Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Media Movies Security Your Rights Online

RIAA/MPAA Contractor Deploys Malicious Adware Trojans 883

Posted by michael
from the gloves-are-OFF dept.
RichardX writes "Overpeer, the organization responsible for seeding many peer to peer networks with damaged, corrupt and fake files has now found a way of hiding spyware and adware inside Windows Media files by using a DRM loophole and is using this technique to further pollute p2p networks." Several readers sent in a PCworld article on the same subject.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA/MPAA Contractor Deploys Malicious Adware Trojans

Comments Filter:
  • So how.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kmak (692406) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:01PM (#11229529)
    exactly are they getting away with this?
    • Re:So how.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JPriest (547211) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:09PM (#11229613) Homepage
      With tactics like this I hope they don't wonder why people don't feel sorry for them.
    • Re:So how.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fallen_Knight (635373) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:11PM (#11229629)
      The poeple who should be getting pissed about this is MS, i dont' think they will like it when WMA becomes like IE, known for giving you adware and viruses when used.
      • Re:So how.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AnalogDiehard (199128) on Friday December 31, 2004 @07:26PM (#11230873)
        Especially since M$ has been wooing Hollywood into their DRM WMA/V format for years now. Hollywood was reluctant about M$ owning the gateway to entertainment, and now they just pissed off the supplier. That's a bad business move, both parties lose. Now that M$ has "tighyly intergrated" WMP into the OS, they suddenly have a file format that is vulnerable to malware. WMA/V may join the corporate banned attachment list whose extensions end with exe, bat, pif, and so on.
    • Re:So how.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nic-o-demus (169477)
      Let's not let them get away with it, then. Please let them know how you feel.

      contactus [overpeer.com]
      • Re:So how.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Maestro4k (707634) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @04:12AM (#11232619) Journal
        Better yet, not only tell them how you feel, report their actions to your state attorney's general office, and tell them you're doing so. Feel free to copy and paste from the letter I sent them below:

        I recently came across this (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,119016, 00.asp) PC World Article about your company's actions in creating trojaned windows media files to "seed" onto P2P networks. You should be aware that in several states, your actions will likely qualify as willfull computer hacking, being in the same category of offenses as computer virus, trojan and worm creation & release.

        While your actions have not directly affected me (I have no use for P2P software), I am sure they have caused damage to other citizens in my state (Your stste here). I felt you should be aware that I am sending along the information in the PC World article to my state attorney's general office with a request that they look into the legality of your actions under XX state law.

        Copyright infringment on P2P networks is both illegal and immoral, but that does not allow those fighting it to break laws as well. I am not sure if your actions are illegal under XX state law or not, but I am sure our attorney general will be able to make that determination.

        I urge you to think through the potential ramifications of your actions, and to rethink your current course of action.

        Sincerely,

        Joe Cool (Or your name here :)

        I must admit I was tempted to install Kazaa and search for and download the file mentioned in PC World's article, just so I could tell my state attorney general they tried to hack my computer. I finally decided it wasn't worth the hassle and potential media attention though. :)

        I should note that given their current actions I don't trust them so I used a disposable address from Spam Gourmet to send from and only signed my first name. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I figure any company who thinks it's OK to basically attack other people's computers in the name of stopping P2P just can't be trusted to know both my full name and state.

    • And as far as the legalities go, your guess is as good as mine. First off, I Am Not A Lawyer... My take is that they're commiting the same crimes that any other AdWare/SpyWare/Virii/Worm writer is guilty of and therefore has unclean hands with regards to ANY act of enforcement of the IP rights of the labels that use this bunch.

      As for avoiding this- there's two answers...

      1) Don't listen to their stuff in the FIRST place.
      2) If you can't keep from doing that and insist on sharing the stuff, use MP3 or Ogg V
  • I Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jpatters (883) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:01PM (#11229531)
    Isn't that blatently illegal?
    • Re:I Wonder... (Score:3, Informative)

      by tomstdenis (446163)
      Yes, it is. Except to file complaint you have to admit you were trying to download a "pirated audio file".

