Anonymous Attacks US Government

[Starke]

snip

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.

---


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!!!

Good luck stopping it. The music industry is half the size it was in 2000. Half. That isn't market adjustment to deal with "capitalist greed" or what have you, that's an industry being killed and eaten in prime time. Piracy accounts for about 90% of the PC gaming market. Companies aren't "throwing a tantrum" they're being goddamn killed, and trying to (and in many cases, failing to) survive.

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.

What is this "other issue?" And what other option do they have? I'm not going to make a broad generalization that pirates are without respect for the law, but that certainly applies to a large chunk of them. So how are companies supposed to respond? That's more than a little like saying, "well, if someone's going to break into your house, you shouldn't lock the doors, because it doesn't do any good."

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.

Yeah... I'm going with no. Unless the message was "we want to be hunted down by the federal government, (possibly extradited,) and prosecuted for cyber-terrorism."

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...

Nothing is bulletproof.

 

[Popido]

Good luck stopping it. The music industry is half the size it was in 2000. Half. That isn't market adjustment to deal with "capitalist greed" or what have you, that's an industry being killed and eaten in prime time. Piracy accounts for about 90% of the PC gaming market.

Exactly. They should start doing this more seriously and stop the witch-hunting and spreading terror with misinformations nonsense.

What is this "other issue?" And what other option do they have? I'm not going to make a broad generalization that pirates are without respect for the law, but that certainly applies to a large chunk of them. So how are companies supposed to respond?

DDoS'ing sites is wrong. They should stop that with the other things that I said above^.

That's more than a little like saying, "well, if someone's going to break into your house, you shouldn't lock the doors, because it doesn't do any good."

nope

Nothing is bulletproof.

k

 

[Starke]

snip

Finally, an answer I can sink my teeth into. Cheers!

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.

Except for one little quibble. In this case there's only one criminal... "faction" (I guess would be the phrase). There are people who are in the wrong morally, but only one of those groups is actually criminal.

Personally, I think I'm on the copyright guys side (mostly).

I'm pretty solidly on the copyright side of the argument, in no small part due to watching the PC gaming market die in front of me over the last decade or so. I'm fully aware that there are other factors which have contributed, but, I think it's pretty clear that this is the decisive issue for the market.

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.

What's funny is the juries in these cases are often far more bloodthirsty than the industry reps. I mean the "file sharing mom" case, the jury returned 220k, and then when the judge overturned that, the second jury came back with the 1.5m number. The industry reps originally wanted to settle for something around a couple grand (4500 IIRC).

Sure there is a fat cat getting rich from it all, but there is in every industry.

On this front, the music industry has been a particularly egregious offender, historically. It certainly hasn't helped their moral high ground, when this started up. It was pretty easy to point to the music industry and say "the artists get so little, it's not going to matter to them, let's fuck with the corporations." Of course now, eleven years later, the industry is less than half the size it once was, so it's a pretty safe bet that the artists have been pretty seriously harmed (along with everyone else).

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

Well said. I'm not sure how much of their stance is really anarchistic and how much is simply petulant entitlement run amok, but well said.

 

[littlewisp]

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.

The problem with anonymous is that they have crossed lines before, and they think it's funny. On a large scale like this you can brush it off and say, 'not a big deal' but they have caused trouble for various individuals just because they dislike something an individual has done. They're bratty most of the time, and have a rather petty hive mind that can be scary when enough of the really computer savvy members of the bunch get a bee in their bonnet.

I remember following one of their raids on a girl who ran a dominatrix website. They exposed this information to her workplace, her family, and several sent her threats and prank calls (some to her family too, if I remember right) -- enough that she finally ceded to them, and told them she'd take down the site and give them 'victory' and involve the fbi if they didn't stop.

I mean, you could say that's not a big deal, but I certainly think it's crossing a personal line.

 

[Twilight_guy]

...government responds by fixing things and going back to work.

The problem with being a nameless and formless force is that your ability to actually affect the physical world is diminished to what you can hit with the internet. Its like a dolphin trying to beat people up but only being able to knock out guys in the water and buoys.

I don't know about this world of modern technology but I think most causes can't succeed without leadership and guidance and how does one guide a group where no one has identity?

Whatever. Its a cause without any ability to accomplish its goals and self-destructive at that (the vacuum left by ruining copyright would be chose and death). I just wish people could learn to play nice and uses such computational skills for something useful besides pouting and trying to annoy the government.

 

[blankedboy]

I can't wait for Anonymous to actually make some amazingly big change that hits the news of even shitty countries like New Zealand...

 

[Starke]

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

Uh... what? Get real, dude.

No, seriously, I've fuckin' heard this justification before. Not recently, but I haven't tended to be in the same social circles as people who shoplift since I got into college.

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.

Proof?

The music industry is half the size it was in 2000. Half. That isn't market adjustment to deal with "capitalist greed" or what have you, that's an industry being killed and eaten in prime time. Piracy accounts for about 90% of the PC gaming market. Companies aren't "throwing a tantrum" they're being goddamn killed, and trying to (and in many cases, failing to) survive.

 

[Starke]

No, seriously, I've fuckin' heard this justification before. Not recently, but I haven't tended to be in the same social circles as people who shoplift since I got into college.

