Anonymous go to town on the net after Megaupload taken down

Shiroki · 20-01-2012 11:30pm

It's the greed and naivety of these suits that's causing all of this. They actually think they can control the internet, I'd assume they don't realize how much bigger than them it is. It can't be controlled with silly rules. The second hand gaming scene is hurting too. Publishers like EA have started putting codes in the boxes of new games, which the customer has to use if they want to access online content. But it isn't reusable, forcing the next person to own it to pay extra for an online pass. They don't like second hand games because they don't make anymore money after the first purchase. It's pure greed.

Doc Ruby · 20-01-2012 11:32pm

Shiroki wrote: »

It's the greed and naivety of these suits that's causing all of this. They actually think they can control the internet, I'd assume they don't realize how much bigger than them it is. It can't be controlled with silly rules. The second hand gaming scene is hurting too. Publishers like EA have started putting codes in the boxes of new games, which the customer has to use if they want to access online content. But it isn't reusable, forcing the next person to own it to pay extra for an online pass. They don't like second hand games because they don't make anymore money after the first purchase. It's pure greed.

Why don't they just have a monthly subscription like WoW?

ch750536 · 20-01-2012 11:38pm

Ben D Bus wrote: »

If I write and perform a song and release it for sale in order to make a living, do others have the right to take it without paying?

I say 'No'.

How much I make, or any third party makes, is not relevant.

You have to play fair.
In 1991 I bought Dark side of the moon on LP. A large chunk of that money was to pay for a licence to listen to the music on the album. A small chunk paid the the vinyl.
Someone took that LP so I bought it again. Had to buy another licence, so I paid Pink Floyd twice to listen to the same album.
Then I bought the CD - I actually contacted EMI to see if I could not pay for another licence as I already had 2. They declined. So I bought 3 licences to listen to the music.
When I get a fair deal from the music industry I'll play fair. Till that happens I will do what I do.

Shiroki · 21-01-2012 12:12am

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Why don't they just have a monthly subscription like WoW?

Because Xbox LIVE is already paid for which is the main service which you pay 60 a year for... This is just a new measure taken by EA and others to unlock their online content and to make sure you pay them as much a possible. The annoying part is this only started happening about 2 years ago

Chuck Stone · 21-01-2012 12:26am

ch750536 wrote: »

You have to play fair.
In 1991 I bought Dark side of the moon on LP.

Someone took that LP so I bought it again. Had to buy another licence, so I paid Pink Floyd twice to listen to the same album.
Then I bought the CD.

So I bought 3 licences to listen to the music.
When I get a fair deal from the music industry I'll play fair. Till that happens I will do what I do.

Great point and something that pisses me off about Microsoft.

I have a PC and a netbook and yet I have to pay twice for the same software?

Why shouldn't I have a licence to use their software when I buy a product pre-loaded with it once and once only?

Why? €€€$$$£££

MS has monopolised the software market so much it's just a bother for the averagely computer literate person like myself to chance another OS.

I'd love to use linux but I'm probably not tech-y enuf.

/talkin too much

gurramok · 21-01-2012 12:35am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doesn't mean that as I walk past the grocer's store I can just pick up an apple from the box and pocket it as I keep walking.

Did you pick up the apple's shadow as per infringing the copyright of it? You didn't, you stole the apple, big difference.

Einhard · 21-01-2012 12:40am

Is there not something slightly ironic about a group of people protesting censorship of the web by, er, preventing people from accessing sites on the web?

batistuta9 · 21-01-2012 1:08am

OctavarIan wrote: »

I suggest you read the indictment.

[edit] Here's a link.

what else would the indictment say? come on

are you suggesting these people uploaded every single film/album themselves?

sure the might have uploaded some themselves(probably weren't stupid enough to though i think, as others were doing it) & probably knew it was going on but they just operated a website that hosted content, that they would take down if asked too(maybe the didn't do this well enough). Same as youtube do, and i seriously doubt ever song on youtube is legally on it

Manic Moran · 21-01-2012 1:16am

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

PseudoFamous wrote: »

Uh, actually, this is a fair point.

Is a library just a hub of piracy? Why haven't they been shut down?

lol. You get the idea. Youtubers share content, the book club shares content, second hand shops don't pay royalties.

People moralisisng about MU have themselves shared somethiing that wasn't theirs to share.

Does the book club share the books, or give everyone photocopies of the books?

NTM

Voodu Child · 21-01-2012 1:20am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Does the book club share the books, or give everyone photocopies of the books?

