Anonymous Attacks US Government
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
But the way the government works is that they (typically) need actual proof before you can get fined, sued or jailed for something. Just because my hacker friend uses the same mask as me to steal stuff, doesn't mean i've stolen it. If you get my meaning.Verlander said:
"Anonymous will keep up the attacks until it stops being angry..."
That made me laugh, because it's completely true. They're not out for any grand justice, they're not out to change the world, they're just introducing a bit of chaos into the system. And why shouldn't they? We have a right to protest, and maybe acts like these will bring the public's displeasure to a spot where the politicians' blinders can't hide it.
That made me laugh, because it's completely true. They're not out for any grand justice, they're not out to change the world, they're just introducing a bit of chaos into the system. And why shouldn't they? We have a right to protest, and maybe acts like these will bring the public's displeasure to a spot where the politicians' blinders can't hide it.
To answer a question put to me earlier: copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. As I said, copyright infringes on already existing rights accepted in most developed western democracies and therefore at least used to have some pretty strong limitations on it. Aggressive lobbying by large media companies have salami-sliced these limitations almost into oblivion, such as the so-called 'Mickey Mouse clause' which means a copyright can be extended to almost a century after the original author's death.
The idea that copyright infringement is theft is a modern one; you will find little reference to it before the 1980s when record companies got together to declare that 'home-taping is killing music'. There's also that very successful and annoying advert that appeared on DVDs arguing the ABC fallacy: copyright infringement = theft = crime. Copyright infringement in most countries is a civil offence, not a criminal one but the intention of the advert is to make an equivalence that just isn't accurate.
Verlander; there is no place in the US constitution that guarantees or implies the right of copyrights. It does however explicitly in the very first clause place the restriction on government that no law shall be passed that abridges the right of a person to free expression. The constitution holds 'negative rights' like this to be primary and superior to 'positive rights' like copyrights. Copyright law only exists because its originators promised it was intended for and would lead to only one outcome; the one I described in line with the principles set in the first amendment. Their successors today are breaking those promises.
The issue of whether the first amendment is universal to all forms of expression is being argued in the supreme court right now as we all know. The court is probably going to rule against Schwarzenegger on the basis that if the first amendment doesn't apply to games, then anything it does apply to is meaningless. The same argument can be said for the sharing of anything in the public domain; if the first amendment doesn't apply, then there has to be a magnificently good case detailing it. This case was never made; it was avoided by the original advocates of copyrights who promised it would never be necessary to. But now it is and people have short memories.
The idea that copyright infringement is theft is a modern one; you will find little reference to it before the 1980s when record companies got together to declare that 'home-taping is killing music'. There's also that very successful and annoying advert that appeared on DVDs arguing the ABC fallacy: copyright infringement = theft = crime. Copyright infringement in most countries is a civil offence, not a criminal one but the intention of the advert is to make an equivalence that just isn't accurate.
Verlander; there is no place in the US constitution that guarantees or implies the right of copyrights. It does however explicitly in the very first clause place the restriction on government that no law shall be passed that abridges the right of a person to free expression. The constitution holds 'negative rights' like this to be primary and superior to 'positive rights' like copyrights. Copyright law only exists because its originators promised it was intended for and would lead to only one outcome; the one I described in line with the principles set in the first amendment. Their successors today are breaking those promises.
The issue of whether the first amendment is universal to all forms of expression is being argued in the supreme court right now as we all know. The court is probably going to rule against Schwarzenegger on the basis that if the first amendment doesn't apply to games, then anything it does apply to is meaningless. The same argument can be said for the sharing of anything in the public domain; if the first amendment doesn't apply, then there has to be a magnificently good case detailing it. This case was never made; it was avoided by the original advocates of copyrights who promised it would never be necessary to. But now it is and people have short memories.
Sigh. Anonymous could do such cool stuff, but no. Protesting could be done in a much smarter way than just DDoSing a site for a while. If you ask me, they are too caught up with their flawed philosophy, dramatic statements, and getting their name out there. Pity.
Yeah, true dat. They're gonna find out a way to identify them though... everytime I think something is impossible, someone seems to work extra hard to make it possible. And if anonymous are going to start picking on government targets... well that's just the wrong person to fuck off IMOdogstile said:
This is like watching Hackers all over again !
Cereal Killer: "- Hack the Planet! they're trashing our rights!"
Cereal Killer: "- Hack the Planet! they're trashing our rights!"
Exactly. Other than annoying the piss out of the RIAA, Gene Simmons and the Copyright Office they really haven't done much damage short of that now the work to get the Copyright Office back up cost taxpayer dollars. Anonymous is really showing their true colors of not really showing much spine in their argument and now they are wanting to attack the US Government?Jesus Phish said:
They just lost my respect.
so you respect the nazi's?Icarion said:
see? that train of tought can be somewhat ambiguous./nitpicking
OT: we'll see how far they get, we'll see...
until then i'll just visit the RIAA's website and give them my angry face