The only way for this to make sense is if you either factor insurance for stolen items or if you consider the store will have to restock the item by buying a new one. It depends on which party you target.

I wouldn't for a second say that argument makes any goddamn sense (in either context). However, it is an argument I have seen people actually use (in both contexts).

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.

Proof?

The music industry is half the size it was in 2000. Half. That isn't market adjustment to deal with "capitalist greed" or what have you, that's an industry being killed and eaten in prime time. Piracy accounts for about 90% of the PC gaming market. Companies aren't "throwing a tantrum" they're being goddamn killed, and trying to (and in many cases, failing to) survive.

Yeah, I was hoping to get something other than the rhetoric you already provided. How can copied items be part of the market anyway?

Copied items are a part of the market in that they replace elements in the market. Think of it this way, an illegal rip of a song is in direct market competition with a legitimate release of said song (for simplicity's sake, let's assume it's a single.) Now, standard economic theory (and psychology) will hold that the customer will almost always select the cheaper alternative. The opportunity cost for the single will be the couple of bucks it costs + the time to obtain it, while the opportunity cost of the illegal mp3 will be the time spent downloading it, and the bandwidth (both of which are negligible). Ignoring the criminal aspect, illegal downloads will win out every time. So the conflict becomes a question of, do you believe that downloading a song off of whatever 3rd gen p2p network is wrong, or not? If the answer is "yes, it's wrong", then you might buy the single, if the answer is "no, this is just like listening to it on the radio" (or whatever) then you (or whomever) will download it illegally.

Now, if this was isolated cases, like software piracy back in the 1980s? No one would care. But it isn't. The P2P networks we have running today enable mass transmission of illegal material, and at the end of the day, consumer behavior has trended towards eating the industry alive, hence the earlier statistics. And yes, that's more statistics than rhetoric, there is a difference.

 

[Starke]

Copied items are a part of the market in that they replace elements in the market.

Says you.

Me, people who know what they're talking about, people with a basic understanding of economics, people who are not you, obviously. Shoving your fingers in your ears doesn't change economic theory.

If you can get a given product online for free, or pay for it in a store, that is the same product, and it the legitimate venue is in direct competition with the illegal venue.

Think of it this way, an illegal rip of a song is in direct market competition with a legitimate release

Now that makes sense, but you're creating a different market entirely.

Except you're not. A separate market would be something like TV shows and Video Games, these two things have basically nothing in common so they don't really compete with one another directly. A distribution network that provides Video Games for free is still part of the same market that sells them.

of said song (for simplicity's sake, let's assume it's a single.) Now, standard economic theory (and psychology) will hold that the customer will almost always select the cheaper alternative. The opportunity cost for the single will be the couple of bucks it costs + the time to obtain it, while the opportunity cost of the illegal mp3 will be the time spent downloading it, and the bandwidth (both of which are negligible). Ignoring the criminal aspect, illegal downloads will win out every time. So the conflict becomes a question of, do you believe that downloading a song off of whatever 3rd gen p2p network is wrong, or not? If the answer is "yes, it's wrong", then you might buy the single, if the answer is "no, this is just like listening to it on the radio" (or whatever) then you (or whomever) will download it illegally.

So basically for anything you say to hold ground, you first have to make a vacuum and fill it with only the contents you approve of. Add in the real world, and then who gives a fuck?

Try making sense first. Then try to refute my argument. I know it's hard, but please, at least make the attempt.

Now, I have to ask, this concept, examples, you do understand the concept, right?

Now, if this was isolated cases, like software piracy back in the 1980s? No one would care. But it isn't. The P2P networks we have running today enable mass transmission of illegal material,

More vapor. It's not like DRM didn't exist until recently. It's not like redistributing proprietary software is any less legal. It's not like any developer cares more now about people sharing their code to anyone with storage space. It's not like it isn't easier to buy software with the technology we have today.

No, it isn't "more illegal," but it is more prevalent. We will never achieve a piracy rate of 0%, ever. Some piracy is just something a company has to live with. But a piracy rate of 90% (what we see in the PC games market) is a far more serious problem than what we saw in the 80s.

and at the end of the day, consumer behavior has trended towards eating the industry alive, hence the earlier statistics. And yes, that's more statistics than rhetoric, there is a difference.

Consumers? No, you mean whatever classification would suit your partitioned off interpretation.

No, a classification derived from basic economics. I'm sorry that it's too intellectually strenuous for you. But, let's try it this way, people consume goods, they are consumers. Makes sense? No? Well, that's too bad, maybe someday.

Still just rhetoric, and you only gave me more of it.

That word you are using, I do not think it means what you think it does. Please stop using it before you embarrass yourself.

 

[Starke]

As far as protest groups go,

Anonymous > Tea Party.

FACT.

I don't know, so far the standard bearer for Anon hasn't pardoned a turkey while standing in front of a turkey processor.

 

[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.

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.

No, I'm not saying we're all part of the group that attacks websites and other targets, I'm saying the group that attacks websites and other targets is only a small part of Anonymous which claims to be Anonymous. They've misinterpret the actual meaning of Anonymous. In other words, "Anonymous is not [their] personal army."