Login:
Password:

P2P Flooder Overpeer Ceases Operation

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

December 10, 2005, 4:20 PM

It's a well-known secret that the RIAA and MPAA contract third parties to employ a number of methods to inhibit illicit file sharing, including denial of service attacks and hiding spyware as music. But these tactics have become less effective, forcing one such company to cease operations.

Following the shutdown of Napster, Gnutella and other decentralized services sprang to life and peer-to-peer file trading became a seemingly unstoppable phenomenon. But even though legal action couldn't stop P2P, the record industry decided to do the next best thing: disrupt it.

The RIAA and MPAA inked deals with companies such as MediaDefender, MediaSentry and Overpeer whose sole purpose is doing just that. Using massive numbers of servers, these "content protection" firms attempt to clog up file sharing networks by flooding them with fake files and stalling out users' computers.

Earlier this year, Overpeer was even found to have been planting adware that caused pop-ups within files named as popular music downloads. These fake files are considered one of the primary reasons Kazaa's FastTrack network has become almost unusable over the past year.

But the success has also made the future murky for these companies. With users migrating to new technologies such as BitTorrent, such actions aren't working like they have in the past. The RIAA has also turned up the heat in the courtroom by going after users directly, shifting the focus away from the P2P networks.

On Friday, Overpeer owner Loudeye announced it was shutting down the subsidiary's content protection business just a year and a half after acquiring it. Loudeye said the closure would cut $1.6 million from its quarterly costs.

MediaDefender and MediaSentry, on the other hand, opted recently to find suitors in order to stay afloat. MediaDefender, which does not publicly advertise its services, was acquired in August by ARTISTdirect for $42.5 million in cash. MediaSentry, meanwhile, was purchased by SafeNet in June for $20 million in cash and stock.

Add a Comment (53 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By jetpilot85

edited Oct 21, 2007 - 2:16 AM

My mate who downloads music is really poor and if it wasn't for downloading he wouldn't have music. The music industry hasn't lost a potential sale from my friend downloading music because he couldn't afforded to pay for it even if he wanted to. P2P networks allow all to enjoy what only SOME can afford...

Score: 0

By ThePhoenix

edited Jul 14, 2006 - 10:50 PM

I bought 2 CD's last month and three the month before. If I wasn't using P2P I probably would have bought none.

All the CD's that I bought were from artists that I had naver heard before downloading some of their songs.

So I have to ask is P2P really hurting the music industry.

I also know both personally and from the web lots of other people that use P2P and almost all of them buy CD's too. Some often, others not so often.

People nowadays like to know that there is more on the CD than the one good song that they hear on the radio. Using P2P I think actually encourages people to buy "The right" CD's, instead of getting turned of from it because the last 4 CD's they bought only had the one good song on them. Besides a band/recordcompany doesn't deserve the earn a cent from publishing CD's with only one good song on them.

Long Live P2P

Score: 0

By John_Bedin

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 11:55 AM

The RIAA is chasing rainbows or, should I say shadows very much like the CIA.File sharing put money in their pockets.In order to share you must first buy the album or song or file legally. Considering the music wateland available individuals will stop buying or will buy and share it with their friends. I believe this called networking or in economics "the barter system" I give you a pound of potatoes for two pounds of beets. For the RIAA to blame their declining sales on P2P is a chimera, not based on fact. Another American Conspiracy Theory. The rest of the world is laughing at your naive concept of free trade . In Taiwan you aqre able to buy a workable copy of Vista fo less than 10 dollars!!!!!!!

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 12:48 PM

you logic is flawed

With P2P I give you a pound of potatoes and still have the potatoes to give to another person.

So if(!) I buy something I could(!) give it to 100s of people and still have the original.

Of those people I gave a copy to - some may(!) have gone out and bought it, this means that the company that sells it has made a lose.

It's not about copyright - its about loss of earnings. Or at least what they think they are looseing.

I agree that I may find something that I wouldnt of come across. Just like I look on peoples shelves at thier books, CDs, DVDs etc when I visit them. Which often leads to "Oh! that looks good can I borrow it"

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 1:29 PM

I was just thinking about that potato "thing"...

