Anonymous attacking Sony for supporting SOPA

demongerbil said:

As far as Avatar, Harry Potter and Transformers goes, I dont mean to poopoo on your point, but if there were HALF of these types of movies, I would be much happier lol. You could not have picked worse 3 movies to make your point, dude.

Click to expand...

Well you just have a different opinion then the majority of the world, that is all. Those are like 3 of top 4 highest grossing films of all time.

stupidity, please dont touch psn, I use it everyday lol

Kickflip said:

I think SOPA has the possibility to lead to lower costs for accessing entertainment, and larger budgets for production leading to higher quality. Imagine if EVERY movie had the budgets of Avatar, Transformers, Harry Potter etc. Imagine if we got twice as many amazing movies released every year. Imagine if we didn't have to wait so long to see new release movies at home.

These are the possibilities. Shit like this CAN change the world for the better. It can cause us to innovate.

I got a question: Do you guys really think YouTube doesn't have the technology to filter out 99.999% of copyright material from being uploaded? YouTube has the resources and technology for this. That's not even a question. YouTube COULD fully survive just fine with SOPA. They just don't WANT to.

You guys want Record Companies to innovate or Movie Production companies to innovate, why doesn't Google or YouTube innovate?

I don't support it and I am not against it. I expect the people in charge to know more about this then I do.

Click to expand...

I can understand where you're coming from in this point. If they make more money, they can produce better movies and entertainment for us. You're completely right in this respect.

I just, personally, think you're missing the bigger point with SOPA. While it might lessen piracy, I don't think it is going to do anything about increasing their profits.

People like myself pirate because, firstly, it's convenient - and secondly, it's free. If it wasn't convenient though, then I wouldn't pirate it anyway. Free isn't everything. Convenience is more important.

So, they can try and stop piracy - but the people who hate going to cinemas and would rather watch a movie at home, this SOPA law isn't exactly going to somehow convince them to go to the cinema to watch the movie. It's just going to, if successful, limit them in what they can download to watch at home.

If they want to succeed and make more money, they are the ones who need to innovate. It is their job as an industry to make money. That involves everything from filming to selling. It is not my job to SELL the convenience for them.

If they had just released a way, sort of like iTunes or whatever, to buy and stream a high quality movie (movies that just came out in the cinemas) at home - believe me, my family would have personally bought many such films.

But to say it is up to Joe Blow to come up with a 'solution' for their failing business model, is in my opinion, nonsense. It is THEIR business, not mine, not yours, not any other webmasters (I mention webmasters because it affects us - and also to illustrate how stupendously far reaching the SOPA law is). If they want to make money, they're going to need to keep up - and that means keeping up with what the people want.

It's really plain and simple. They're not delivering to us, what we want. Is it that hard for them to comprehend. People are not going to just magically start going to the movies because they took down some of their portals to downloading for free, because people simply don't want to.

I think for the film industry to succeed, they need to give us what we want. If they had the same attitude as you (to leave it up to the public to do the innovation for them) then they're going to be waiting a while.

They're upset because profits are down compared to what they used to be. Who wouldn't be upset if their business wasn't going as well as it used to?The only difference between me and them is (hypothetical), they're upset but they're sitting on their ass and bullying people into doing things their way.

I would ask the people what they wanted, and if possible, I would deliver. In this case, the people are not asking too much - they just want the freedom to download content immediately and watch it right away. That's what we want, and it's very easy to deliver in todays day and age. There's literally no excuse for them not doing something like this, they are cashed up to the top.

Note: I am not supporting ripping off people and their work. I do believe that the film industry could give us more and better moves if they made more money, it's logical. I just think they need to do more themselves, without trying to doctrine us into how they would rather us buy their products.

Have you heard the saying:

"Give someone a fingernail, they'll take your finger. Give someone your finger, they'll take hand. Give someone your hand and they'll take your whole fucking arm."

This bill would give internet censorship a foot in the door. It will result in internet users using new methods of evading these restrictions. These new creative ways of evading these restrictions will call for more restrictions/censorship of the internet. This cycle will keep going on until the internet will be nothing like it is today.

The worst part is if there are already laws/restrictions in place, it will be a lot easier to just slide new restrictions through. It's not like you get to vote on it. This is just stage 1.

No restrictions is the way to go. Politicians tried to censor the internet in Australia with the 'this is just to stop pedophile sites' bullshit stamp. Which in reality would be good if it could be pulled off and only block pedo sites. I would 100% support it. However sites such as fourchan (with a 4 instead of four of course, ironically I'm censored from typing it correctly ) and redtube were on the list, that are not sites of this nature.

It's a classic bait and switch.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w6GtwOvnWM

man hope it doesnt go down again

This topic is as hot as the legalizing of marijuana topic, and very similar. I say legalize the herbs and leave the internet the way it is :rofl:

they need to attack godaddy!

anonymous are fags!.

I think a point about it effecting us all is that take for instance if there is a comment posted on your blog or website from somone else that may contain a link to pirated material then bam your webiste is gone with no warnings they will take the website down just for that comment.

So this in my opinion will lead to blogs/websites that the government doesn't like maybe because they are saying things about them or things that the government don't agree with suddenly ending up with an anonymous comment on them linking to pirated material and the website dissapearing.