      Of course the alternative is to not pirate WMA files.. mp3 works for me ;-)

      Tom
      • Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by BrynM (217883) * on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:08PM (#11229611) Homepage Journal
        Except to file complaint you have to admit you were trying to download a "pirated audio file".
        Normally that would be entrapment, but they aren't a law enforcement agency (yet). Thus it doesn't count.
        • Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@@@gmail...com> on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:20PM (#11229703)
          No, entrapment is enticing you into doing something you wouldnt have done without being asked. This is a sting, which the police use frequently to catch drug pushers. Basically the difference is how you received the goods, you have to make the concious decision to download that specific file, rahter than them pushing it at you. Since this file will be in amongst normal files, its a sting. If this was the only file, then it would still be a sting. If they approached you and offered you the file, its entrapment. Since you are requesting the file, its not entrapment. This is why police officers have to wait to be approached to either be sold drugs or to sell drugs (depending on if they are after the pusher or user), they cannot approach the suspect and request it. Same with prostitution, they have to play word games with the prostitute to get her to offer him services without him asking for it.
          • Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Breakfast Pants (323698) on Friday December 31, 2004 @07:56PM (#11231020) Journal

            This isn't entrapment or a sting. If a copyright holder or an agent acting on their behalf gets on to a peer to peer network and offers up copyrighted content and you download it, it's yours. Legally they can do nothing, they owned the rights to it and they offered it up and you took it. Thats why ALL the RIAA suits against traders were against uploaders. If you disable uploading you'll kill the networks (you won't kill emule/bittorrent but you won't get much benefit from them either) but you'll be protected from suits. IANAL.

            Anyway, I was saying, this isn't entrapment or a sting. What this is is a malicious attack on a user's machine. A rights holder is offering up a file that it owns the rights to and the user is taking them up on it; the fact that they don't know it's a rights holder is irrelevant. Then, included in this they are using exploits and loopholes to install unwanted software on a user's machine designed to hurt the user's experience with their computer. Spyware that doesn't tell the user it's being installed and give them a license agreement and the option to disagree and not install is illegal just like computer viruses are illegal, infact there is no differentiating factor between this and a virus.

      • Pirated? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kickasso (210195) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:12PM (#11229640)
        A copyright holder's agent (RIAA) offered it for download. Perfectly legit I would say.
      • Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zakezuke (229119) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:26PM (#11229750)
        Yes, it is. Except to file complaint you have to admit you were trying to download a "pirated audio file".

        Neither the RIAA nor MPAA would release any file unless they had permission to do so. It wouldn't be "copyright infringement" if they are granted the right to give you a copy.

      • Re:I Wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

        The problem is that if they rename the wma files to mp3, and WMP is set to open mp3's, they get the same effect, without the tell-tale extension.
    • by Chordonblue (585047) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:18PM (#11229688) Journal
      When is spyware a virus? Don't ask your average anti-virus vendor. When I tried to nail down Sophos on this issue they were evasive - to say the least.

      If this trojan is killed by an anti-virus program, is it securing your machine or committing an illegal act? I had this very discussion w/Sophos' techs. I had just cleaned the VX/2 trojan out of a computer - and it took HOURS of work to get it fully out of there. I sent a sample to Sophos and they told me that it was legal adware.

      My question was obvious: What methods are allowable for adware, and how is that any different than a virus/trojan.

      VX/2 was installed on one of my workstations here through a fault of the OS (unpatched at the time). It installed itself without permission. It left no way to uninstall it. It attempted to shut down Adaware and resisted any attempts to kill it.

      So.... THIS ISN'T A VIRUS? Then what the hell is?

      And so, overpeer's actions come as no big surprise to me. And I have no doubt that the anti-virus people will continue to turn a blind eye because of their FEAR of a lawsuit.

