Anonymous Attacks US Government
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Meh.
Does crashing a website for half an hour really matter? What's that going to achieve?
And they can talk about the "exploitive use of copyright" until the cows come home. It's obvious that they're just pissed off because they don't want people to stop them from pirating stuff. Not exactly the most noble goal I can think of.
Does crashing a website for half an hour really matter? What's that going to achieve?
And they can talk about the "exploitive use of copyright" until the cows come home. It's obvious that they're just pissed off because they don't want people to stop them from pirating stuff. Not exactly the most noble goal I can think of.
But, that's a good one, isn't it? I mean, for many of us europeans, the americans sure look like someone who need sanity and rationality restored into their public oppinion and media.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And I don't mean to be offensive to any of you americans - but this is the image you are giving youself(or rather, that some loud idiots are giving you). Just as many of those who give you this bad look, seems to get the idea that all of europe is socialist.
OT though: I wonder when Anon will mov epast DDoS'es? I mean, when all is said and done, it's not that much of a hassle. Taking down a governmental site for 30 minutes... Thats not likely to do much. Other than, potentially, hurt them.
Anon is a huge number of people. There is no end to what they could do - many people mean many different talents, members everywhere in the world, means large sums could be collected with very small donations, etc. There is much potential to do anything, and then they chose to stick to their DDoS attacks.
This is not going to get them anything. It will anger and annoy some people, but it's only impact will be that potentially, someone gets angry like Gene Simmons did, and the rest will just ignore them.
Yeah, we get it Anonymous: You're a bunch of brats with an inflated sense of entitlement who think you're better than everyone else because you're good with computers.
I hope they cross a line eventually and really get themselves in trouble.
I hope they cross a line eventually and really get themselves in trouble.
That depends on who you ask, and what exactly it is they want.Verlander said:
Some people just want to be able to get stuff for free.
The other side of the coin is what's commonly called 'fair use', which as a concept doesn't necessarily exist in the laws of a lot of countries.
Think of all the fan-made 'tribute' projects that get shut down due to copyright laws...
And then consider a site like the escapist...
If they wanted to, I'm sure it'd be possible to get most of the escapist content removed on copyright violation terms.
Sure it's probably 'fair use', but laws keep getting more and more restrictive.
It comes down to a battle between who has control over content.
Should the Author have absolute and unquestionable control over anything and everything anyone does with their work?
Should the general public be able to do whatever they feel like with anyone's IP?
But more importantly, where does the balance fall between these two extremes?
I get the feeling that somehow, this will end up with some black ops sneaking in and blowing 4chan's main servers into shit =P
to quote that random-ass marine from halo 2, "This is bad. Real bad." everything else had no actual power, the government...just doesn't seem like a good idea.
It infringes on already existing rights; so-called 'natural rights'. 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. 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.Verlander said:
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. 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. It would all eventually be freely available in the public domain once the exclusive copyrights expired.
A far cry from modern copyright law; which exists for and serves the polar opposite purpose.
Anon isn't an organized group per se. It's not like it has any listed members. Anonymous is just a name that people doing these things give themselves. It has no leaders or anything. As the poster before said, they're mostly bored trolls.Talvrae said:
Granted, the title does conjure up images of wanton destruction, not of minor inconvenience, but does it ultimately matter? I'm really not sure whether or not copyright law is flawed (although every lawyer of the RIAA deserves to get repeatedly anally violated by an irate rhinoceros), but hey, free entertainment. Now if only they could do to the RIAA's site what they did to Gene Simmon's site...