Before we know it everything we see on the internet will have been censored by the U.S government using this bill as a cover which IMO is NOT at all a good thing.

Kickflip said:

I think SOPA has the possibility to lead to lower costs for accessing entertainment, and larger budgets for production leading to higher quality. Imagine if EVERY movie had the budgets of Avatar, Transformers, Harry Potter etc. Imagine if we got twice as many amazing movies released every year. Imagine if we didn't have to wait so long to see new release movies at home.

Click to expand...

Cool Story, bro

Wow you call Avatar, Transfomers and Harry Potter amazing movies.
Special Effects + (No|Stupid) Story thats what they are.
Not our fault they make shit movies and pay actors ridiculous salaries.
You don't need fucking $500M to make a good movie

God the SOPA supporters should hire you as a spokesperson

Kickflip said:

Shit like this CAN change the world for the better. It can cause us to innovate.

Click to expand...

Kickflip said:

Yes! That is exactly the same! Brilliant reply!

Child labor is not necessarily a negative thing. Exploitation isn't necessarily a negative thing. I wouldn't generally speak out against Child labor, because there are too many variables involved that I know NOTHING about, and I am sure you know nothing about it in detail either. So in that sense, it IS somewhat similar to SOPA.

If children were not allowed to work in third world countries, I am sure many of them would starve to death. In some 3rd world countries, a 10 year kid is probably a lot more physically capable of earning income to purchase food for his family, then a 50 year old man is. Why would you speak out against allowing a capable person from making money to feed their family?

So yes, please do NOT speak out against child labor without doing some more research on the subject.

Now that we have that figured out, do you want to pull your sarcastic head out of your ass and tell us all why we should oppose SOPA?

Click to expand...

You should do your own research and watch some documentaries that bust that "they are more capable of feeding their families this way" argument. There are many but I advise you watch "The Corporation" and read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein.

I am sure you won't though as you sound very much like a know-it-all.

And exploitation is by definition (=necessarily) a negative thing.

JDRic said:

And exploitation is by definition (=necessarily) a negative thing.

Click to expand...

That is simply not true. Exploitation does NOT mean a negative thing by definition.

Definition of exploiting - 1 : to make productive use of.

You can mean exploitation in a negative way, but that is not the only meaning.

mightybh said:

Anonymous has lost it. They sound like a bunch of kids now. They should hire a copywriter to write them a new video that does not sound like a 10 year old made it.

Also DDosing and attacking is not the best policy against something like this. Reddit has it right with all the boycotts and moving domains out of godaddy etc. These morons on the other hand will only show congress how rogue the internet is and make them take more measures to stop such attacks in the future and do more censorship. Then media will pick this up and spin it.

They should spend their time educating the public instead. Tell people that their favorite sites might get shut down as a result.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are right....hope they can do it....

Kickflip said:

That is simply not true. Exploitation does NOT mean a negative thing by definition.

Definition of exploiting - 1 : to make productive use of.

You can mean exploitation in a negative way, but that is not the only meaning.

Click to expand...

Some words get to mean different things in time.

exploitation
1803, "productive working" of something, a positive word among those who used it first, though regarded as a Gallicism, from Fr. exploitation, from exploiter (see exploit (v.)). Bad sense developed by 1850s, in part from French, also perhaps influenced by U.S. anti-slavery

And we are not in 1800s.

JDRic said:

Some words get to mean different things in time.

exploitation
1803, "productive working" of something, a positive word among those who used it first, though regarded as a Gallicism, from Fr. exploitation, from exploiter (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exploit (v.)). Bad sense developed by 1850s, in part from French, also perhaps influenced by U.S. anti-slavery

And we are not in 1800s.

Click to expand...

"OK" if you think Exploitation ONLY means negative, you are crazy. It is entirely based on the context with which is it used. Yes, most people use it as a negative word, but that doesn't change the fact that you can use Exploitation as a positive word. Why are you wasting your time on something that is factually incorrect?

Chidren in many cities without schools are able to earn enough money to survive, even without a proper education, thanks to exploitation of the low cost of living.

Kickflip your always getting into arguments

davids355 said:

Kickflip your always getting into arguments

Click to expand...

It's weird, I feel like I am cursed or something.

Generally there is a negative connotation to the word exploit, especially if you are talking about living entities. I see it as another way of saying 'take advantage of'. You can take advantage of things in a good way, e.g. take advantage of new technology, take advantage of an opportunity. It's all about context. I don't see it as a positive to take advantage of people/animals. Why not use a word like utilise/utilize?

Kickflip said:

Why even post that? Nowhere did I say I WANT children to be FORCED into labor. But I would like the RIGHT for children to seek legal employment, when school is not an option. If a child has to choose between working in a factory, or starving to death, you want them to starve to death. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

And I'm sure the website owners that would be affected by SOPA would like the RIGHT to defend their websites from being shut down in court. But they can't under this law they are FORCIBLY shut down with out any type of hearing, court case or anything.

mdsurf said:

And I'm sure the website owners that would be affected by SOPA would like the RIGHT to defend their websites from being shut down in court. But they can't under this law they are FORCIBLY shut down with out any type of hearing, court case or anything.

Click to expand...

SOPA doesn't bypass having to go to court to get an injunction against something, it mentions that the DOJ and copyright owners have to go to court.