008 2:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
this is how it works.

someone gets a piece of software through whatever means.

they then rip (remove all protections and then package it) the software (includes movies and music) and upload it to a private server. one of many in a private network.

groups get credits for uploading and whatnot. these credits are used to download/ get acces to higher up servers.

this is a secure model with limited access.

the way warez gets from these private servers and eventually into your hands is because people affiliated with groups along the chain download from the servers and then in turn spread the release to wider distribution networks such as p2p, torrents and usenet, etc.

almost every p2p/torrent site ive seen has a section where you donate money and get more credits/bandwidth. when money comes into the equation then so does the fbi. this is a security risk. which is why the "scene" doesnt like p2p.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By acme420 on 1/11/2008 2:17:04 AM , Rating: 3
i forgot to add. pirating isnt about getting software to you for free. all it is when you boil it down is a private game of skill to see who's the best at cracking protections the fastest. you getting free music and movies is just a side effect.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By Christopher1 on 1/11/2008 10:18:37 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, it's usually about, for most hackers, restoring their right to fair use of things and not having to buy countless numbers of the same item in different formats from the studios.

That's the main reason why I use DVD ripping software: I want to buy the disks, rip the thing to Divx at a reasonable bit-rate, and then get rid of that disk (trash it, not sell it) and burn multiple movies to one DVD, to save space!


RE: Honor among thieves?
By Christopher1 on 1/12/2008 12:17:58 PM , Rating: 1
Voted down because I am telling the truth here?


RE: Honor among thieves?
By glitchc on 1/13/2008 2:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's because you're not. This warez scene has existed for software primarily long before DVDs and mp3s became popular. Anyone can crack a DVD or a music CD now because the tool is widely known. Heck, WMP will do it out of the box for a music CD. Each new software or game, however, may or may not have a different kind of protection scheme, and therefore the crack is almost always individualized.

A case in point: Try cracking a game like Bioshock by yourself, by just working with game DVD, and without downloading any prepared crack. Let's see how far you get. Note that I'm not condoning cracking here, of course. I'm merely stating that there is a certain level of expertise required here which even most IT professionals (self-proclaimed computer experts) do not possess.

It has never really been about fairness. To assume that hackers are extremely altruistic people working for the good of the common man is highly fallacious. It is always about bragging rights and respect. Far enough down the line, bragging rights and respect can translate into money.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By wetwareinterface on 1/11/2008 9:20:53 AM , Rating: 2
by acme420 on January 11, 2008 at 2:14 AM

this is how it works.

someone gets a piece of software through whatever means.

they then rip (remove all protections and then package it) the software (includes movies and music) and upload it to a private server. one of many in a private network.

groups get credits for uploading and whatnot. these credits are used to download/ get acces to higher up servers.

this is a secure model with limited access.

the way warez gets from these private servers and eventually into your hands is because people affiliated with groups along the chain download from the servers and then in turn spread the release to wider distribution networks such as p2p, torrents and usenet, etc.

almost every p2p/torrent site ive seen has a section where you donate money and get more credits/bandwidth. when money comes into the equation then so does the fbi. this is a security risk. which is why the "scene" doesnt like p2p.


actually that's not how it is at all.
the days of private ftp credit accounts are over as most ftp server software has holes that are easy to exploit.
hacker 'scene' distribution is through simple methods either newsgroups or irc initial 'proof of hack'. this is simply a "hey look at what i cracked, i'm a l33t haxorzerer lol etc.." it is all about e-penis ego and proof of 'skillz'. they want as many in the 'scene' to see it as possible and so it isn't private at all but mass distributed to catch as much attention as possible.

the issue these tards are having is not their work being further distributed but their e-penis ego being plagerized by others claiming to do the cracking and are simply repackaging the material and deleting the original nfo files and retagging it with another nfo release file. you'll see it often when one groups nfo file has a big fuck you to another group in the text for claiming credit. first line distribution is either newsgroups or irc or even torrent sites.

the particualr issue here seems to be a torrent site operator is taking torrent files off of other sites and reseeding the files through their own tracker nets. this causes a problem in e-penis torrent land as now the exact same file is out there on 2 seperate tracker unique id's causing the distribution to get screwed up because you are splitting the seeds and that slows things down and reduces your e-penis when your hacked release is only being downloaded by 1/2 the audience it normally would show as having so you can't brag about your 'release' of windows vista (for the sake of example) being so popular as to be shared by xxxxx amount of people and downloaded by xxxxxx amount of people.

it's a stupid e-penis war and nothing else.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By spindoc on 1/11/2008 1:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Here is my opinion... and nothing more.

