Anonymous Attacks US Government

[DarthFennec]

...
I have a newfound respect for Anonymous.
This is awesome.

 

[Raesvelg]

So to start, you ignored pretty much almost all of what I said. Great, a Tdc2182 clone picked up the reigns.

I'll start addressing specific points when you start making ones that aren't just you trying to cover your ass.

It can't be "BECAUSE" of V; it is for it. The point is that basically no one gives a shit about Guy Fawkes. There is your original sin. I really don't know why you guys would reach so far into the ether to claim "4chan hearts Guy Fawkes". It isn't the case; you are wrong, your topic is invalidated.

Where did I ever say "4chan hearts Guy Fawkes"?

Oh.

That's right.

I didn't.

It should have been patently obvious by the very clear part where I asked about Britain being pro-theocracy. Obviously they aren't, so it would be retarded to think anyone is celebrating that aspect. Once again we arrive at the lucid fact that you shouldn't have addressed me.

My god you're dense.

Yes, it's patently obvious that nobody in Britain celebrates the Gunpowder Plot. That was my point. It's also what you're apparently harping on for no reason.

Here, let me lay out the pattern of this debate for you, since you seem to be confused.

Random Guy: The use of the Guy Fawkes mask by would-be anarchists is ironic, given that Guy Fawkes was actually the precise opposite of an anarchist.
You: You're wrong, because they celebrate Guy Fawkes day and the British are not theocratic.
Me: Yes, they celebrate the failure of the Gunpowder Plot. Which doesn't invalidate the fact that Guy Fawkes was a papist, not an anarchist. Your point is irrelevant.

Which leads us back to here.

Where your point is still irrelevant, and still serves only to emphasize your ignorance.

Which is why I addressed you.

Is it clear to you now? The little gears are turning, the puzzle pieces are falling into place? Hamster not getting tired yet?

I wasn't looking for a word, and I'm not about to start taking suggestions from you. That is mainly on account of you being continually wrong. Go back to the dictionary and try again.

You're funny. Can we be friends?

Anyhoo.

It's pretty obvious at this point that we're just going to be arguing in circles, since you refuse to admit your mistake, so we're really just derailing this thread, largely dead though it may be. So I shall cede the field, which you will no doubt crow about as some sort of triumph on your part.

Which won't affect me in particular, since we are, after all, just arguing on the internets.

 

[Raesvelg]

The ONLY THING that copyright law does in this country is prevent you from getting a copy of something you haven't paid for. That's IT. And yet people continue to talk about how it's interfering with the artist's rights in some way. Or that it's somehow abridging free speech?

There are some issues with the current incarnation of copyright laws in the United States.

For the most part you're correct though; the vast majority of people who complain about copyrights mostly just want to get things for free. There are a few who have valid complaints or bring up relevant issues, but they tend to get drowned out by the incessant whine.

 

[Dastardly]

The ONLY THING that copyright law does in this country is prevent you from getting a copy of something you haven't paid for. That's IT. And yet people continue to talk about how it's interfering with the artist's rights in some way. Or that it's somehow abridging free speech?

There are some issues with the current incarnation of copyright laws in the United States.

For the most part you're correct though; the vast majority of people who complain about copyrights mostly just want to get things for free. There are a few who have valid complaints or bring up relevant issues, but they tend to get drowned out by the incessant whine.

I suppose, but I just haven't been hearing any of these arguments anywhere. I've heard some complaints about how things work, but none that strike me as inherently "unfair." I really think things remain somewhat simple, despite what the bureaucracy would lead one to believe.

It seems the problems only really started when "copyright" was separated from "creation"--that is to say, when the creator could give, sell, or trade copyright to another party in exchange for services. This allowed someone to use the resources of an established and dedicated publisher to get their "goods" out there... and it allowed the publisher to protect that investment. I mean, without having to sign over copyright, what would stop an artist from getting all the publicity and distribution a publisher can give them, and then going off on his/her own to privately sell the same product using this newly-gained name/brand recognition?

People tend not to like that because of those stories of big stars who get "screwed" out of the rights to their own product (Creedence Clearwater Revival, anyone?)... which is usually the result of ignorance on the part of the artist more than predation on the part of the publisher/label/etc. Other than things like this, copyright is a fairly simple principle.

