They say: "We've the means & all the time of the world to wipe You out".
They mean: "We're script kiddies with no social life and are prepared to prove that we're selfish pricks with nothing better to do than deface a few websites".
A Finnish anti-piracy group said yesterday that it had received a bomb threat for its role in blocking The Pirate Bay in Finland. Banning the torrent site has set off a train of reprisals, including the bomb threat. The Copyright, Information and Anti-Piracy Centre (CIAPC) told The Register that it had received an email – …
By blocking a site this is denying information, not everything on pirate bay is copyright violation.
Whats next ? The only DVD burning software allowed are ones that cannot burn `copyrighted' material ? Going further, could they want to ban C compilers because we could write software that enables copyright enfringement ?
I think anonymous have a point. Banning pirate bay really is the thin end of the wedge.
It may become illegal to own any kind of personal storage.
And it's totally do-able what with higher mobile BB speeds and ever increasing cloud networks.
All traffic can be filtered and streamed as required, already happening on a small scale innit.
I blame itunes for that, Probably not all their fault but it certainly made people at ease with on demand online music.
Of RIAA/MPAA and the like and they don't even hide it much. Also known as replacing the "Play" button with the "Pay" button.
The pushing of DRMs (however easily circumventable), "piracy" claims etc were never about the actual "piracy", which has a negligible impact, if at all, but solely about denying the users any degree of control over content (in fact over infromation), even in their own homes.
DMCA, SOPA - they would use any excuse to push these through. Watch out now for claims that SOPA is needed to fight international terrorists...
>>"By blocking a site this is denying information, not everything on pirate bay is copyright violation."
>>"I think anonymous have a point. Banning pirate bay really is the thin end of the wedge."
Well, I guess the best test would be for someone to set up a site which didn't give host or give access to pirate games, video or music, but which did host the honest stuff you think is important, and see if anyone tried to take action against *that* site.
If you think there is legitimate stuff important to society which does risk being made harder to get as a result of actions against copyright infringement, aren't the people putting up the non-legit stuff playing right into the authorities' hands?
Presumably, if people engaging in all the infringing activity have actually thought about it at all and they honestly agree with you, then they must think that their right to get stuff without paying is more important than the collateral damage to society which at the very least, their actions make it massively easier for Big Brother to get away with.
Am I actually supposed to respect people who take a position like that?
I can't remember the last time I bought copyrighted music. I only buy music from small artists who give it for free anyway. The quality of music and original creativity has long been out of the hands of the big music biz. by far the best musicians out there are out there and aren't in HMV.
I see the same thing happening to the movies industry. crowd funding projects are increasing in popularity and quality to the point that they will soon surpass the expensive Hollywood counterparts. The only way i would still listen to shitty American music and watch shitty American sitcoms is if they were free, and I probably would be a better person if I didn't at all.
also, and that's an important point. when you buy a DVD you get it stacked with adverts, the movies have sponsored products in them. if you advertised in the matrix, you only paid ones, but you get a cashflow of revenue for generations to come. I don't see why we need to be squeezed, why we should have to pay for the luxury of being marketed to. more downloading means more advertising revenue for them.
P.S. There's a bomb under your table!
Speak for yourself. I'd be interested to learn how many quality choral, orchestral and operatic pieces are being recorded out there and given away for free. (No, I do not want to have _only_ those German recordings. Orchestras, conductors, performers and soloists are NOT interchangeable.) Simply getting all those people in the same building at the same time, and wired up for sound, is a major logistical exercise in itself. It's not something you'd want to pay for out of your own pocket as a hobby.
As for the trite bollocks currently spamming most of the 'free' music market today, I'll pass, thanks. I don't much care for modern artists regardless of their publishing deals, or lack thereof. I'm so far outside their target demographic, they'd need to use the Hubble Space Telescope to see me. (Not that I don't like the occasional bit of electronica, dance, or whatnot, but I'm musical enough to write my own when I feel the need for something fresh. I do not, however, feel any particular urge to inflict said compositions on anyone else. I can only wish more people felt likewise. Anyone with Van Gogh's ear for music can put together a half-decent track in Reason, Logic Pro or even Garageband. And nearly everyone apparently does. So much for quality.)
I don't agree with the music industry's heavy-handed approach to counterfeiting, for that's what "piracy" really is, but neither do I agree with demanding the "right" to the fruits of another's labours without offering anything in return. That is utterly selfish. There is no such thing as "art"; only "craft". ("Art" shares the same roots as "artisan", which is a synonym for "craftsman".)
It's ironic that the term "pirate" has been adopted by pro-counterfeiting folks given that the notion of pirates being glorified, friendly cartoon characters shouting "ARRRR!" at each other was invented precisely by those very pro-Copyright people! In reality, real pirates were mostly a very nasty bunch of people. Identifying with murderers and thieves seems an unusual choice. Like identifying with convicted murderers who sing about all the murders they've done and want to do. You might as well identify with Fred West, Jack the Ripper, or one of the many other serial killers the world has seen.