      Damnit, don't we PAY THEM to protect us against this sort of thing?

    • Re:I Wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:25PM (#11229738)
      In the UK what they are doing is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act. Basically if you happen to get attacked by this by them, report them to the police and press charges. This is a criminal offence and would net them a 5k fine and 5 years in jail when convicted...
    • The same nonesense about "their terrorists, our freedom fighters" some decade or two ago in Central America, Middle East, etc. In the end the "accomplishments" by both sides are equally bad...
  • Aahhhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)

    by DisasterDoctor (775095) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:03PM (#11229544)
    High that explains why that Jessica Simpson song I downloaded suddenly made my head explode. :-)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:03PM (#11229549)
    Hack it so that it sends out complaint emails to RIAA and DOSes the RIAA website. Also make it crawl and fill out any RIAA forms on the website. Use random algorithms so they can only statistically cut down on the traffic.
  • by hoggoth (414195) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:03PM (#11229551) Journal
    If they can do it, so can any hacker/cracker/virus writer. That's a good enough reason to never touch DRM inflicted Microsoft media files.

  • I wonder.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashkitty (21637) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:03PM (#11229555) Homepage
    why people trust wmv files when this can happen. Combine it with some ie security holes and you got a real problem. It'd be pretty easy to create a p2p wmv worm that infects the entire network.. no?
  • by 93,000 (150453) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:04PM (#11229562)
    It seems anyone the least bit concerned about DRM/sharing/etc wouldn't be using windows media anyway.
  • Proof (Score:4, Funny)

    by BrynM (217883) * on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:05PM (#11229570) Homepage Journal
    This proves once again that you can't out-evil the major recording industry. Do something bad to them and they will do something worse to you. Only now it's the customers at the shit end of the stick and not just artists. Hell, Satan probably attends seminars on reprisal given by these folks.
  • by justkarl (775856) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:05PM (#11229572) Homepage
    One more reason not to use Windows Media. How many do you need?
  • Ah Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by riceboy50 (631755) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:06PM (#11229590)
    Now your DRM can be used a weapon against you, how do you feel about that?
  • DRM loophole... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lisandro (799651) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:06PM (#11229591)
    It would be pretty funny seeing someone suing the MPAA for infecting their computers. After all, there're laws for that matter.

    PS: Stuff like this is why i stick to stream formats like MP3, with no extra bullshit.
  • by Naikrovek (667) <{moc.gsp} {ta} {nosnhojj}> on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:07PM (#11229595)
    People and companies that see their lucrative source of income starting to dwindle get desperate. Desperate companies (SCO) and organizations (RIAA, MPAA) make drastic moves, and those drastic moves are always overhanded.

    record companies employ illegal tactics to enforce their view of the world, expecially when they think they see recognizeable dips in their revenue. Nevermind that they're not actually losing money - the perception of loss is all it takes.

    right now they're saying to themselves (as justification for illegal activities) "desperate times call for desperate measures".

    These are not desperate times, and those are overly-desperate measures. They're weak, and owned by the music, not the other way 'round.

  • The problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:11PM (#11229628)
    The problem is that the only people with standing to make a legal complaint about this practice (i.e., sue them) are people who have downloaded the files and had damages caused to them from the spyware being installed.

    However, at the same time, said people are admitting in court that they downloaded (or attempted to download) media for which they didn't hold the copyright.

    One possible way around this is if someone already has purchased the CD/DVD and wanted to download a copy so they could archive the original (because they have CD/DVD hardware that couldn't rip the original to disk). Of course, this idea has not been tested in court, and would probably be a protracted and expensive battle to fight.

    • Re:The problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by wolf- (54587) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:15PM (#11229664) Homepage
      Except, that I can create a webpage with the media player embedded in it. An IE user visits, downloads the media automagically and is infected.