Is't really loosing if that person who you give that copy isn't even buying that product?

hmm... So They aren't loosing anything. it's just basic mind illusion. They should think first before acting...

Score: 0

By rustik_one

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 8:56 PM

A simple IP blocker with updated blocklists from trusted sources nullifies the effectiveness of this method of curbing p2p, as well as adding addional levels of protection from the NON - RIAA / MPAA sponsored web nasties out there. If this kind of thing worries you, try looking into it.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 7:53 AM

Remember that there is always bad in good & Good in Bad. That's life people!

"SteveJohnSteele" Idea is kinda good. I like it.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 7:55 PM

"I think RIAA starts making their own file-sharing. Or they don't wanna stop illegal file-sharing... Have you people ever think about it?"

Umm... of course they want to stop illegal file-sharing. It costs them money. Why the heck would they make their own file-sharing network?

"Some good websites offers free music "legally" from non-famous artists."

Yes, such as http://www.download.com and http://www.purevolume.com (sorry mods if I'm not supposed to post those links).

Score: 0

By SamppaX

edited Dec 12, 2005 - 7:59 AM

"Umm... of course they want to stop illegal file-sharing. It costs them money. Why the heck would they make their own file-sharing network?"

Sounds odd but there something fishy about RIAA. I have heard stories. And as i said "there's always good and evil"... I think RIAA is killing music. Oh well, but this is just our own opinions. How can one human make difference in this awful world?

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 10:11 AM

Simple. The music industry is doomed.

The RIAA claim they are protecting artists. Bulls***.

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 10:05 AM

Think about all the money they are gaining off these law suits....hmmm! Twisting the brain! ahh!!

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 11:34 PM

They really aren't making money on the lawsuits. On the contrary, they are losing tons.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 13, 2005 - 1:20 PM

Are you really sure? Where the money goes then? Music company's? It's almost same as RIAA...

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 15, 2005 - 12:24 AM

Legal costs.

'nuf said.

Score: 0

By SamppaX

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 11:57 AM

Ah!!! You are right btw... Never came to my mind. That's very good point...

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 3:46 PM

P2P is seen by the big companys (music, film, software etc) as a problem.

What's the solution?

Well the big companys think it is to protect their 'product' so that it cant be copied. But any form of protection will be broken. Not to mention the pain protection systems cause customers (Sony).

Here is a possible solution...

What if I could buy a licence from a company which allowed me to copy (from any source) any item from that company.

This licence would allow me to go into the local shop, take a CD of the shelf, put it in my PC, copy it and then leave the shop. All completely legally.

With this system the world would save on plastics (for the CDs, DVD, packaging), petrol (for the distribution) and so on.

Why isnt the shop supplying 'copys', I could go to a shop with a CD-RW/DVD-RW (or other portable reuseable storage). They could then just 'stock' digital 'copys' on a server. They would be able to stock millions of disks.

How much should the licence cost?

Concider this - a Sky satelite subcription costs £20-£40 a month, or £250-£500 a year. I can video all the tv, films and record all the music.

And the companys would save a bundle on distribution costs and advertising.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 4:13 PM

RIAA is making money because artists can't get to listeners directly. As soon as all digital distribution becomes a reality many artists will find out they don't need RIAA anymore (some already did). The high initial cost of release in physical world becomes negligible in digital world. That is why RIAA fights against any change in current business model, they know they are obsolete in the new digital world.

Score: 0

By spiffyjeff

posted Dec 12, 2005 - 3:05 AM

true true, unfortunately, they will still be powerful as far as radio play, tv ads...

Score: 0

By tbaster

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 3:24 PM

Some ridiculuous comments are made here about all the money artists supposedly make. A lot people don't seem know what they are talking about. Not only do most artists _not_ make a lot of money on record sales, less-known artists make anywhere from next-to-nothing to actually _being in the hole_ to their record company.

You have to understand that record companies are mostly sleezebag in nature, and their lawyers are the worst. They don't want to give _any_ money to the artist if they can contract a way not to. And they do that, as they know new artists and lesser-known ones will sign just about anything to have their chance at success.