The first things I remember downloading from the internet were music, games and porn. These were downloaded using newsgroups, IRC and FTP. Since these tools required a brain to use leeching was not that popular and remained underground beyond the sight (or cares) of stockholders. Let's not kid ourselves... it's the stockholders of large coporation that have been bringing the heat in recent years.

The greatest leeching tool (or simplest) to hit the web was Napster. It was the first P2P tool that I can remember and it made getting MP3s a whole hell of a lot easier. Of course, the downside to it's popularity was it's eventual demise. Metalica vs. Napster by Camp Chaos: Best Flash Cartoon Ever!

The same thing is happening with Torrent sites and the people providing the content on those sites are finally sick of all the attention they are getting and are attempting to put an end to it. Let them do it. Let's go back to the days when our moms weren't part of the leeching scene. My mom doesn't even know that what she is doing is illegal yet she knows how to do it.


RE: Honor among thieves?
By JS on 1/12/2008 8:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, everything was a lot better when the main distribution chain consisted of sending C-64 cassette tapes by mail.

These internet tubes are messing up the whole scene, man.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/14/2008 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 2
The top of the Scene hierarchy still relies exclusively on FTP distribution.


Disrespectful
By mufster123 on 1/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disrespectful
By TomCorelis on 1/9/2008 8:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
Without any kind of direct information, there's no story. With even the tiniest bit direct information, anyone with half a brain could punch a few tidbits into Google and come up with the full story. Sometimes, you just have to walk the line. The people who actually care already have the source materials anyway -- and I hope you have similar criticism in store for Torrentfreak and the other bloggers that picked up on this before I did.


RE: Disrespectful
By jajig on 1/9/2008 9:43:37 PM , Rating: 3
Better watch you back Tom the Scary Fairy is after you! Nothing can instil fear in a person like a threat on an Internet forum.


RE: Disrespectful
By Clauzii on 1/12/2008 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 1
Tasteless..


RE: Disrespectful
By Clauzii on 1/16/2008 3:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I misunderstood - Thought it was personal...


RE: Disrespectful
By faiakes on 1/10/2008 8:26:23 AM , Rating: 3
I think the title of the story is unaccurate and misleading and not to Daily Tech's credit.

It should read the same as the byline: Hackers Declare war on ....

Also it is a single hacker, from a single groups on a personal quest.

Yet your title implies that ALL hackers are pirates (making money out of it) and they ALL got together and decided to attack torrent sites, which is not the case.


RE: Disrespectful
By faiakes on 1/10/2008 8:28:07 AM , Rating: 2
I think the title of the story is unaccurate and misleading and not to Daily Tech's credit.

It should read the same as the byline: Hacker Declares war on ....

Also it is a single hacker, from a single groups on a personal quest.

Yet your title implies that ALL hackers are pirates (making money out of it) and they ALL got together and decided to attack torrent sites, which is not the case.


RE: Disrespectful
By mrteddyears on 1/11/2008 10:22:43 AM , Rating: 3
Tom watch out an .NFO file will be made with a horses head and in ePeen in its mouth about you.


RE: Disrespectful
By Clauzii on 1/12/2008 6:26:16 PM , Rating: 1
Also tasteless..


RE: Disrespectful
By Clauzii on 1/16/2008 3:17:06 AM , Rating: 2
My mistake, thought it was personal...


RE: Disrespectful
By Clauzii on 1/9/2008 8:56:10 PM , Rating: 1
Instead of "Fock this!, Fock that!" philosophy and pirating (which it is, according to law), get the softwarehouses to make 30 day full trials, which is basically the excuse for doing the cracking stuff in the first place anyway. (Yeah I read some of the stuff years ago. I'll guess much hasn't changed since then..)

Regarding privacy, a case like this is not some kind of a privacy matter, law-vise, I think..