      You may not have "intended" to infringe on CMAIAA's work, but I forced you to, or rather the browser did.

      • Re:The problem (Score:3, Informative)

        by hobo2k (626482)
        In fact, it doesn't even have to be an IE user. Firefox also allows embedding of media player 9. Media player will then use IE to display the "license acquisition url", which then allows the infection.

        [sarcasm] OMG, we've just found a security bug in Firefox! [/sarcasm]

        If the user was already using IE to view your web page, there is no need to use media player. Just put your exploit directly in your page.

    • Re:The problem (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Nicholas Evans (731773) <OwlManAtt@gmail.com> on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:18PM (#11229692) Homepage
      However, at the same time, said people are admitting in court that they downloaded (or attempted to download) media for which they didn't hold the copyright.

      Ah yes, but the RIAA is so nicely offering the music for download. They do hold the copyright, don't they? Perfectly legal. =)

    • Re:The problem (Score:3, Interesting)

      by telemonster (605238)
      So if someone wants to make money for nothing (heh), go grab your CD collection and start looking for windows media versions of songs you own on Kazaa. If the download speed is really fast, you know you probably have a trojaned file. Install it, claim your losses, extort tons of money from the company. If someone has cheap access to a lawyer, you could potentially make a good amount of money off of the company. The key is finding a way to claim losses.

      Alot of novice users are finding it hard to get mp3 v
    • However, at the same time, said people are admitting in court that they downloaded (or attempted to download) media for which they didn't hold the copyright.

      All they are admitting is that they downloaded a file and got malware installed by the RIAA. Perhaps they were not aware the music was copyrighted. There's plenty of bands I don't know about.

      I can't tell by looking at a filename if I'm downloading a signed artist or a local group just trying to promote itself. And P2P isn't just used for copyright in
    • Re:The problem (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rakarra (112805) *
      One possible way around this is if someone already has purchased the CD/DVD and wanted to download a copy so they could archive the original (because they have CD/DVD hardware that couldn't rip the original to disk). Of course, this idea has not been tested in court, and would probably be a protracted and expensive battle to fight.

      Something very similar to this has been tested in court. Several years ago, mp3.com had a service to let you download mp3s of albums you owned.. ie, you put your CD into the dr

  • by Peterus7 (607982) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:17PM (#11229682) Homepage Journal
    But if the MPAA does, it's okay.

    However, they do have all right to do this in some respects. They are putting up crap on a P2P network, just like any other idiot. Still, what gets to me is the system in general. When a lone hacker writes a virus, he gets jail time. When a corporation writes a virus...

    But then, what should P2P users do? If they're so serious about P2P, they'll either take the risk or find a new way of sharing files that finds the trojans and whatnot.

    Although really, I'm suprised the government isn't stepping in right abou... Wait, nevermind.

  • This is great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AtariDatacenter (31657) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:20PM (#11229701)
    No, really. It's like peeing in your own pool. You need DRM in order to sell music to people and to "control the rights". But at the same time, they're using DRM to attack people who are outside the system. So it kind of makes you feel unsafe about using DRM in the first place. Life is better outside of the DRM system.

    BTW, I remembered the option for something like "automatically download rights management software" when installating Windows Media Player, what, 10 is it now? I hesitantly clicked yes. Now that I've done so, I can't find an option inside of the program to say no. Odd.
    • BTW, I remembered the option for something like "automatically download rights management software" when installating Windows Media Player, what, 10 is it now? I hesitantly clicked yes. Now that I've done so, I can't find an option inside of the program to say no. Odd.

      Try Tools|Options|Privacy.

      You should see a check box for "Acquire licenses automatically for protected comment". Uncheck it, click OK and you should be golden.

  • by shoptroll (544006) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:22PM (#11229717)
    Hmmm... Isn't there supposed to be some anti-Spyware/Ad-ware legislation in the works?