PROVING copyright can be another matter, and that's usually what the laws and arguments center around. Who really made it first? Did they, in fact, sign away all of their rights? Has it been long enough without a substantial new edition that the item in question is public domain? Does adding a comma constitute an "edition?" But even then, it only becomes a problem when people confused the "right to create" with the "right to copy and distribute, especially for money."

 

[Doclector]

Well I don't particularly support what they're fighting for, but to their credit, at least Anonymous gets shit done. How many other protest groups can say the same?

True, true, you can insult their motives, but when someone makes trouble with anomynous, they're truly doomed. It's because they sit in between passive protestors, and rioters, using the internet and their anomonity to disrupt things enough to make a serious impact, but not enough for any legal or military action to be taken against them.

It's official.

Anonymous has declared war on America.

Technically, they already did that when the whole ACTA thing was doing the rounds. If i remember rightly, they said something "We, anonymous, will declare war on any country that agrees to the ACTA treaty". I'm pretty sure it was in a more official term though, as I remember at the time wondering whether it could actually be considered an act of war by the revelant authaurities such as NATO...that would of been interesting.

As for me, whereas I can't really support piracy, I do feel that copyright has gone too far. You can barely use ten seconds worth of music in a youtube video without someone considering it illegal.

 

[JDKJ]

Where did I ever say "4chan hearts Guy Fawkes"?

If you don't agree with the basic premise, then you have no position. As I said, it is invalid.

Yes, it's patently obvious that nobody in Britain celebrates the Gunpowder Plot. That was my point.

Then why talk to me?

It's also what you're apparently harping on for no reason.

Harping on it because it is a silly idea but an integral part of Tdc2182's misunderstanding.

Here, let me lay out the pattern of this debate for you, since you seem to be confused.

Random Guy: The use of the Guy Fawkes mask by would-be anarchists is ironic, given that Guy Fawkes was actually the precise opposite of an anarchist.

First line in and you've fucked it up already. Not only do you confuse the ideas behind anarchy and blowing up a building, but also that it isn't really ironic at all after considering people don't care about Guy Fawkes, especially if you take into account that no one is imitating Guy Fawkes since they are going by an almost totally unrelated movie.

You: You're wrong, because they celebrate Guy Fawkes day and the British are not theocratic.
Me: Yes, they celebrate the failure of the Gunpowder Plot. Which doesn't invalidate the fact that Guy Fawkes was a papist, not an anarchist. Your point is irrelevant.

This is the part you are stubbornly not getting. No one equates it with anarchy. Anarchy doesn't even come into play at any point here. No one cares about why he did it. No one cares about the guy himself.

Which leads us back to here.

Where your point is still irrelevant, and still serves only to emphasize your ignorance.

Which is why I addressed you.

Silly rhetoric; and no, you shouldn't have.

It's pretty obvious at this point that we're just going to be arguing in circles, since you refuse to admit your mistake,

You haven't pointed out any mistake. You simply can't stop misrepresenting the situation.

So I shall cede the field, which you will no doubt crow about as some sort of triumph on your part.

Which won't affect me in particular, since we are, after all, just arguing on the internets.

Not only do you walk away prematurely once you start to see your initial impression was off the mark, you try to marginalize your lapse of judgment by labeling it as a little internet squabble.

Guy Fawkes was no Unabomber and that's an indisputable fact. Christ, the Brits are inept. Do they ever get anything right?

 

[De-Moti]

Anon delivers, as always.

 

[Lancer873]

Mmh... I find it pathetic that they think of themselves as Anonymous. They're merely a small portion of Anonymous. This is no more Anonymous's attack than Barack Obama is the world's leader. Anonymous isn't an army, it's a never-ending conflict. Everyone on the internet is part of Anonymous, and not everyone on the internet is against the copyright laws. That being said, I'm mildly in support of this idea. There's some shred of truth to copyright laws being genuinely exploitative-take how Viacom acts on YouTube. However, I don't think I'm quite as much in favor of totally tearing down all copyright law.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

It's official.

Anonymous has declared war on America.

Good. I'm starting to hate democracy after November 2nd.

What happens on November second?

 

[JonnWood]

It's official.

Anonymous has declared war on America.

Good. I'm starting to hate democracy after November 2nd.