NTM

So you're saying that illegal streaming is okay, because you're only taking a 'loan' of the video?

Manic Moran · 21-01-2012 1:23am

gurramok wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Doesn't mean that as I walk past the grocer's store I can just pick up an apple from the box and pocket it as I keep walking.

Did you pick up the apple's shadow as per infringing the copyright of it? You didn't, you stole the apple, big difference.

Seriously? You are considering the creative content of, say, a song to be the shadow of the core object, and not the core object itself? Without the creative content there -is no- core object.

Manic Moran · 21-01-2012 1:26am

figarofigaro wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why?

Would you support bank robbers, or anyone else conducting illegal activities?

Aren't you the guy who participated in the illegal and immoral invasion of a country?

Nope. I have only partaken in UN approved operations. And how does that affect the movie industry? (Other than that I have a significant part in a documentary about the ISAF mission)

Manic Moran · 21-01-2012 1:28am

Voodu Child wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Does the book club share the books, or give everyone photocopies of the books?

NTM

So you're saying that illegal streaming is okay, because you're only taking a 'loan' of the video?

I am not. When you buy a DVD one of those things people always fast forward is the license agreement about for home and personal use only and re broadcasting is not permitted.

NTM

Headshot · 21-01-2012 1:29am

Aren't these hackers the same that took down psn and took customers details?

briany · 21-01-2012 1:31am

The FBI only took down Megaupload because they got annoyed running into the 70 minute free limit all the time and having to reset their router so let that be a lesson to all those other cyber lockers out there with streaming video.

Is a library just a hub of piracy? Why haven't they been shut down?

This is a commonly cited contradiction. A public resource that is effectively free, or as a public service can be, is providing access to copyrighted works yet no one protests. If the internet were a publicly funded, free to access for all utility on which copyrighted works could be freely shared and viewed with a portion of the public revenue going towards the rights holders, I would in theory support that but not if it meant the homogenization, nationalization, corporatization of the internet as we know it.

strobe · 21-01-2012 1:41am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nope. I have only partaken in UN approved operations. And how does that affect the movie industry? (Other than that I have a significant part in a documentary about the ISAF mission)

No way man, do you? Cool. Got a link to the torrent of that doc so I can give it a watch?

Sorry...

I'm here all week. Take my wife, please.

figarofigaro · 21-01-2012 1:43am

Manic Moran wrote: »

And how does that affect the movie industry?

It has nothing to do with the movie industry but then again neither do bank robbers.

ascanbe · 21-01-2012 2:02am

Einhard wrote: »

Is there not something slightly ironic about a group of people protesting censorship of the web by, er, preventing people from accessing sites on the web?

Can something be 'slightly ironic'? Anymore than, say, a woman can be 'slightly pregnant'?
Anyway, that's neither here nor there, it just occurred to me; must look into it.
No, there's nothing ironic about this situation; Wikipedia, et al, simply withdrew their services in order to make a point, and Anonymous simply utilised the freedom of expression and avenues currently available to them in order to do likewise.
No attempt was made to 'censor' what any site contained.

gurramok · 21-01-2012 2:06am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Seriously? You are considering the creative content of, say, a song to be the shadow of the core object, and not the core object itself? Without the creative content there -is no- core object.

The apple has been stolen, the creative content of the object has not.

PseudoFamous · 21-01-2012 2:14am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Voodu Child wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Does the book club share the books, or give everyone photocopies of the books?

NTM

So you're saying that illegal streaming is okay, because you're only taking a 'loan' of the video?

I am not. When you buy a DVD one of those things people always fast forward is the license agreement about for home and personal use only and re broadcasting is not permitted.

NTM

So it's fine if you're not the one broadcasting it, but just a viewer? You probably won't see all that in a stream, either, so in watching the stream, you're not agreeing to anything.

ascanbe · 21-01-2012 2:26am

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not. When you buy a DVD one of those things people always fast forward is the license agreement about for home and personal use only and re broadcasting is not permitted.

NTM

This whole thing strikes me as being like the 70's/80's when there was mass 'illegal' copying/sharing/distribution of audio and VHS tapes/lending of books; ie, breach of copyright.
At first, these industries, understandably, were scared of this and wished to crack-down on it; soon though, they realised that this was unfeasible and that, in fact, this type of dissemenation of their products only served to enhance the popularity of what they produced.
This argument is really about the freedom of the internet, as it equates to any other sphere people occupy, and peoples role in it; much, in a way, as that could be seen as being about the freedom of the streets/of kids in house-holds all over the world.
Just as it would've been ridiculous, and undesirable, in my opinion, to have masses of uniformed authorites breaking down doors all over the world in order to search for counterfeit tapes, it seems to me ridiculous to attempt the same on the internet.
And even worse, to try an stymie what's good about the internet in an attempt to do so.