    If so, how long until that goes MIA?
  • So Scary! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jonathonjones (844293) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:25PM (#11229735) Homepage

    What many of you seem to fail to realize is that the purpose of this has nothing to do with actually damaging computers. Rather, what the recording industry is trying to do is stop people from using P2P. And they do this through fear. That's why they do the suing (your chances of getting sued are minimal, but plenty of people get scared and stop downloading). Now, plenty of morons (for who else would this tactic work on?) will hear that downloading music can give you viruses and adware - rumors will fly wildly.

    At least, that's their hope. We'll see whether it works.

  • by t_allardyce (48447) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:29PM (#11229776) Journal
    This is pretty old and not a 'binary-payload' issue with WMA files, more of a good old IE flaw. Windows media format has the ability to launch a web-page from a media file (i think it actually forces IE, not your default browser which is a violation of the anti-trust crap). Obviously this is just an instruction in the file and a patch could pretty easily turn it off, once the page is opened (in our favourite browser) the skys the limit. You could also disable this by filtering all windows media files through some program that took out the call, if anyone knows of the program or file format that would be cool?

    Obviously no one with any know-how actually uses this format, but sometimes the file you want is in it, just be sure to play WMV/A files offline until you find a patch for Windows media player.
    • DRM & WM commands (Score:5, Informative)

      by ermon (845186) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:25PM (#11230219) Homepage
      WindowsMedia files have a command stream as well as audio and video streams. This command stream can do all sorts of bad things (such as open web pages) at specific points in the timeline. You can easily remove it using various windows media editing tools (and by creating a directx graph that doesn't use the connect stream). However, there are two points to remember here: 1) You can't edit a DRM-protected WM file, and therefore can't delete the stream (I think it is still possible to play it w/o the command stream, tho) 2) What seems to be going on here (according to the article) is that the DRM mechanism itself is used for the pop-ups, rather than the command stream. The way the DRM in WM acquires a license is by connecting to a licensing site and basically executing a URL - This is where the pop-ups/Xware come from, not the command stream. It is interesting to note that while WMP has an option to turn off 'automatic acquisition of licenses', in my experience that option does not prevent WMP from accessing license acquisition URLs. The only ways I found to stop WMP from doing that was to put IE in 'offline mode' and/or block the DRM URLs on a proxy server.
  • Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mikiN (75494) on Friday December 31, 2004 @04:40PM (#11229868)
    n. [reference.com]

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    How is what the **AA are doing (hacking into music downloaders' computers and installing malware to further their cause against piracy) any different?
    If this is the way they think they must do business, lets give 'em h*ll!
    • Re:Terrorism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Unordained (262962) <unordained_slash ... @pseudotheos.com> on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:45PM (#11230331) Homepage
      Reminder: at the time this definition came out (wasn't it part of the PATRIOT act?), it was much discussed for its failure to adequately describe terrorism. The definition above also describes rebellion, civil war, wars of independence, etc. By the definition above, the US was created through a reprehensible act of terrorism. (Wars aren't intended to kill everyone -- they're intended to make the other side back down/roll over; it's intimidation.) It's a choice you have to make, but I think we should work on our definition of terrorism.

      The primary purpose of this move is not to hurt downloaders, as others have suggested. The intent is to further pollute the p2p networks and scare users away; if you might get something nasty installed on your computer by downloading music (most people wouldn't understand what could and could not infect their computer) then you might decide not to risk it at all, and just give up and become a good citizen. Yes, it's a fear tactic. In fact, they might be willing to be sued by the few people who actually get infected and complain, if it means they can scare away an order of magnitude more people from downloading anything. Most people won't get infected, and won't complain, and might also stop downloading. It's a calculated risk.
    • There are 2 important failure to your "they're terrorists" arguement:

      First, installing adware hardly meets the definition of violence [reference.com].

      Second, when playing the "terrorist card" as a tactic against some person or group, the 2 worst things you could do are to phrase it in the form of a question and invite rational thought/analysis.