Artists, for the most part, make their money on performances. You can make more money on one tour than all you might get from a record company through your career put together. In fact some contracts have the record company getting a piece of that performance revenue too!
They are greedy sleezebags, they know their artist wants to be a star, and they take complete advantage of it.

Score: 0

By irockz

edited Feb 26, 2007 - 12:07 PM

Why Can't the Musicians use these music download sites as advertising themselves. They then could tour where they make most of there money and sell cd's, shirts etc at concerts. They would then be working for their money and hopefully, if a genuine lover of music, be doing something they love. I own more then 500 cd's and they are too expensive to buy all the time and i still do not have every song i consider good to listen to. I resorted to music downloads like most other people and i paid for the download program. Sometimes, with all the corrupt file and the time it takes to find a decent download of the song i am after, wonder whether it is worth it. Also considering all the songs i like, I download them to listen to but this doesn't mean if these type of music download sites were not available, that i would buy the cd with the song. This means the musicians would still not get my money. Also some songs i download are songs from LP's that i have and can't use because of having no record player. This means i have already bought the songs why should i have to buy them again. I think that cd's should be cheaper with a lot more songs on them and we should be able to choose each song and have our own cd's. This also may include the original artists cd's for collections. Some of the richest people in the world are musicians and the ones that aren't obviously didn't have very good music or were ripped of by the record companies. Incidently when i was younger we used to buy lp's because they were more of a collectors item then tapes we would then record to tape to play in a car. Why would we buy the record and the tape, especially when tapes weren't so good and could be easily damaged and cost almost the same as the record. Cd's do not have that same collector feel about them. It is no different from when we were young recording to tape then now recording to cd. It is just more well known because of all countries being closers because of the net. What if we all just listened to the radio? Will the musicians make anymore money? I believe that musicians should be paid for their talents but come on, to get songs that we like means buying the whole cd with 1 good song and 19 not so good. Or it means buying compilation cd's with many good songs but not all that you want. This then means we buy more compilation cd's to get the other songs we want usually doubling up on other songs that we already have, thus buying a song twice or more giving the musician more money then we should have to. Buying downloads of the net usually means 99 cents per song which is more then buying the whole cd's worth of songs. Think about it, i buy the blank disc plus all the songs plus the time and electricity and wear on my pc to download it and it costs more then an original cd with all the print. Why can't there be a download site that lets you download say 20000 songs of your choice at your leisure for say $500 in installments of $20(average cd cost) per month. You choose from a list of 1 billion trillion songs. You then buy your blank disc and record to your disc in any order you like. Underneath each song is a smalll download of each song so you can listen to the chorus or 30 secs of the song to see if this is the song you want. This would not be a cost to you, it would be the advertising of the song. All proceeds can then be given to the musicians. For instance Pink Floyd after 5 years have 1 million downloads of another brick in the wall. This is $25000 for them. Not much in 5 years but this is for doing nothing and it is just an example. I would imagine 50000000 downloads of this song. People without pc's could still buy at stores as well as people who download. I believe that musicians and any other company who feels they are getting ripped off should blame technology. If stores are allowed to sell things to be able to do this, of course people are going to do it. EG a tape recorder or cd recorder or video recorder. Why would anyone buy them if we can't use them. Laws say we can't but how can they stop 5 billion people including themselves. I bet the musicians record from radio or tv a song they like sometimes. We all do it because we can, technology lets us. How can we be the blame. It is just the same as a radar detector able to be sold in stores. Or 50 inch mag that fit on a mini (car). If it can be done people are going to do it. It amazes me how a company can develope a file sharing program that you are able to download songs. They charge 50000000 people $20 to download it. In return you can download all the songs you like and hopefully don't get in trouble for copyright. They hold no responsibility and make millions. It is legal for them to produce the program, they do not have to give any royalties, because we the third party are the ones who have the music to share. IE they are not selling the songs but the progam that can share the songs. They have their own protection in the form of conditions. If you do not agree with these conditions then you are unable to download the program. In the conditions you are legally firetrucked. Although you are legally had it so are a billion of other people. Laws can only convict so many people at a time where by not solving the original problem. Instead causing misery to a few people. In a counter suit you could sue for discrimination because all other people doing the same thing as you were doing have not been penalized. What a crazy world we live in. I believe the above system would make everyone happy. It doesn't mean an exact figure but is an example. Us the consumer would buy the program $20 (keep the programer happy) All the music we want (keep musicians and record lables happy) We have all the music we want (keep the consumer happy) Blank cds keeping cd manufacturers happy. We as the consumer would basicallly do all the work, except for the beginning process and upgrades / updates. It would be a lot cheaper to the consumer but would probably in the long run make more money for the musicians. This i believe because more people could afford to buy the songs and there would be less outlay for the musicians etc and less work for everyone. We have more convience at home and would also most likely download more songs from the musicians anyway. For instance instead of just getting the radio mix we would also get the club mix or extended version if we liked the song. Having 20000 songs at your liesure would mean more freedom to do this and would mean the one hit wonders would have more chance at making money. After using a file sharing program, i have found songs that i forgot about and i have songs that i would never have bought because buying a cd for one song isn't my style, it is too expensive. It would also mean that these songs would be in a constant loop and you never know, a younger generation just may purchase that song giving more royalties to musicians. Instead of greed why not this, it would be more benificial financially in the long run. Instead of getting rich fast from one or two songs and blowing it all you may have a lifetime of cash flow.