Manic Moran · 21-01-2012 7:17am

ascanbe wrote: »

This whole thing strikes me as being like the 70's/80's when there was mass 'illegal' copying/sharing/distribution of audio and VHS tapes/lending of books; ie, breach of copyright.

Why put 'illegal' in apostrophes? It was either illegal, or it was not.

This argument is really about the freedom of the internet, as it equates to any other sphere people occupy, and peoples role in it; much, in a way, as that could be seen as being about the freedom of the streets/of kids in house-holds all over the world.

Is not any law prohibiting an action something which ultimately affects freedom? I am 'free' to do things in the US which are illegal in Ireland, for example. Or free to do things in Ireland which are illegal in the US. As long as we're willing to accept a legislative society, we also have to accept that environments can be limited.

Just as it would've been ridiculous, and undesirable, in my opinion, to have masses of uniformed authorites breaking down doors all over the world in order to search for counterfeit tapes, it seems to me ridiculous to attempt the same on the internet.

It is a bit of a waste of effort. Certainly there are instances where the final users have been nailed, witness the E1.4million fine for a DJ in Italy or the $1.9m fine for that American woman who was filesharing, but it is far more efficient to go after the distributors of the illegal content. It's like going after the drug dealers and not the drug users.

NTM

ch750536 · 21-01-2012 7:40am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Great point and something that pisses me off about Microsoft.

I have a PC and a netbook and yet I have to pay twice for the same software?

Why shouldn't I have a licence to use their software when I buy a product pre-loaded with it once and once only?

Why? €€€$$$£££

MS has monopolised the software market so much it's just a bother for the averagely computer literate person like myself to chance another OS.

I'd love to use linux but I'm probably not tech-y enuf.

/talkin too much

Slightly different to be fair, you purchase a licence to install on a machine. Still **** but they only sell you one licence and you can just grab another copy for free online if you break the DVD. You just need to prove you have a licence.
Music industry wants cake & to eat it... They sell you a licence until you try to buy another copy without the licence. ****ers.

ch750536 · 21-01-2012 7:49am

Consider this also.
I try to buy a new TV. I get exact defined specs of the TV. I get to try it in the shop. If I then buy it and it is faulty within 6 years they have to repair \ replace the unit.
When I try to buy new music \ films, the industry pays off about 70% of all reviewers by promoting themselves on their media. Do you think Madonna would be on the Jonathon Ross show if he was to say 'I watched it and it was a bit dull?' The relationship between the different medias is incestuous and only misleads the customer, purposely.
Lets say I bought the latest <insert> movie on DVD. All the posters had people saying great things about it. All the reviews said great things about it. I buy it & the movie <in my opinion> stinks. I feel duped. I can get no refund.
I did one time leave a cinema early and I did get a refund, the manager said it was a novelty so he was happy to refund. I can't remember the movie.

Blikes · 21-01-2012 7:51am

Also currently or recently taken down by Anonymous

http://www.justinbieberweb.com/
http://selenagomezweb.com/
http://www.paulafernandes.com.br/
http://universalmusic.com.br/
http://www.emimusicbrasil.com/

hatrickpatrick · 21-01-2012 1:33pm

PseudoFamous wrote: »

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't visit the RIAA, MPAA, Department of Justice, or Universal music websites. Nobody will miss them, their server admins will snigger a bit, take down the site for a few hours and quietly bring it back up. Pointless effort. They'd be better off actually getting out and protesting in front of their buildings, make more of an impact.

Oh, they've also further alienated themselves, as now representatives are going to be persuaded to see them as harmful to the wellbeing of the internet.

I love the way people always act like Anon's ddos attacks don't actually hurt the companies involved. The attacks are mounted by flooding a site with so much traffic that it doesn't have time to respond to all of it, have you any idea how much large servers have to pay for bandwidth? It's not cheap. ddos attacks drive bandwidth usage to the roof and cost companies money, which is why they get so angry about such attacks.

hatrickpatrick · 21-01-2012 1:35pm

Also could I just point out here that the piracy argument about megaupload is completely irrelevant. I used megaupload several weeks ago to email myself a video of a gig I played which was too big to be sent as an attachment and I hadn't got around to downloading it yet. Dunno how I'll get it from my desktop to my laptop now.