RE: Disrespectful
By Jeremy21 on 1/10/2008 1:52:34 AM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of libel?
I see a lawsuit waiting to happen. Making claims against individuals without any proof (I doubt supplying a txt file that was spread over an illegal network would be proof) is libel.

Funny how gullible people can be.


RE: Disrespectful
By ice456789 on 1/10/2008 10:04:15 AM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight; an internet hacker/pirate/whatever is going to SUE Daily tech for calling him an internet hacker/pirate/whatever? Since you're so keen on the law, you probably know that if what's being said is true it is not libel. The hacker would have to prove that he's not a hacker. Is he ready to expose himself to an investigation just to win a libel lawsuit against a blogger? Daily Tech has enough evidence to reasonably believe that the person who created that NFO file is indeed a pirate. Calling him one does not break any law.

Finally, no person was named in the blog, just the alias CELLKiLL. I don't think that person is stupid enough to file a lawsuit which would forever link him to the alias CELLKiLL, especially when CELLKiLL has basically admitted breaking many copyright laws. He would be opening himself up to plenty of lawsuits.


RE: Disrespectful
By Jeremy21 on 1/10/2008 10:42:02 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong.
DailyTech has a text file that was spread on an illegal network called "the scene". Hardly what any jury would call evidence of anything. Also, here in the states we have this policy where people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's sufficient proof to point that the story is true (like I said, a text file is hardly proof) then DailyTech would have to show sufficient reason that their claims are legit. IF dailytech did have good enough evidence to make their claims seem legit (which they don't) then you're correct, the person filing the lawsuit WOULD have to prove their side as well. However like I said, it's a situation where based on the information provided, the case would be in the person filing the lawsuit's favor.

Now here's what you don't understand.
You claim nobody was named in the blog, yet you must have missed this entire line:
"The group released a text file containing intimate personal details about one of the site’s administrators, Brandon Taylor."
That line alone is pretty clear in anyones eyes, it's a clear statement that claims a fact. Can dailytech prove this fact is true? Based on a text file? Seriously? Because I hardly see how that would be done.

Also, you fail to realize how many "Brandon Taylor's" there are. Perhaps you should do a search, who says this lawsuit would be filed by one person? It's not hard for anyone one of these people to claim they were turned down a job because of a claim made on this site or other. Who do you think would win? I'm shocked you believe a blogger with no proof other than a shady source and a text file would win in such a situation.


RE: Disrespectful
By ice456789 on 1/10/2008 11:13:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wrong.
DailyTech has a text file that was spread on an illegal network called "the scene". Hardly what any jury would call evidence of anything. Also, here in the states we have this policy where people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's sufficient proof to point that the story is true (like I said, a text file is hardly proof) then DailyTech would have to show sufficient reason that their claims are legit. IF dailytech did have good enough evidence to make their claims seem legit (which they don't) then you're correct, the person filing the lawsuit WOULD have to prove their side as well. However like I said, it's a situation where based on the information provided, the case would be in the person filing the lawsuit's favor.
Actually you are wrong. The onus of proof would rest on the plaintiff because as you said DT would be innocent until proven guilty. So DT claimed that someone named CELLKiLL is a pirate, based on the fact that CELLKiLL is admitting to piracy in a commonly distributed message. There is no libel in that. Again, CELLKiLL would have to prove that he is NOT a pirate and prove that he did NOT create that message. Even then, the judge is likely to dismiss it because an internet blogger is not held up to a high standard of proof. They based their assumption on a document and they told you they were basing it on that document. No legal fault there, as there was no negligence.

quote:
Now here's what you don't understand.
You claim nobody was named in the blog, yet you must have missed this entire line:
"The group released a text file containing intimate personal details about one of the site’s administrators, Brandon Taylor."
That line alone is pretty clear in anyones eyes, it's a clear statement that claims a fact. Can dailytech prove this fact is true? Based on a text file? Seriously? Because I hardly see how that would be done.
Again, you misunderstand. The statement "The group released a text file containing intimate personal details about one of the site’s administrators, Brandon Taylor." is unequivocally true. A group did indeed release a text file containing the personal details of some guy named Brandon Taylor. No where in the DT blog is anyone named as the person who released the file, except the handle CELLKiLL. If someone wants to stand up and say "I am CELLKiLL, and I did not release this file, and I am suing DT for saying that I did" then that is their prerogative. However that person would be stupid because CELLKiLL has admitted to multiple crimes. So that person has basically made it VERY easy for any prosecutor to nail them. Also, Brandon Taylor would have an easy time prosecuting them as well. And even if they were stupid enough to do it anyways, DT would still not be held liable because the document was distributed with CELLKiLL's 'digital signature' (all the block text) and therefor they are not showing any negligence by assuming it is legit.