What happens on November second?

US Senate Elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

 

[Starke]

It's official.

Anonymous has declared war on America.

Good. I'm starting to hate democracy after November 2nd.

What happens on November second?

US Senate Elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010

Strictly speaking the midterm elections. Every congressman's up for reelection, and some (37) senators.

 

[DannibalG36]

Anonymous strikes. Anonymous prevails (at least temporarily). Is he smart enough to do this? Time will tell.

 

[Starke]

Bet Firefox is regretting putting that refresh button on their browser now...

Seriously though, what's wrong with copyright law? This isn't a question to goad people, but I don't understand what they actually want

It infringes on already existing rights; so-called 'natural rights'.

Except copyright isn't a "natural rights" issue, and good luck finding someone who will associate the two and can do so credibly. Copyrights emerged from legal tradition. And so far as that goes, the traditions for copyright law are goddamn ancient.

These are ideas that go back to the Magna Carta and were given distinct form in the Enlightenment, which is reflected in the constitution of the United States.

I get that it's probably not what you mean, but it seriously looks like you're trying to cite the Magna Carta as the origin of the Enlightenment. Which it certainly wasn't. On top of that, while there is an association between the Magna Carta and the Constitution conceptually, there isn't a lot of continutity to be had. Otherwise this would be a fine articulation of the traditions of natural rights if you simply removed the copyright element from your argument.

You have the right for example to write stuff and pass it around; by what right does anyone else have to physically stop you putting a pen to paper? The First Amendment forbids the US government from making any law that infringes on this. But a special exception is made for copyright.

Except, you know, it doesn't. You see, copyright law is not a first amendment issue. There ARE exceptions to the first amendment, but this isn't about free speech. This is, and always has been, about theft and protecting an individual's artistic work.

The original justification for copyright laws in light of the rights they infringe on was that they were there to protect public access to information; so supporting the principle of free expression rather than interfering with it.

You're actually getting this kinda backwards. You're right about the intent, but not what copyright laws were at the time. During colonial and early republic courts were incredibly unwilling to defend foreign copyrights, and even domestic ones weren't completely safe for the reason you cite, public access to knowledge. Education, and the availability of information were seen as a higher priority than protecting the rights of an individual. As the American publishing industry kicked in, American courts became much more protective of copyrights as a whole.

The argument was that if authors had some limited copyrights over their work then they would get a return on their investment in it, encouraging them to make more original work.

Which is, ironically, the most frequently cited legal argument for copyrights.

It would all eventually be freely available in the public domain once the exclusive copyrights expired.

Again, that's sort of where the public domain concept comes from, sort of, but, again you butchered the first half of this.

A far cry from modern copyright law; which exists for and serves the polar opposite purpose.

The intent behind modern copyright law is the protection of the author. In theory that is where it stops. In practice, corporations fuck everything up for everyone. Public Domain is still calculated off the time since the original author's death, but Disney keeps lobbying (and so far receiving) extensions to that time frame (for copyrights as a whole) whenever any of their corporate mascots starts creeping too close to public domain.

In theory fair use statutes allow for limited non-commercial use of material, but the DMCA places discretion in the hands of the copyright holder and tends to be implemented with a claw hammer.

Increasingly corporate entities take ownership of copyrights at the expense of the author(s), this has been particularly visible in the film and music industries. So laws which are, and always have been about protecting an artist's work, and encouraging artistic freedom have become the financial protection for major corporations.

So, in answer to your original question, Verlander, there's two issues here against copyright laws. The first are thieves, who justify their acts... well, however they want, but ultimately they take copyrighted material because they can. Their explosive rise in the last decade has provoked companies and individuals whose livelihood depends on copyrights into a harsher stance. This stance has in turn has harmed individuals who exist on the fringes and are in compliance with fair use.

 

[Starke]

First off, stop using the tired, bullshit "but it's stealing!" argument. It's inherently invalid. The only similarity between piracy and theft is that you receive something for free. Theft legally requires the victim to be deprived of their property. Since piracy involves just making a copy, it is not theft. It's nothing like theft.

Please, that's like saying shoplifting isn't theft.

Let's compare the two for a second:

In shoplifting: a company has obtained a large number of a given product which they are intend to sell.
In piracy: a company has produced a large number of a given product which they intend to sell.