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 3:52 PM

sad, but true :-(

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 6:15 AM

Its evolution. If anything they're helping to improve P2P tech. As Darwin had said,"Survival of the fittest isn't survival of the strongest, nor of the most intelligent, but of the most responsive to change..."

Score: 0

By x-ray

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 6:09 AM

is it music or money there love ?

Score: 0

By aimini

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 2:35 AM

P2P go on
All-in-one P2P sharing
http://www.aimini.com/

Score: 0

By dmainzman

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 12:47 AM

In the 1700's, musical artists had to struggle to make a living. Sometimes, they barely had enough money to eat. But now, even the least popular musical artist makes thousands upon thousands of dollars, not to mention the popular ones. This is why I refuse to feel sorry for them, and the few dollars they lose to file sharing. If they were REAL artists, then they would keep making music just for the sake of art, regardless of money.
On the other hand, things like movies and software... the studios actually SPEND money to make movies, and if a movie doesn't rake in enough money, then the studio could go under, and a lot of people suffer. It's actually a tough business, just working with huge sums of money. As for software companies... those blink in and out like christmas lights, so who cares when one goes under? Another will pop up in a week.

Score: 0

By OafyC

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 2:01 AM

You'd really be surprised at the amount of money less popular artists make. When a artist goes to a studio to record, the record company pays for it. The artist is then required to pay the record label back. An artist usually makes well less than a dollar per album sold. A studio bill can easily reach $500,000+ so you can imagine how many records it takes before the artist makes money.

On the other hand, they do make a lot of money from concerts. The bands that have huge global tours are the ones really bringing in the cash. I do download music, but I buy as much as I can. If you really want to support an artist, go to one of their concerts.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 1:55 AM

"If they were REAL artists, then they would keep making music just for the sake of art, regardless of money."

LOL...oh, so musicians should just make music and live on the streets? I got news for you...making music is a musicians job, and if they weren't getting payed for it, guess what...they wouldn't do it.

"the studios actually SPEND money to make movies"

Ohhh...and recording music is FREE?? Wow we have a real genius on our hands here...making movies costs money but recording music is free...you can tell this guy is a business man.

just a little FYI...recording a CD costs MILLIONS...unless you're doing it with a tape recorder in your basement ofcourse.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 2:22 AM

"LOL...oh, so musicians should just make music and live on the streets? I got news for you...making music is a musicians job, and if they weren't getting payed for it, guess what...they wouldn't do it."

I can tell you arent a musician, I am not either, however, I know quite a few REAL musicians. They live for the music, they perform not for the money or for the crowds, but to openly illustrate on the outside the music they feel in their soul. They have regular jobs to make their money and the money they make off their music - if any - is an added bonus.