RE: Disrespectful
By wetwareinterface on 1/10/2008 11:45:35 AM , Rating: 1
by Jeremy21 on January 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM

"Wrong.
DailyTech has a text file that was spread on an illegal network called "the scene". Hardly what any jury would call evidence of anything. Also, here in the states we have this policy where people are considered innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's sufficient proof to point that the story is true (like I said, a text file is hardly proof) then DailyTech would have to show sufficient reason that their claims are legit. IF dailytech did have good enough evidence to make their claims seem legit (which they don't) then you're correct, the person filing the lawsuit WOULD have to prove their side as well. However like I said, it's a situation where based on the information provided, the case would be in the person filing the lawsuit's favor.

Now here's what you don't understand.
You claim nobody was named in the blog, yet you must have missed this entire line:
"The group released a text file containing intimate personal details about one of the site’s administrators, Brandon Taylor."
That line alone is pretty clear in anyones eyes, it's a clear statement that claims a fact. Can dailytech prove this fact is true? Based on a text file? Seriously? Because I hardly see how that would be done.

Also, you fail to realize how many "Brandon Taylor's" there are. Perhaps you should do a search, who says this lawsuit would be filed by one person? It's not hard for anyone one of these people to claim they were turned down a job because of a claim made on this site or other. Who do you think would win? I'm shocked you believe a blogger with no proof other than a shady source and a text file would win in such a situation.
"

umm you're obviously far less familiar with law than I am but there's a few big glaring flaws in your logic and legal understanding.
firstly. the quote is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" this means that in a CRIMINAL trial the state has to prove it's case and the defendant charged is presumed innocent.

libel is a CIVIL matter not CRIMINAL. the burden of proof in a civil case is upon the plaintiff to prove their case has merit. this boils down to the person who wishes to sue must meet a greater than 50% burden of proof that what they claim injury from happened and then the matter of awarding a compensation is handled after.

now for the best part...
bloggers are considered as news reporting agencies.
if you are a noteworthy figure or are in the public eye you cannot sue for libel unles you can prove malice. a blogger on daily tech claiming there was an attack on a torrent site named xxxx by a hacker going under the alias of yyyy and the attack consisted of operator of said torrent site zzzz having personal information divulged in a text file by said hacker aliased yyyy does not have malice. it is a simple statement of information the blogger has in his posession and no personal details of operator zzzz or hacker yyyy or site xxxx were revealed. nor were any comments or statements made that any jury would see as "malicious" in nature.

and now the best part that you failed to see because you jumped to a nutjob conclusion to start with...

if said hacker did try to sue daily tech, he would have to appear in court and claim to be hacker yyyy and that he feels that the statements made about him were libelous. he would then, owing to his status so far in the eyes of the law as a faceless alias have to prove he is indeed the individual who commited several acts of extortion using a computer (making demands in addition to your denial of service attack, i.e. "this dos is not going to stop unless" or "we did it because") as well as engaging in a criminal conspiracy across state lines (denial of service attacks fall under this). at which time his libel suit will be immediately dismissed (you can't benefit from a criminal act by law and this includes a civil trial) and he'd be remanded over for criminal court at the u.s supreme court level.

your assumption that any random individual named Brandon Taylor would have a case based on damages from thrid parties would require that proof be set forth that daily tech made statements regarding any indivisual named Brandon Taylor when the article states quite clearly "Private BitTorrent tracker Feedthe.Net was recently attacked by a group of hackers claiming to be members of the underground release ‘Scene.’ The group released a text file containing intimate personal details about one of the site’s administrators, Brandon Taylor."


RE: Disrespectful
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/14/2008 1:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
DailyTech is well versed in domestic and international legal doctrine. Please feel free to forward any legal requests directly to my email address. We respect the laws of the sovereign nations our servers publish from.