Such unilateral actions by governments (without finding the site guilty of anything first, I might add) hurt legitimate users like myself as well as anyone else.

This is the exact reason I oppose SOPA, PIPA and any other such legislation around the world:
The "collateral damage" from anti piracy efforts is unacceptably high.

21-01-2012 1:43pm

Ha. Love that they went after Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez. I mean, I can't see what they have to do with it, but it's still pretty funny.

Spacedog · 21-01-2012 2:07pm

KeithAFC wrote: »

Internet terrorists. Simple as that.

Considering the impact of terrorism on the people where you live. I would think you'd be a little more careful about how lightly you use the word.

This quote leads me to believe that you are a really, really entertaining troll, as was suggested about you in the begrudgingly admiration thread. and for that I thank you sir.

___________________________________________________

Anyway XKCD time...

EclipsiumRasa · 21-01-2012 2:37pm

Sure are a lot of whiners in this thread muttering about "waste of time" etc.

For all the flak anonymous deserves, when they're pushed, they push back. That has to beat living like a powerless sadsack.

hatrickpatrick · 21-01-2012 3:56pm

EclipsiumRasa wrote: »

Sure are a lot of whiners in this thread muttering about "waste of time" etc.

For all the flak anonymous deserves, when they're pushed, they push back. That has to beat living like a powerless sadsack.

This is Ireland. Anyone who partakes in activism instead of sitting around moping and b!tching is regarded as some sort of oddity.

Monty Python:
Crowd: We're all different!
One guy: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhhh

Jesus Shaves · 21-01-2012 4:17pm

WakeUp wrote: »

No to SOPA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGkwQxSDQGA

Great video

TanG411 · 21-01-2012 4:17pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is Ireland. Anyone who partakes in activism instead of sitting around moping and b!tching is regarded as some sort of oddity.

Monty Python:
Crowd: We're all different!
One guy: I'm not...
Crowd: Shhhh

We all compain "Nobody is doing anything about it". "Someone take a stand".

*Someone takes a stand*

"Oh look at them, disgrace to society".

orangebud · 21-01-2012 4:26pm

People get there entertainment from the internet these days Hollywood just have to get with the times

i download everyday & delete every day because its all ****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SHRdjZJXPo

Einhard · 21-01-2012 6:52pm

ascanbe wrote: »

No, there's nothing ironic about this situation; Wikipedia, et al, simply withdrew their services in order to make a point, and Anonymous simply utilised the freedom of expression and avenues currently available to them in order to do likewise.
No attempt was made to 'censor' what any site contained.

Anonymous sought to prevent people who wished to do so from accessing certyain websites. They claim to stand for freedom of expression and access on the internet, and yet arbitrarily and unilaterally close down websites when ever they feel like it. How are they different from the groups they oppose?

karma_ · 21-01-2012 7:04pm

Einhard wrote: »

Anonymous sought to prevent people who wished to do so from accessing certyain websites. They claim to stand for freedom of expression and access on the internet, and yet arbitrarily and unilaterally close down websites when ever they feel like it. How are they different from the groups they oppose?

It's still not censorship now is it. You're a clever lad, your post, which I'm sure you thought was ingenious, fell flat on it's face when it was originally posted, but you just can't let it go.

k.p.h · 21-01-2012 7:12pm

Einhard wrote: »

Anonymous sought to prevent people who wished to do so from accessing certyain websites. They claim to stand for freedom of expression and access on the internet, and yet arbitrarily and unilaterally close down websites when ever they feel like it. How are they different from the groups they oppose?

Jesus man !!! ... Pull the head out of the ass for a minute and have a think ...

44leto · 21-01-2012 7:18pm

Its a bit of a naive and useless move. It just means someone in China or someplace else who have not got an extradition treaty with the US.

I think it is largely symbolic and an indication that the current administration in the US are pushing ahead with SOPA.

briany · 22-01-2012 2:14am

I wonder if there's any countries who hate the U.S. so much that they'd be willing to allow just about any website capable of copyright infringement to set up withing it's borders, to grow and prosper and, theoretically, shatter the economy of the U.S. and it's allies?

Doc Ruby · 22-01-2012 2:20am

briany wrote: »

I wonder if there's any countries who hate the U.S. so much that they'd be willing to allow just about any website capable of copyright infringement to set up withing it's borders, to grow and prosper and, theoretically, shatter the economy of the U.S. and it's allies?