  • by moyix (412254) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:00PM (#11230020) Homepage

    The one thing that I find strange about this story is that try as I may, I can't seem to find any information from the "usual" security sources about exactly how this works--as far as I can recall, bugtraq and full-disclosure haven't touched these. Moreover, the only articles about this are the p2pnet one and the PC World one--and the former appears to be derived from the latter.

    Both articles are also oddly vague--"security experts" are mentioned, but no specific names dropped, and there are no technical details given at all.

    Can anyone provide independent confirmation of this? In particular, if you have details of how one can embed executable code in a wma or provide a sample of such code, please send them my way via brendandg [at] colby.tjs.org

  • Dubious move...... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantasio (800086) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:11PM (#11230114)
    This will more likely kill the WMA format than P2P networks. If I were Bill Gates, I'd sue the RIAA, the MPAA and their hired guns.
  • How to disable (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hoch (603322) <hochhech@noSPAM.yahoo.com> on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:18PM (#11230164)
    If this is scripting, which it sounds like, it can easily be disabled. Disable Windows media scripting [winguides.com]. This will disable videos from opening webpages and such. Nice. The article is vague, but this is what it sounds like. The webpages, would then load spyware through normal ie holes.
  • by canfirman (697952) <pdavi25@ELIOTyahoo.ca minus poet> on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:20PM (#11230179)
    ...of another loophole in a M$ product. The *AA doesn't discuss the fact that M$ has left a hole in the DRM that a Mac Truck could drive through, or if M$ will even patch it. They love this hole - only until something goes wrong where an affected file is uploaded to a legit music site. Then they'll be screaming to have it "fixed".
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:26PM (#11230234) Homepage
    Why on earth would the MPAA care about sabotaging some little scrunts computer? Look who they're trying to hire as a lobbyist:

    "Tauzin, when he was chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, negotiated to take jobs with two major lobbying groups, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; he just took the PhRMA job."
    Source: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6771489/

    They're hiring former Congressmen and Committee chairman. lol. They can buy their way to the kind of clout it will take to get their sweetheart legislation through our Congress, which is more than happy to sell the America public if the donations are high enough. Lobbyists are expecting to spend 2 billion dollars this year.

    Don't complain, you elected them. And the first thing they do is loosen up the ethics rules so they can bone the taxpayer even more blatantly than they already are.

    This is what the red state mentality considers good government. Chumps.

  • by Martin Spamer (244245) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:31PM (#11230252) Homepage Journal
    This like all Malware is a very clearly against the law in the UK and most of Europe. The UK Computer Misuse Act makes it a criminal offense for a person to

    "causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer"
    Computer Misuse Act 1990 [hmso.gov.uk]

    Depending on what the Company does with the data obtained they are likely also be in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 [hmso.gov.uk] which allows a £5,000 fine for each person offended against.

    Similar legislation exists throughout Europe [eu.int] as part of the Information Society Policy Framework [eu.int] agreement.

  • Bah (Score:3, Funny)

    by zogger (617870) on Friday December 31, 2004 @05:51PM (#11230372) Homepage Journal
    Bah, kids nowadays, I never...

    seems the youthful art of vigorus protest has been replaced with typing crap on the internet. I blame video games and cheezits myself....

    The goons have never given a rats patootie about words, never. It's held up as the sacred thing, the right of speech, well yes and no, speech is only as good as the intentions acts and deeds that backup that speech. If all you have is speech, you've lost, might as well move on and accept defeat.

    ;)



    Back in the day, we protested, both ways, uphill and downhill and it wasn't all via zap comix and underground newspapers, what passed for the internet you have now.


    Bah, must be the additives in the junk food or something.

    heh heh heh

  • by gelfling (6534) on Friday December 31, 2004 @06:00PM (#11230422) Homepage Journal
    It's time for a concerted effort to mass mail our files back to them. I thing 200GB per day for the next three years to the MPAA/RIAA and overpeer members and any and all named individuals in those organizations would be the minimum.