Musicians arent about commericalism, nor about huge crowds in overpriced concerts, those are performers or showpersons. musicians would be happy making their music with or without the few gold baubles thrown their way.

Score: 0

By GimieGimieGimie

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 7:57 AM

Spot on eunichman, it's good to know that someone else out there other then me has not been consumed by money and that their whole life hasn't been based around it, I for one believe money is the root of all evil and I hope one day we rid our selves of it’s existence, so bravo.

Music should be free, music is emotion, music can guide souls, music is communication, music is one of the best past times in this world & a very healthy addiction to a lot of people including myself.

Apart for charging for concerts, i believe all music should be free & be played freely by any real artist out there who lives for his work, and not his wallet.

But i would give up on trying to convince this particular user/type of user of the value of music above money (or anything over money for that matter), it is quite clear from his attitude/language that he is no where near the mental thinking level acquired to understand your point.

There's every change this guy is actually 13 years old, in that case, he certainly does have years to learn! ;)

Score: 0

By Aaronz0rz

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 9:13 AM

Um, if your worried about artists not getting money, ask the RIAA, they get most of the profit from cds sold, so yeah...

Score: 0

By shy_one

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 12:03 AM

Oh great they mentioned p2p now it's going to be the same arguements as every other time this is brought up like it's to expencive for those on a tight budget and RIAA and MPAA are crooks that deserve to be ripped off and thats theses only 2-3 good songs to a disk with the anti p2p people going stealing is stealing support the artist and of course you know someone is going to say i can't afford some fancy car i should just steal one.

Lets add a little twist to this like here in Canada when you pick up cds,blank tapes ect you pay a couple bucks to the music companies(hidden tax) now if you a were to download 2 songs off p2p would it realy be considered stealing since as mentioned you already gave them a couple bucks via the hidden tax and places like itunes only charege a buck.

Score: 0

By bleh427

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 3:14 AM

You're still paying a new technology markup fee on your CD's.. you know that right?

This is the same war the media conglomorates fought against casette trading, VCR's, damn.. you name it.. best free advertising these aholes ever had and theyre still not happy

They rallied against the radio when it was invented..

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 6:53 PM

Excellent points.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Dec 10, 2005 - 7:29 PM

This is the best statement I can think of for RIAA and MPAA...

http://images.despair.co...otivators/stupidity.jpg

It's time for a new strategy for both organizations.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 5:55 PM

What the RIAA and MPAA still haven't managed to stop the big bad pirates. I don't know which is worse, the music, movie, and software pirates, or the music and movie industry systematically raping my wallet.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 6:23 PM

Ummm...

Nobody's raping your wallet.

It's a free country and nobody's forcing you to buy *any* product that you feel is overpriced. You are perfectly free to keep your virgin dollars inside your sweet virgin wallet.

OTOH...Perhaps if everybody actually *paid* for the good & services they desire, then the manufacturer's would not have to pass along their losses in the form of higher prices.

Do ya think...??

Score: 0

By rotjong

edited Dec 10, 2005 - 9:36 PM

"OTOH...Perhaps if everybody actually *paid* for the good & services they desire, then the manufacturer's would not have to pass along their losses in the form of higher prices."

The industry makes money any way they can. It's naive to believe that prices would be lower if not for piracy. The industry pushes prices right to the edge of what people will pay as a financial strategy to maximize profits. It's all about padding the music industry's wallet.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 6:31 PM

"then the manufacturer's would not have to pass along their losses in the form of higher prices."

Oh please, do you really think that is why the prices are so high?

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 7:40 PM

You're both right.
I wonder why some 'have to have "music 'n movies-- & in such copious quantities" as if the stuff was food or sex;
why they have to have their jeans, athletic shoes, etc. each worth hundreds of dollars-- nobody's up in arms over a piece of cotton or rubber that costs a few cents marked up 10,000 times? Where's that outcry?

why people would allow someone else to prominently stamp their name all over their body-- & to boot pay money(so much too)for this, instead of the other way around?
Someone please tell these combination sheep & cows that so enjoy being simultaneously fleeced & branded that normally it's advertisers who pay for the privilege of displaying, NOT the other way around. And while you're at it ask them why they willingly fork over a $25 cover & $10 for a Heineken, $15 for a Cosmo at their favorite trendy spot?
At least when/if you overpay $18 for a disc you can reuse it, & have something tangible to show in exchange for your lighter wallet-- not so with that beverage once it's drunk, except maybe for that little extra girth... that will likely force additional spending of larger-sized rags.