The answer to this issue lies not in the extremists on either side, but in the moderates aiming for the middle path.
There IS a genuine need for filtering services. That's what A&R people are supposed to do. It's why book publishers have "Commissioning Editor" positions. Yes, ultimately it is all subjective, but the trick is to hire the right people into these filtering roles in order to serve the widest possible markets. And that is why publishers in any media are unlikely to disappear entirely.
Most people want to hear some quality music _right now_. They do not want to have to trawl through half the internet and listen to hundreds of tracks first before they find one they actually like. Publishers in all media therefore offer a valuable _service_. They may not continue to be known as publishers in future—perhaps we'll see publishers merge with radio stations; who knows—but _some_ filtering out of the dross _is_ necessary.
You seem to be confusing filtering as a commercial service which helps to separate the wheat from the chaff (making your choice easier but not precluding you from accessing unfiltered information) and filtering applied as a brute-force blanket censorship (where the choice is made by somebody else and is forced upon you).
You think you are defending one but in fact you are giving support (hopefully unwittingly) to the other.
And before anyone asks - no, I don't think bomb threats are acceptable means of making your point in any argument. Whoever sent those messages is an idiot.
I am not a classical music connoisseur, though I do enjoy listening to it every once in a while...
I thought however that you did have a point, high quality recording studio costs money, and crowed funding isn't always the best solution. I googled for it and found some projects that sound really good here: http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/classical%20music?ref=live
As for your statement about pirates... well, historically some pirates were violent blood thirsty thugs, but more often then not they were actually slaves, the poor and disenfranchised taking over ships and stealing from the rich. One mythical anarchic community which in my uneducated opinion is based on some truth is Libertaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia . According to the legend they used to take over ships and then give the slaves an option of going free or joining their community. this is very different to the cartoon image of a pirates. You have to question who invented the image of a violent pirates in the history books and for what purpose.
About the arts/crafts distinction... I am not sure what you mean exactly. To be a good musician you have to do more then just play the written music in perfect metronomic rate. every note can express some deep emotion, even if you just play from a sheet, the way you choose when and where to bend or stress the notes, you get some leeway. there is merit in perfect technique and no heart, but sometimes in music there is room for awful technique and emotional expression. in my eyes this seems to be more of the art then the craftsmanship. I don't know if you play any instruments, but if you do you probably have some idea what I am talking about.
Now, I sense that you patronise me a little there, you don't know what kinds of music I listen to. in truth, I don't have a favourite genre, not since I was a teenager. but I enjoy new things, I love hearing original compositions ,lyrics, melodies etc. I spend a lot of my weekends in crusty venues around town listening to musicians which you have no chance of hearing if you limit yourself to the filtered realm, and that's fine (as long as it's fine with you). But it doesn't cut it for me.
I play some instruments, but I am not a musician. I am a programmer, a craftsman if you will. I love the idea that at some point, someone will take my nicer pieces of code and reuse them. when I write commercial closed code, I always feel a little disappointed that no one will see it. no one will appreciate all the little personal touches I put in, all the elegant pieces of code which will never be read. My musician friends seem to care a lot more about people hearing their music then about making a profit out of it, and i understand it.
There is more profit in the music biz then selling albums, there's merchandise, there's concerts, there's tabulation books... I am willing to bet that there is still profit in this even without selling a single record. But the profits that big names make are ridiculous. perhaps having a private jet and a mountain of cocaine is too much for what is mostly not even art, but entertainment. large amount of the profit does not go to the people who make the music, but to suits and advertisers.
The problem i have with filtering is that it's the exact opposite of what i am looking for in music. if i want to hear original musicians, I don't want to hear all of the other musicians of the same genre which some automated recommendation mechanism finds for me. I'll be more then happy listening to new music every day scouring what is sometimes just shit but eventually getting to the music that few others have ever heard, but which often beats everything in the charts hands down.
You are right though, this isn't black and white, there is still room for the grey area, if you really love a commercial musician and have downloaded their discography, providing you are honest you would then go and buy an album or a poster as a token. For example, I love Pearl Jam, I have their discography, but I could never afford to buy all of their albums, so I have 3. I love dream theatre (And as a craftsmanship appreciator you might too). I have a few of their albums, but I only ever listen to their torrents. I also love Babar Luck, The Leano and Blakan Beat Box, but these are part of the free culture, and to buy their albums I have to meet them in person in some crummy squat party. I would be much more inclined nowadays to buy their albums then anything in the music store, they deserve the money more, and it goes a longer way for them then Pearl Jam and Dream Theatre. And yes, studio costs money which is exactly why free culture needs more support then the commercial one.
Needless to say, that bomb threats are rarely justifiable, and my right for free-tardism doesn't quite cut it...