Innate
By Haven Bartton on 1/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Innate
By CaptainCook on 1/9/2008 7:36:58 PM , Rating: 3
What a shame, the article is inaccurate at best!
The guy they attacked had some connections to the site in the past, but had since cut all his connections to the site and was targeted nonetheless.

If you're going to write a story, please get your fact straight!


RE: Innate
By DigitalFreak on 1/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Innate
By Haven Bartton on 1/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Innate
By stmok on 1/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Innate
By BigToque on 1/9/2008 8:57:45 PM , Rating: 3
"Copyright Infringement is NOT the same as violating someone sexually."

This statement shows that you didn't understand what the OP was trying to say.

He was simply stating that just as "real pirates" don't care who they hurt or how they go about hurting them, "digital pirates" act in a similar way. They "infringe" on others.


RE: Innate
By jajig on 1/9/2008 9:34:23 PM , Rating: 4
I'll second that assessment! Analogies prove to be too much for some people it seems.


RE: Innate
By InternetGeek on 1/9/2008 9:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
He could just have said that directly. His comparison is open to both of the interpretations depending on your personal level of drama. If you're an alarmist you will assume he is putting them on the same level.

It'd do a lot of good if people just spoke out clearly or didn't speak at all. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether they are an employee or just a civilian in the matter. On this one I will include politicians as well ;)


RE: Innate
By jajig on 1/9/2008 10:01:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
His comparison is open to both of the interpretations depending on your personal level of drama. If you're an alarmist you will assume he is putting them on the same level.


I disagree the OP was quite clear in his explanation if you take the time to read his post. I feel the real issue is that many people read only a few selected segments of a post before forming an opinion and commenting.

There are many posters here at DT that neither seem to read the article or other people comments before posting their opinions.


RE: Innate
By DigitalFreak on 1/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Innate
By wordsworm on 1/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Innate
By robert5c on 1/10/2008 8:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
I've had the same results...

just like radio leads some to buy more music, pirating software got me to buy more software then ever...

i don't like the idea of stealing someones hard work, so if i use it a lot i always buy it, but i have download things i wasn't sure was what i was looking for or was just far to expensive for what i used it for. unfortunately theres no system to rent software, and trials are usually limited in functionality. i wish companies like adobe offered a service where you can pay for a license monthly and say if you stick with them for two years you own it. at that rate i'd pay for it even if i only used it to edit five or six pictures a month.


RE: Innate
By nofranchise on 1/10/2008 10:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
I concur.

Also - would I ever really buy Transformers on DVD? I mean come on. Such a load of tripe. I would've waited till it was broadcast on public TV, so is that stealing? Maybe - but I don't see the japanese creators of original mech cartoons getting any money either.


RE: Innate
By johnsonx on 1/10/2008 2:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
Inane?


This means war....
By daftrok on 1/9/2008 5:47:50 PM , Rating: 6
Everybody! Scroll your mouses towards the enemy on the screen! Annnnndddd...RIGHT CLICK!




RE: This means war....
By Mudvillager on 1/9/2008 7:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
This a quote? If so, from where?


RE: This means war....
By kinnoch on 1/9/2008 7:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe from the WoW South Park episode


RE: This means war....
By Mudvillager on 1/9/2008 7:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thought I'd heard it before! Yeah that episode is awesome.


RE: This means war....
By dflynchimp on 1/9/08, Rating: 0
Arrrr. the irony!
By noirsoft on 1/9/2008 6:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
Seems like those pirates who are concerned about people distributing there warez in a way they don't like should implement some form of DRM to prevent this. ;)




RE: Arrrr. the irony!
By Lazarus Dark on 1/10/2008 8:00:14 AM , Rating: 5
I would definately give this a 6.

L O L


oh noe teh hax0rz are coming!
By walk2k on 1/9/2008 6:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
I mean is anyone really afraid of greasy dateless nerds plotting world domination from their mom's basement?




RE: oh noe teh hax0rz are coming!
By AstroCreep on 1/9/2008 7:23:05 PM , Rating: 5
Well, now it would appear that it would be other greasy, dateless nerds plotting world domination from their mom's basement who need to be afraid.