Wouldn't last long before being locked out of the net, like the Chinese firewall in reverse.

strobe · 22-01-2012 2:37am

Einhard wrote: »

Anonymous sought to prevent people who wished to do so from accessing certyain websites. They claim to stand for freedom of expression and access on the internet, and yet arbitrarily and unilaterally close down websites when ever they feel like it. How are they different from the groups they oppose?

'Cause they have a fucking sense of humour and irony about things.

Jesus Christ Einhard, are you really still trying to make that stupid point?

You've always struck me as a clever guy.

Think on it.

LighterGuy · 22-01-2012 3:04am

Say SOPA and PIPA get in and there is a rampage on closing torrent/downloading sites down...

It aint going to stop shit. They'll still be there. Be it more hidden. But lets say at best they can stop the average internet user from downloading. Since they'll close the big open trackers and say average joe doesnt look deep enough to find another source... Then what?

Welcome to the rise of the dvd black market again

ascanbe · 22-01-2012 3:26am

Manic Moran wrote: »

ascanbe wrote: »

This whole thing strikes me as being like the 70's/80's when there was mass 'illegal' copying/sharing/distribution of audio and VHS tapes/lending of books; ie, breach of copyright.

Why put 'illegal' in apostrophes? It was either illegal, or it was not.

Is not any law prohibiting an action something which ultimately affects freedom? I am 'free' to do things in the US which are illegal in Ireland, for example. Or free to do things in Ireland which are illegal in the US. As long as we're willing to accept a legislative society, we also have to accept that environments can be limited.

It is a bit of a waste of effort. Certainly there are instances where the final users have been nailed, witness the E1.4million fine for a DJ in Italy or the $1.9m fine for that American woman who was filesharing, but it is far more efficient to go after the distributors of the illegal content. It's like going after the drug dealers and not the drug users.
NTM

My point is that it would've been ridiculous, laughable and unfeasible back then to try and crack-down on the breach of copyright carried out by kids all over the world as they taped off the radio/copied tapes/lent and copied video-tapes/shared books; yes it was illegal, as the law stood, but would it have been desirable, or a reasonable use of resources, for the authorities at that time to concentrate huge efforts on making it impossible?
For instance, would it have been a good idea to curtail freedom of association, hound every kid who called over to their friend, lock-down streets in order to ensure that one person meeting another didn't lend them a book/audio-tape/vhs-tape?
Perhaps this can be done by, as you say, cracking down on the large 'dealers' of this counterfeit product on the 'net; and i've no real problem with that being done.
As long as there's freedom of association on the 'net, though, as there is in free societies, good luck with that.
It seems to me that what's being proposed is really about curtailing that freedom of association.

batistuta9 · 22-01-2012 3:29am

LighterGuy wrote: »

Say SOPA and PIPA get in and there is a rampage on closing torrent/downloading sites down...

It aint going to stop shit. They'll still be there. Be it more hidden. But lets say at best they can stop the average internet user from downloading. Since they'll close the big open trackers and say average joe doesnt look deep enough to find another source... Then what?

Welcome to the rise of the dvd black market again

briany · 22-01-2012 11:31am

LighterGuy wrote: »

Say SOPA and PIPA get in and there is a rampage on closing torrent/downloading sites down...

It aint going to stop shit. They'll still be there. Be it more hidden. But lets say at best they can stop the average internet user from downloading. Since they'll close the big open trackers and say average joe doesnt look deep enough to find another source... Then what?

Welcome to the rise of the dvd black market again

I think that for people who, at this stage, are used to just double clicking an AVI file and watching the thing, having to root through a pile of black market DVDs when they want to watch their movies would be a pain in the neck. Even copying the movie from the DVD would be an inconvenience as encoding the thing properly and getting a good copy on the hard drive can be tricky and that's assuming they're savvy enough to try it anyway. People can get feedback on the quality of a given file from the community on a torrent site which is not necessarily the case with the black market where the DVD could turn out to be an awful cam job.

BlueSmoker · 22-01-2012 11:38pm

I suggest that all artist including signed artists create a internet site that they can share their art work on the interweb, all artists should also put a digital stamp on their work, very easy to do graphically wise and I can show people now to do that. Audio, I prity sure you can put a non tone (won't be heard) stamp on that audio as well ( I need to look into that, but I'm sure it can be done, any ideas guys?)

