Anonymous Attacks US Government

[Ghengis John]

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.

This is the lamest thing I've ever heard. The Magna Carta? You just want to waste your time with entertainment you didn't pay for. This is not a grand crusade, you just find anti-piracy laws inconvenient towards your accumulation of hoarding "free stuff" but that wouldn't fly so you've papered over that with a half-assed justification. Tell me you don't download things you're expected to pay for. My guess is you can't.

You know what's wrong with your little analogy? If you write stuff and pass it around it came from you. Nobody stops you from putting pen to paper under copyright law, you're free to create whatever you want, CREATE. And if you wanna spread it around, that's cool. That's your work. We have things like that, we call them freeware. If the guy who wrote something doesn't want you passing it around you do not posses the right to do so. It's his work. In legal terms that's called being a dick. You are not respecting his or her wishes. You are forcing your wishes upon them and they are helpless to resist. You are a rapist. Why is it that there is some magical disconnect for pirates when it comes to intellectual property? (Besides convenience?) If a man labors on a table do you just walk into his home and declare "you cannot own the IDEA of a table, man." Likely you would soon become intimately familiar with some hand-tool if you did, but that asides how can you not comprehend that you are stealing? Stealing things is not covered under your freedom of expression.

 

[Dastardly]

It's incredible.

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?

Unless the "free speech" you're fighting for is, "GIVE ME YOUR STUFF FOR FREE," I'm just not understanding the "cause."

Anon is now just a bunch of children who've learned a few computer tricks, and they're using them to "stick it to the man," which here means, "Whine about rules I don't like because they stand between me and free stuff." And every single individual who jumps on this particular bandwagon with them is equally stupid and immature. We do NOT need any kind of government that listens to people like that. Ever.

It never ceases to amaze me at how the only "right" people seem to want to band together over is their "right" to be complete dickbags for no reason, apparent or otherwise. Really? That's the right you're going to war over?

 

[Arec Balrin]

Thank you Ghengis for that rant against opinions I don't even have.

 

[Torrasque]

Can't they be tracked with an IP address or something? Jeez!

Although respect to them, if they say they will do something, they will do it at least lol.

question...if they attacked us, how would we know?

I'll just say that although it was only for half an hour, Anon taking down the site for any amount of time proves one thing: that they can.
If they attacked you, you would only know if you knew what to look for, or they wanted you to know.
In this case, they probably didn't care that much to keep the site down for that long, and/or they want people to know that shit is getting done, so they'd go after a more juicy target next time.

 

[ShadowAurora]

cowards plain and simple hiding behind the internet to commit felonies i think the ones who show up in person have my respect

 

[RaikuFA]

this will not end well

 

[Raesvelg]

What's funny here is that I never even bothered to pinpoint what was being celebrated, let alone the many other details I circumvented. Like I said to the other ignoramus, I was just telling him where he was wrong. This doesn't mean I said what was right.

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue, because I clearly pointed out the faulty rationale that Tdc2182 was using, by asking him whether he thought the people celebrating the holiday were pro-theocratic. He didn't bother to respond to it, because he couldn't properly answer without debasing his foundation. I wasn't the one ignoring the blatant dissonance in logic.

If you don't get it by now, you should have never addressed me with the position you supplied. I was the one pointing out that he is being obtuse by conflating the current mask-wearing trends into somehow sympathizing with a pro-theocratic proselytizer. There is no such sentiment at all, and it is a foolish consideration to bring up.

Also you both need to get a fucking clue. They're simply following the dude from V For Vendetta. Apparently it is too far out there to expect people from the internets to get a 4 year old movie reference.

Shovel faster, someone might buy it.

The point, specifically that people have misinterpreted the Guy Fawkes mask, specifically BECAUSE of V for Vendetta, was brought up at the very beginning of this little debacle. It's what's mentioned in the Cracked article that was used as a source. Did you even bother to read it?

You're not fooling anyone. At least I hope not.

Incidentally, the word you're looking for, rather than "pro-theocratic proselytizer", is "Papist".

 

[Ericb]

Just went to check it at the time of this post and 4chan is offline.

Good night.

 

[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.