RE: oh noe teh hax0rz are coming!
By Clauzii on 1/9/2008 8:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Same thought here.

I could immagine the guy's who started it all out moved out from their moms years ago, getting more founded in their doings, giving space for new guys who'll crack new algorithms to be protected by a program that gets.. etc. :)


The Motive...
By Alpha4 on 1/10/2008 2:15:53 AM , Rating: 5
...As I understand it.

The article mentions that the intentions are vague, but at the end the hacker is quoted as saying "...do your part to make the scene what it was in the beginning. Secure.”

The motive here seems pretty straight forward; P2P is insecure in that it is responsible for more prominent illegal distribution of media. I think this inevitably leads to authorities taking greater interest in up-rooting any inside sources for said content in the first place.

When boiled down it seems as though two groups of pirates are too heavy to share a ship, so to stop it from sinking one group is doing their best to throw the other overboard.




RE: The Motive...
By Aikouka on 1/10/2008 8:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I thought while I was reading it. I mean, warez has never been invisible to the eyes of the law, but such public means as torrents and other P2P applications are giving them too much limelight. So to keep themselves out of the limelight, the original "distributors" are getting rid of that noisy guy that keeps bragging to everyone about his goods. It's like the mob taking out the noisy rat ;).


Puh...parsley? Oh, got it!
By kileil on 1/9/2008 5:53:02 PM , Rating: 3
PARLE! All the site admin has to do is call for parle to stop the attacks and negotiate with their captain.




RE: Puh...parsley? Oh, got it!
By glitchc on 1/13/2008 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 1
Shouldn't it be "parley"? Last I heard, Parle G was a cracker..


RE: Puh...parsley? Oh, got it!
By Alpha4 on 1/14/2008 11:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Its supposed to be Parlé actually ;)


Is this a case of drive-by-hacking
By initialised on 1/10/2008 5:38:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hackers are hired by organised crime, they use them to make money in this case by selling pirate DVDs so it looks like this is the 'scene's' equivalent of a drive by shooting.

And it shows up on here and other geek sites as a warning to the everyone else.

The motive could be something like you give our stuff away we lose sales and make us easier to trace. Just a different set of middle men making money out it.

Either that or the copy write owners are doing the hiring or hacking.




RE: Is this a case of drive-by-hacking
By superkdogg on 1/10/2008 11:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
^^^ was my first thought.

Record/movie execs are not stupid people. They all have some knowledge and guile to get where they are. It only makes sense that eventually somebody had an idea to float a contract to attack illegal distributors.

I don't know about the drive-by reference, but it's at least possible that the hacker(s) in this situation were getting a payout from somebody, be it pirate DVD sellers, MPAA/RIAA, other organized crime, etc.

ofc, we'll never really know.


RE: Is this a case of drive-by-hacking
By geddarkstorm on 1/10/2008 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Thus begins the internet bounty hunter trade :O?


Pirate Vigilantes!!
By mezman on 1/9/2008 5:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
Makin' Mr. Taylor walk the plank! Arrr!!!




You need to...
By Slash3 on 1/9/2008 6:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Set your font to Terminal, silly.




By Clauzii on 1/9/2008 8:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
:)




How odd..
By InternetGeek on 1/9/2008 9:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
That the two extremes in the Digital Downloads topic find that the Internet is a threat to their business model. Pirates in particular seem to dislike the idea of people being able to download the movies. What do they want then? Just watch them? Or they want us to buy the ripped DVDs on the street?

It's an odd situation. Anyone knows if the studios would be interested in turning pirates legal? Like, using pirates to set up their distribution channels?




How odd..
By InternetGeek on 1/9/2008 9:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
That the two extremes in the Digital Downloads topic find that the Internet is a threat to their business model. Pirates in particular seem to dislike the idea of people being able to download the movies. What do they want then? Just watch them? Or they want us to buy the ripped DVDs on the street?

It's an odd situation. Anyone knows if the studios would be interested in turning pirates legal? Like, using pirates to set up their distribution channels?




One <> plural
By mindless1 on 1/10/2008 11:56:25 AM , Rating: 2
So there's one kiddie out there whose dad works for some content provider and he's got his nose all bent out of shape. Does that mean it's the same person, even if actually part of a group, who did steal money from a P2P oriented site? Not necessarily, financial gain is it's own reward (to the hacker, I'm not advocating any of this).