    I would also like to see a concerted effort to indentify the personal email accounts and personal websites to bombard them with several hundred GB of files per day.

    • I thing 200GB per day for the next three years to the MPAA/RIAA and overpeer members and any and all named individuals in those organizations would be the minimum.

      That would be rude and might be called a DDoS attack. Double foofoo on you for even sugesting it.

      What would not be rude is asking the MPAA/RIAA every time you want to make a backup. You are required according to the flyleaf to contact them to get written permission to copy it after all. Everytime you download something you should ask them if
  • Dear MPAA: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kiddailey (165202) on Friday December 31, 2004 @06:49PM (#11230694) Homepage

    <sarcasm mode>
    Dear MPAA:

    Please let me take a moment and thank you for the immensely enjoyable evening my girlfriend and I had last night while going to see "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events." Amusingly enough, our night out was far from unfortunate! In fact, it was so wonderful that I thought I'd write to you about our experience.

    The theater parking lot was packed full and we drove around for a good 5 minutes looking for a spot so we had time to enjoy playing a game of "find license plates from every state in the U.S."

    I had brought $30, but the movie tickets were only $18.00 for the two of us, and only $8.00 for the slightly stale, oversized small popcorn and bottled water for us to share. I saved a whole $4.00, which was more than enough to pay the expressway tolls on the way home!

    We got to the theater early enough to enjoy 10 minutes of pre-show slides that told us all about our local businesses and special offers they were having just for us. And after that, we got to see another 10 minutes of commercials that we had never seen before. Imagine our surprise when our luck hadn't ran out and we got to see 10 more minutes of new movies that we'll get to see in the coming months!

    The excitement and anticipation for the movie to start was almost unbearable when it finally did! The movie was definitely had some unique aspects and we really loved the credits at the end of the film -- which was very fortunate indeed as it gave us a moment to stretch our backs which were a little sore.

    Oh, I almost forgot to mention that people were much better behaved than usual too. There were only a few people that constantly coughed during the movie and only a few more that talked on their cellphones or just talked about the movie to their neighbors almost quietly enough so as not to hear. One individual was actually entertaining during the pre-show as he walked down the isle staring back at people and sternly yelling "What?!" to everyone that made eye contact.

    Thank you again for providing such quality entertainment that rounded out a wonderful evening.

    Sincerely,
    A happy movie-goer
    </sarcasm mode>

    As sad as it is, all that really happened...

    You don't have to be even mildly coherent to understand why people are downloading/trading movies.
  • by swschrad (312009) on Friday December 31, 2004 @07:30PM (#11230894) Homepage Journal
    misdemeanor, punishable for up to $5000 and up to 90 days in the clink for every instance of deliberate malware causing loss or damage to a computer.

    somebody should document their machine, and when they get hit by this kerrrrrrrrrap, file a case with the police, and drag the overpeer weasels into court.

    it would be nice to see some RIAA execs sitting in the can for years and years because they play like russian script kiddies.
  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday December 31, 2004 @07:40PM (#11230941) Journal
    This is NOT a problem.There is a tool out there that can disable wmp scripting ability.http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/wmpscripti ngfix [javacoolsoftware.com] I got it to get rid of those annoying pr0n scripts and have NEVER had a problem with pop-ups on wmp since.And it's free!!
  • by Martigan80 (305400) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @02:29AM (#11232412) Journal
    It's great where a company also can "claim" freedom of speech because they want to advertise like this. I though the 1st Amend. was o.k. along as it didn't disrupt or cause harm? If I have Trojans rolling around because a POS company decides I should have mass amount of Porn and "as seen on tv" products, can't I use my 1st amend to convince them not to do this by using the same tactics?

"Ahead warp factor 1" - Captain Kirk

Working...