In shoplifting: the product can be legally bought.
In piracy: the product can be legally bought.

In shoplifting: the product cost the company something to obtain.
In piracy: the product cost the company something to produce.

In shoplifting: someone swipes one of the given product without paying for it.
In piracy: someone swipes a copy of the given product without paying for it.

In shoplifting: the company is forced to eat the cost of obtaining the product.
In piracy: the company is forced to eat the cost of developing the product.

In shoplifting: shoplifters claim it isn't theft because they aren't taking something unique from the victim.
In piracy: pirates claim it isn't theft because they aren't taking something unique from the victim.

My, yes, I can see how those are completely different.

Piracy is theft.

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

Except piracy doesn't fit the legal definition of theft, or "Larceny" in legal terms.

LARCENY

Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession.

From http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l007.htm

Piracy does not deprive anyone of property, thus it is not theft. It's copyright infringement.

Obviously, piracy is wrong, and that should go without saying. The fact of the matter is, though, is that it is not theft. It's making an unauthorized copy, which falls firmly under the umbrella of Copyright Infringement.

What you're saying is basically if someone were to walk into the Louvre and paint a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, they've stolen it.

Edit: Fail edit is fail.

 

[Arec Balrin]

I'll only ask politely one more time: can people please not criticise me for opinions I don't have and haven't expressed? Thank you. I've been corrected on things I've got wrong by people that didn't go out of their way to make stuff up about what I've said.

Starke is not one of them.

 

[Starke]

-snip-

Except piracy doesn't fit the legal definition of theft, or "Larceny" in legal terms.

LARCENY

Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession.

From http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l007.htm

Piracy does not deprive anyone of property, thus it is not theft. It's copyright infringement.

Obviously, piracy is wrong, and that should go without saying. The fact of the matter is, though, is that it is not theft. It's making an unauthorized copy, which falls firmly under the umbrella of Copyright Infringement.

What you're saying is basically if someone were to walk into the Louvre and paint a perfect replica of the Mona Lisa, they've stolen it.

Edit: Fail edit is fail.

That's a fine general legal definition. Here's another, from the state of Washington:

(1) "Theft" means:

(a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(b) By color or aid of deception to obtain control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

(c) To appropriate lost or misdelivered property or services of another, or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services.

(2) In any prosecution for theft, it shall be a sufficient defense that:

(a) The property or service was appropriated openly and avowedly under a claim of title made in good faith, even though the claim be untenable; or

(b) The property was merchandise pallets that were received by a pallet recycler or repairer in the ordinary course of its business.

Note that in this case it can quite solidly apply to a non-tangible. Additionally, under section b it suggests that all you need to do to commit a crime is to illegally obtain property, not that you must take it from someone.

Moving on to New York's State Laws we find...

§ 155.05 Larceny; defined.
1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

Note that for a crime to have been committed you do not need to deprive someone of their property, only the illegal appropriation of property for oneself is required.

I'm not going to keep dragging up state laws, Washington and New York should be sufficient to illustrate the point. But, the point is, theft and or larceny (and or theft) only requires that you actually obtain property illegally, it doesn't require that the property is a physical object, and it does not require that you physically take it from the rightful owner. So what you're making is a fine theoretical distinction, but it's just that, a theoretical distinction that doesn't stand in the face of the technical realities.

In other words, pirates can be prosecuted as thieves in Washington or New York, and probably most other states. I didn't bother to keep digging up additional state criminal codes because those were the two I had bookmarked (muse on the reasons for that that as you may.)

 

[Starke]

I'll only ask politely one more time: can people please not criticise me for opinions I don't have and haven't expressed? Thank you. I've been corrected on things I've got wrong by people that didn't go out of their way to make stuff up about what I've said.

Starke is not one of them.

I is not peoples? Sorry, I did or did not misunderstand what you were writing?

 

[godofallu]

I'm an American, and I fully support this.

Random people on the internet are taking a stand against the evils of this time. I fear they will not accomplish anything, and that this fight is already lost. Still I hope and dream, for a day when everyone can be entertained without the fear of a ruined life.

 

[zana bonanza]

Um, I'd hardly call this an attack. More like a minor inconvenience.
Why do people still care about what Anon. does again?