There have been quite a few posts here theorizing about how this is some kind of battle betweeen hackers and pirates but think about it, this is not that at all it is only a very isolated incident.




And?
By Rob94hawk on 1/11/2008 10:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
Life goes on. Nobody cares about some insignificant dorkwads hacking a p2p network.




Pirates attacking other pirates
By bfellow on 1/11/2008 11:31:21 AM , Rating: 2
Wow like this never happened before?!!




real motivation
By rika13 on 1/11/2008 6:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
partly e-peen
partly not liking feds on the ass
mostly RIAA/MPAA/BSA/SPA money or "not seeing" things




exactly.
By 0uterlimitz on 1/11/2008 11:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm loooking for Sarah Conner..




ARG! NARF! YAR!
By roadrun777 on 1/12/2008 8:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
I have been waiting forever for some article I can post this link!

Check out the ninja shovel machine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtIot-nrV1M&feature...

watch?v=VtIot-nrV1M <- just in case they censor links




hehe
By alfons on 1/10/2008 4:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
why care???? Criminal or nut.......the ones who cares should be a sleep at this hour and let the ones that dont care continue w their business....for instance, how much do one that care think he/she will save on their annual cd/dvd account???? Have one of those freaks ever seen "the cribb" on MTV and thought anything about that????? Fuck the laws about copyright an stuff.....and hey.... I cant be "over heard" on the phone cause the FBI has a late phone bill......

"Lax FBI money controls lead to shutdown of surveillance, Justice Department audit finds

LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Telephone companies cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time, according to a Justice Department audit released Thursday.

The faulty bookkeeping is part of what the audit, by the Justice Department's inspector general, described as the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

And at least once, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation — the highly secretive and sensitive cases that allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies — "was halted due to untimely payment."

"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

hehe redistributed my ass.....




oppresion
By Setsunayaki on 1/14/2008 5:31:05 AM , Rating: 1
Bittorent sites compete with each other for your download. Not only this, release groups get PISSED when you download download from someone else and they believe that people should download and grovel at their feet...

So these groups start threatening other groups, through hackers, email and other mediums to shutdown, turn control of networks OR ELSE...

The difference between corporations and bittorent is that corporations are suckpods who charge and arm and a leg for everything, while BITTORENT is like being a member to an online mafia....

Every site has its own rules, its own decrees and pompous declaration and overblown self rightious attitude. People always argue with "My shit is better than yours" specially fan-sub groups that wish that they could MONOPOLIZE what they work on with the guise of telling everyone "we just do it for fun"

The best thing to do, to teach a BAD SITE a lesson....is to find the intentions of the leader and if he or she gives you a hardtime, simply email the whole thing to one of those groups who is against PIRACY, because they can KILL 2 birds with one stone...That idiotic site and its leader that no one should have to even deal with or go through as well as the entire chain of ungrateful downloaders who DARE to even question the integrity of a STOLEN download would be dealt with at the same time....

I know this is the extreme, but its the BEST WAY to get a fair share and teach these sites a lesson who come with their HOLIER THAN THOU attitude...Everytime I do this, they fall down from their high horse pretty quickly.




.
By Suomynona on 1/9/08, Rating: -1
nfo
By shuffle2 on 1/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: nfo
By TomCorelis on 1/9/2008 7:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's a monospace font. How is it malformatted?


RE: nfo
By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/9/2008 7:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's formatted just fine. Just because it doesn't have the decorative bar on both sides of the file doesn't mean it's malformatted.


RE: nfo
By TomCorelis on 1/9/2008 8:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, he's right. I've been working in Courier/Lucida Console for so long now that I've completely forgotten about good ol' ASCII terminal.

Ironically, I've had an easier time loading the file in Windows rather than Linux.


RE: nfo
By Clauzii on 1/9/2008 9:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, that's why I also get blocks of gray now instead of characters!

Great :)


RE: nfo
By noxipoo on 1/9/2008 8:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
should be terminal font.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles
Demonoid.com Shut Down by CRIA
November 9, 2007, 11:26 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki