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.
Anonymous Attacks US Government
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Anonymous strikes. Anonymous prevails (at least temporarily). Is he smart enough to do this? Time will tell.
Verlander said:
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.Arec Balrin said:
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.Arec Balrin said:
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.Arec Balrin said:
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.Arec Balrin said:
Which is, ironically, the most frequently cited legal argument for copyrights.Arec Balrin said:
Again, that's sort of where the public domain concept comes from, sort of, but, again you butchered the first half of this.Arec Balrin said:
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.Arec Balrin said:
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.
Please, that's like saying shoplifting isn't theft.Agayek said:
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.
Except piracy doesn't fit the legal definition of theft, or "Larceny" in legal terms.Starke said:
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.
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 is not one of them.
That's a fine general legal definition. Here's another, from the state of Washington:Agayek said:
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.RCW 9A.56.020 said:
Moving on to New York's State Laws we find...
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.)
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.
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.
Um, I'd hardly call this an attack. More like a minor inconvenience.
Why do people still care about what Anon. does again?
Why do people still care about what Anon. does again?
Fantastic argument. You must be a damn good debater.Starke said:
Finally, someone who thinks alike. People care becausezana bonanza said:
a.they're bored and interested
b.they do bad stuff which is ironic as they think their point of view is superior and
c.it involves the big guys. The guy in the suit in the office. The guy that has more money than all of Anon combined and the total product of the amount of money they earned in a life-time, not subtracting the money they spent isn't half of the 'guy's' money. Sorry for the repetition of money.
>mfw they are practically handing their IP addresses to the government
Sorry, been spending too much time on the dregs of the internet. But seriously, I admire their persistence, but sometimes anonymous is just dumb. DDoSing cannot be done behind a proxy, therefore they are unabashedly serving up their IP and ISP info to the people who foam at the mouth for that sort stuff. I tried talking sense a few times with them, I really did, but I guess there are just too many children on the interwebs that have no idea how things work.
Needless to say, the government can do whatever they think will stop piracy, but it won't help. Practically anything that involves data will ultimately get reproduced by an unauthorized party and handed out. I want to liken the situation to the war on drugs, but even then, it's not the same. People just like free shit. The only viable solution I see is make things cheaper, but that still won't solve the problem.
/rant
Sorry, been spending too much time on the dregs of the internet. But seriously, I admire their persistence, but sometimes anonymous is just dumb. DDoSing cannot be done behind a proxy, therefore they are unabashedly serving up their IP and ISP info to the people who foam at the mouth for that sort stuff. I tried talking sense a few times with them, I really did, but I guess there are just too many children on the interwebs that have no idea how things work.
Needless to say, the government can do whatever they think will stop piracy, but it won't help. Practically anything that involves data will ultimately get reproduced by an unauthorized party and handed out. I want to liken the situation to the war on drugs, but even then, it's not the same. People just like free shit. The only viable solution I see is make things cheaper, but that still won't solve the problem.
/rant
Like Agayek, I am so fucking tired of the argument that piracy isn't theft. Why? Because it fucking is.Nouw said:
If you want an actual argument on the subject look at the subsequent posts.
In a large way, I hate this particular argument because, ultimately, it's a "victimless crime" argument for a crime that is killing and eating the entertainment industry as a whole.
I've got a lot more patience for people who say "I'm a pirate, and I know what it's doing to the industry" than I do for people who say, "It's not like I'm actually stealing anything."
I'm not sure that, under the circumstances, you're correct. There most certainly is an "Anonymous" more closely associated with 4chan than anyplace else and who, when urged on by the 4chan site, have participated in "attacks" on specific targets (e.g., the Church of Scientology) and often do so using memes that originated with 4chan (e.g., the infamous "rickroll"). In fact, the name "Anonymous" is derived from its frequent use by multiple posters to 4chan (and has become somewhat of a 4chan meme in its own right). To say that everyone on the internet is a part of "Anonymous" (i.e., the group known to attack websites and other targets) is, I think, to grossly overstate their membership.Lancer873 said:
Finally, an answer I can sink my teeth into. Cheers!Starke said:
So the (very) abridged summary of the matter is that both copyrights and copyright thieves are in the wrong, but in the great western tradition of things, the criminal with the most money wins, and everyone else is narked off at it.
Personally, I think I'm on the copyright guys side (mostly). Piracy doesn't warrant these OTT fines, and that should be reviewed in a court, but at the same time, the industry keeps thousands of people employed. Sure there is a fat cat getting rich from it all, but there is in every industry. I've yet to believe that Anonymous are doing this for anything more than making an anarchic gesture. I think it's stiff like their denial of access actions that are going to keep on justifying the ridiculous extents that companies go to in order to punish copyright thieves. Best way to justify the man is to act like a child
All those comparisons on piracy are questenable, although some of them are rarer than another. So yes, there is a difference. And thats one of the main arguments for piracy. Had to point that out before more people stands up and starts clapping their paws.Starke said:
---
With the advancement of new technologic, came a problem to the capitalist industry. Now while everyone is trying to adjust to this new age of information, copyright companies are throwning a tantrum and have decided to instead abuse this situation. I do not allow this!!!
Piratism is a crime, I agree, but you cant just put these two issues on a scale and watch which one is the lesser evil. You have to deal with them both. Industry as a whole is trying to deal with piracy atm. I belive everyone has witnessed this atleast once with all those trials and errors, and occasional successes of things like Steam. But anti-piracy... and I mean The anti-piracy... isnt doing a shit to this.
So okay, was it okay for Anon to take down this and that site? Yes, no, perhaps. First of, it was their sites that where taken down first by copyright companies. Yes, they have such a power. Well did these childish DDoS attacks do anything then? Yes, now everyone knows, the message has been received, so yeah it worked. And some law firm is facing a lawsuit.
Okay, lets just leave this to the faggets of the internet, so we can go back to whine about video games, shall we.
Edit:
Their <link=http://www.anonops.net/home.php>headquartes are now up. This time it should be bulletproof...