What I'm saying with all this crap happening, we the artists are going to end up screwed out of copyright, lets set up are own copy right mechnanicism we all ready hold the rights to what we produced, all we need is away to distrubte it, here we go the interweb

The beauty of these is that the artist will own their own copyrights and get 80% of the monies from it 20% for running the site seems fair, a hell of alot fairer than I'm sure most artists are getting from the middle man, who wants to claim rights to stuff he dosen't even own (check out copyright law in this country when it comes to news items and current affairs) and a documentary maker I have being block.

I would love to see a site that is managed by the artists and that the artist is getting their fair share of what they created, and none of these changes in law help the artist, as I said "my art" needs to be seen, I would appreciated being paid for it, hence why I put a stamp on my art work

Also remember what has made these guys strong is their rights to your stuff, other websites have already proven that your rights will be protected. This scares the middle men, (yes short stupid sales guys) at the end of the day artists mostly hold onto their copywright, it's not until you sign it off to someone else to manage it, that you may (BIG MAY) get screwed, most contracts have an out clause, which is generally in the clause in how you satisfiy the contract writer ( the guys in charge) If they write a contract, and place terms and conditions within it, you as an artist can cancel that contract by proving those terms and conditions, weren't recieved by you, or on equal bearing ( which means as a song writer you hold equal rights to say what songs, in what order, and one what album they should be realsed on, if they the record company disagree with you, you can stop the song being sold or placed the way they want it, Same goes for photographs, and films or anything else you own company right on. but of course they forgort to say that to the only people who own actual copyright didn't they (when they started inforcing laws on who owned copyright) Gob****es

If we have one,two, three or four sites that has art work protected for the artist from the artist, we our on to a winner, cause the middle man will die away, no longer needed.

LighterGuy · 22-01-2012 11:46pm

briany wrote: »

I think that for people who, at this stage, are used to just double clicking an AVI file and watching the thing, having to root through a pile of black market DVDs when they want to watch their movies would be a pain in the neck.
Even copying the movie from the DVD would be an inconvenience as encoding the thing properly and getting a good copy on the hard drive can be tricky and that's assuming they're savvy enough to try it anyway. People can get feedback on the quality of a given file from the community on a torrent site which is not necessarily the case with the black market where the DVD could turn out to be an awful cam job.

I know what you mean

But I was talking more so about new releases and the black market.

Like say when the dark knights rises dvd/blu ray rip hits the net (for an example) and average joe cant get a copy. It will increase black market business. People will want to see the AAA titles.

But in fairness, I still expect downloading to be around. Just more low key. Gone will be the open trackers. But the private trackers will be there

ringadingding · 22-01-2012 11:49pm

I've recently wondered how the big advertising crowds are handling this,
I'm a tad surprised they haven't tried to work with big uploaders by getting something advertised half way through a movie or 'sponsored by .....' Into the file.

Though I guess they do alot of low key ' in movie 'advertising like people takin out cold cans of mountain view from the fridge etc etc.

Also the backlash they may receive from producers, and probably alot of shared investments etc.

Just a musing of mine .....

AnonCypher · 30-01-2012 8:54pm

AnonoBoy wrote: »

They're doing it by taking control of people's computers though.

http://gawker.com/5877707/the-evil-new-tactic-behind-anonymous-massive-revenge-attack

Making people become part of it whether they want to or not is pretty sh*tty.

This not always the case. Most of the anonymous taking part usually have to accept the DDOS programme or download it. Very rare cases people dont know and its near written in stone at this stage not to open emails and attachments you are not familiar with and make sure your firewalls, updates and virus defenitions are up to scratch. This may only be the beginning.

briany · 30-01-2012 9:46pm

LighterGuy wrote: »

I know what you mean
But I was talking more so about new releases and the black market.

Like say when the dark knights rises dvd/blu ray rip hits the net (for an example) and average joe cant get a copy. It will increase black market business. People will want to see the AAA titles.

But in fairness, I still expect downloading to be around. Just more low key. Gone will be the open trackers. But the private trackers will be there

Oh there's no doubt that it will increase black market DVD sales but I think that a lot of those same types of people might know someone who knows a way of getting it on the net still and they'll get it off them during an IM session or on a USB stick. As long as those files are there on the 'net, people will find ways to get them and the people who don't know how will make friends with those that do and along with that they'll be buying a few DVDs at the Sunday market if they see something they like.

Anonymous go to town on the net after Megaupload taken down

Comments