„Who benefits the most” from attacking Internet Archive? Big copyright holders whose content was distributed via Internet Archive. The reason given by the group claiming responsibility is so silly I don’t believe it.

[edit] I’ll add to this comment so that I don’t have to reply to everyone specifically.

I don’t believe that if you wanted to attack USA (as people claiming responsibility did) you’d attack it in a way that benefits big corporations most. It sounds like a flimsy distraction from true perpetrators.

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago

For those curious, this account on Xitter claimed responsibility. Their stated reasons are indeed ridiculous, but I don't at all have a hard time believing that people can be that misguided.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

You can believe what you want, but there's absolutely no way you would be correct. Any large company sponsoring a cyber attack, if caught, would be nailed to the wall and made an example of. The extreme risks are simply not worth the comparatively small reward of reducing a tiny fraction of piracy.

A more realistic and reasonable avenue would have been to sponsor the companies going after IA for copyright infringement as a result of them loaning out unlimited digital copies of books without DRM.

[–] misk@sopuli.xyz 11 points 10 hours ago

This is a very valid point, yet companies do shady stuff all the time and some even get caught via subpoenas and such. Nintendo can do it in a way that will never be noticeable on their books for sure.

[–] helenslunch@feddit.nl 61 points 13 hours ago (3 children)

So you're just making wild assumptions?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

yes, I assume that

[–] Dettweiler42@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

That's what I'm seeing, unless a documented source eventually shows up.