If you setup an organisation which has no membership and no verifiable spokespeople you need to understand that people within or without that group can make claims that the rest of the group can't control. If someone says they're in Anonymous and they plant a bomb, there is nothing to say that the group did or didn't do it, this is obviously becoming a problem for Anon, because some of them don't like the more extreme behavior of the others.
Anonymous isn't an organisation it's a state of non-identification.
Therefore anonymous has no members and no spokespeople.
An anonymous individual is anyone and everyone whilst in the state of being unidentified.
Because there is no anonymous organisation it can't be responsible for its non-members' actions, as implied in this article.
remember neo getting a large sum of money for some dodgy software.... perhaps all they will do is push piracy underground.
Even if they made it difficult to send stuff over the net (and they have not caught on to the dark nets and the encrypted torrents yet) people will pass stuff about on some other media (32GB flash drives etc...).
I actually prefer stuff that has come from a torrent. Theres no adverts, I can watch it when I want to, and I can stream it from a computer and watch it in HD on my ps3.
I hold a 4chan gold account by the way...
Even though the threatening note's text pretty clearly indicates this is just a bunch of mindless teenagers trying to play tough guy, I still support them. I cannot begin to get under how unacceptable this attempt by governments - elected and more often NOT elected - and dying corporations to control our 1s and 0s online really is. Its beyond class warfare, its almost into Them vs Humans territory. For that reason - I support the bombers.
>>"I cannot begin to get under how unacceptable this attempt by governments - elected and more often NOT elected - and dying corporations to control our 1s and 0s online really is."
Surely, even people who might claim 'principles' are important should actually try and look at how their principle might appear from various perspectives?
For example, if it is illegal to sell stolen stuff, or a civil offence to libel people or threaten violence, it's not obvious that some kind of principle about 'the sacredness of the online' or similar should completely protect people who try and do those things online, or people who knowingly assist in the activity.
One person's claim of 'the online should be sacrosanct' could be looked at not as being idealistic dreams of some mythical perfect virtual world where freedom rules and nothing *really* bad ever happens, but about someone basically saying they should be able to do whatever they feel like doing without anyone being able to stop them.
Chances are that someone like that would find their principles radically shifting the second they found out that stuff that had been nicked from them was being offered for sale online, or that the guy across the street they're in a feud with had just wrongly outed them as a child molester and posted their address online.
In other words, as soon as the 'principles' didn't work out to their personal advantage.
Much of the time, 'principles' are things worked out basically to justify a position someone already has.
I'm not immune to the attraction of such behaviour and I don't know too many people who are, but I do try and be aware when I'm doing it, and try to avoid simply using principles as a defence against further thinking.
If someone wants to argue about the rights and wrongs of copyright, fine, but the online angle seems a bit of a red herring.
The bomb threat is plain stupid... it just hurts the case.
Defacing websites or just DDoS'ing them isn't all that constructive either, but does serve the purpose of expressing anger at both the media organizations and the courts for allowing this censorship.
Because that's what this is really about: Censorship.
Instead of getting off their butts and provide the products their customers want when they want them - at affordable prices of course - they chose to persecute their customers and prosecute their alternative ways of getting what they want.
Now, I haven't used TPB in a long time. Doubt many has except for the most rank beginners. Most of the file sharing world has moved on (or back) from P2P to direct download, this time to file hosting providers like rapidshare, megaupload, wupload, fileserve, filesonic, hotfile and similar. In other words - this move is censorship that will have little or no effect on the problem at hand.
>>"Because that's what this is really about: Censorship."
No, it isn't.
Censorship is about preventing people expressing their own opinions to others, typically (if not always) to prevent certain things thought 'undersirable' being expressed and witnessed.
Copyright is about preventing people copying other people's work for nothing.
For example, it's not 'censorship' to stop someone selling (or giving away) pirated content which is openly available for purchase, and which, in the case of much video, has a good chance of being publicly broadcast in the relatively near future, if that hasn't happened already.
Someone might pretend that 'censorship' covered any attempt to stop someone looking at something irrespective of what legal rights they actually had to look at it, but that would clearly be a self-serving definition.
It's not 'censorship' for someone to draw the curtains before engaging in sex, or to lock away confidential documents, or to wear clothes.
If someone did try and expand the definition of 'censorship' to include any frustration of a person's desire to look at something, then it would simply be blatant dishonesty or stupidity to claim that any negative connotations that might attach to the normal understanding of the word 'censorship' could automatically be carried over into the new expanded meaning.
You still insist on calling 'enforcing copyright' 'censorship'?
OK. Then you have to give a good non-contrived definition of 'censorship', and work with your expanded definition and re-justify criticism of 'censorship' based on *everything* it could cover (such as stopping someone publishing your stolen diaries, or pictures of your spouse naked).
You can't simply claim that copyright must be wrong because censorship in the normal unexpanded meaning of the word is wrong - that would just be totally retarded.