Score: 0

By purefx

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 3:25 AM

I don't know if we're on the same page, but last I checked food and clothes were necessities, since after all public nudity will get you put in jail (here in the U.S. anyway...). There is a TOTAL outcry for the cost of living. It is becoming outrageous. Just because you dont see it in a thread about P2P networks doesn't mean there isn't one. However, have you ever heard of stores like Ross and Marshall's, or buying groceries? Cheaper alternatives. Do we have that option for monopolies like the music/movie industries have? Granted, there is something to be said for people being frivolous, but there is a HUGE difference between manufacturing costs and bloated corporate overhead.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 9:31 PM

Technicaly if you wanna look at it from the stand point that you're still living, you do have something to chow for the beverage or burger that you bought.

Score: 0

By Theoldwino

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 5:45 PM

The RIAA and MPAA will not now or never will stop file sharing. I think every one knows that by now but them. So let them spend the big bucks that is the best way to teach then a lesson.

Score: 0

By Inliner4life

edited Dec 10, 2005 - 6:20 PM

"So let them spend the big bucks that is the best way to teach then a lesson."
that isnt acurate sure they will pay out of pocket but they also get to right it off at tax time so we pay for it in the long run...

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 10, 2005 - 5:32 PM

Wow. This kind of thing makes it very clear that the P2P problem is nowhere near a resolution.

IMO, all P2P networks need to be shut down until a very specific legal model is designed to stop this madness. Sure it would stink. I use bittorrent all the time for OSS, but this is just crazy.

Score: 0

By excelon2005

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 9:31 PM

"IMO, all P2P networks need to be shut down"

Not a good idea. P2P can also serve good purposes. For example, BitTorrent is used to distribute Linux releases. This is good because the maintainers don't have to have as many servers to handle the load, thus decreasing cost and frustration.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Dec 11, 2005 - 3:01 PM

And if you actually read the sentence RIGHT after that, you would see I actually agree with you. You said almost EXACTLY the same thing I did.

I love it when people read so thoroughly.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 8:03 PM

> IMO, all P2P networks need to be shut down...

They can't be shut down (without shutting down the Internet) because they are fully decentralized. And they shouldn't be shut down because sharing is good. Want to compensate the artist? Make a donation. But don't sponsor parasites like RIAA.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 2:59 PM

Thanks for reading the rest of my comment.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Dec 11, 2005 - 4:24 PM

Are you suggesting I didn't read some part of your comment? Which one? Did you say somewhere it was physically impossible to shut down p2p networks without shutting down Internet as a whole? Or did you say somewhere that sharing is a good thing and therefore p2p networks are good?

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 5:05 PM

P2P networks are not illegal, what these guys are doing is. Yet they don't get in trouble for it. Must be nice for them to have enough money to be above the law.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 5:30 PM

From my understanding they arent DDoS'ing anyone, they are merely putting fake files onto p2p networks. How is this illegal? People put up false crap all the time, so please explain it to me. The article said SOME COMPANIES resort to DoS attacks, but no where in this article did it make mention of THIS COMPANY doing so.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Dec 10, 2005 - 5:57 PM

I'm talking about the companies mentioned:

"Using massive numbers of servers, these content protection firms attempt to clog up file sharing networks by flooding them with fake files and stalling out users' computers."

Score: 0

By 11001001

posted Dec 10, 2005 - 4:49 PM

It's pathetic, what the RIAA and MPAA are doing to stop file sharing. So it's one thing for a hacker to DoS someone, but it's okay for the industries to HIRE companies to DoS networks? That really says something about these groups. That fact alone should put the RIAA and MPAA in hot water, but it won't. Go figure. Even the individual artists are starting to say that their respective industry groups are being way too jumpy.

Score: 0