http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/27/anonymous_japan_ddos/

Long story short, Japan made new amendments to their copyright laws. For those caught with pirated material such as music or pirated DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, fines could run as high as $25,000 and carry a sentence of two years in prison. So, Anonymous did what they do best, hack Japan. Discuss.

Not sure if approve or disapprove here. Mostly neutral.

On one hand, Anon's reasoning sounds legitimate - It would result in a great number of otherwise innocent people suffering through exorbitant fines, and it won't really affect the core issue at hand. In sort - The people who don't actively affect the problem will be the only ones really hit by it.

On the other hand, it's easy to say "that won't work", but if they don't offer alternatives to the provided effort - Then it's just vague, needless criticism.

Unlike in the States SOPA got a lot of notice but the laws Japan passed were done in secret. I was expecting something like this to happen.

So basically: "We can't steal stuff anymore! They're taking away rights!"

>>4 isnt it illegal anyways? Like those fbi warning things in the beginning of old movies, isnt this the same exact thing?

It is illegal, I don't think anyone really debates that - The problem is the laws being passed. Legislature is generally bad, due to the fact that when laws are passed specifically concerning something - It will be looked at and applied in ways it was most likely not intended to be.

So the issue lies not with the law or intent behind it, but how that law will be applied at later dates and towards whom it may be interpreted to concern.

Is it a law that effects others outside of Japan? Because (if true) it'll eventually turn into everything they tried to do here. They may have passed it, but just you wait.

>>4
yeah, something like that.

the dudes who pirate and complain to something like this are fools because:
1. they ARE stealing.
2. they should OWN it up like a man ...if they get caught
3. how bout the rights of the people who made the whatever they pirated? it's hard living on show business and music.

thus i say it's not really illegal. i mean they (pirates) do know they're stealing, right? they should fully accept the punishment.

Someone posted a picture before on Facebook, that said there is a difference in Stealing and Piracy.

With stealing, you take the product. No more of that 1 piece you stole.

With Piracy, you're only taking a copy, thus the original is still there.

>>9 If you steal a CD, you're stealing a copy.

>>10, you just read my mind! XD

>>10
But that is 1 less copy of it, is where I'm getting with this.
I didn't think about it like this before.
But when you pirate, no money is lost because the copy is still there to sell.

There are more people buying the products, than compared to those who pirate it, more times than not.

both parties are technically at fault. japan passed these laws in secret without any real vote or public opinion. yet at the same time it's designed to stop piracy.

however it helps to look through a pirate's POV. either they pirate the desired program/movie/game or they don't buy it at all. either way the company won't make a profit.

>>12 If you pirate then they still lose money because you aren't paying for the product. The only difference is one is physical,the other is data.

>>14
They lose nothing but a potential sale. A potential sale. Think about it. They don't lose anything tangible or anything they already have. The chance that you /might/ buy it goes down. Thats all.

>>15 A song is $1.99 on Itunes, I believe.

Lets say 100,000 people pirate it. That's a loss of $200,000.00 in sales.

Still. They easily make the money back due to the sales they are earning. The stuff being pirated, easily sells 10 times more than that in which they take. In a day, they sell more than that in which is pirated in a week.

It is illegal, and I thought like you, till I realized the numbers involved. No one is 'going' hungry due to pirates. No one is losing more than they put into what they make. 200 thousand is still chump change.

>>16
Potential sales. The pirates do not reach into someones account and remove $200,000. They lose money they could have and might still earn, but have not yet earned, rather than money they already have.

First, the law doesn't accomplish anything useful. The "serious" pirates, who actually might reduce profits somewhat, will never be caught. The only people the law /can/ punish are the casual pirates, who typically either cannot afford the product (in which case they would never pay for it anyway, and nothing is lost) or pirate songs to sample them prior to actually buying the album (meaning that stopping them actually hurts sales).

But the publishing executives who push these laws through know that they won't do anything to stop piracy. Wat they're interested in is that $25000 fine, because every time they catch one of their customers they are now legally allowed to just take all of their money and ruin their life.

>>17 They also earn money back on other sales if you stole a CD in just the same way.

>>18 I'm not reaching into someone's pocket and taking out $15 if I steal a CD either, but I'm still stealing.

No money is lost, though. It's only lost if they don't earn it back, and most pirates only pirate from the big time corporations. They might lose a small, penny sized portion, but that isn't going to amount to much. they still will be rich. They still will not go hungry. They still will have their money. Now it's wrong to pirate, but it's nor hurting them.

Not*

When you steal something, you usually flip and sell it. Pirating provides NO INCOME! to the one that does it, or the one that distributes it. That is the major diff between stealing and pirating. Why are these governments even trying to crack down on online pirating when I can go to my local neighborhood black market and buy a pair of "Nike"s for 9$?

These goods need facilities and factories to be manufactured, pirating needs a laptop in a public library or a Starbucks. Other then putting people down, is there any reason for this?

http://en.rocketnews24.com/2012/06/30/japan-teases-anonymous-for-hacking-the-wrong-site-with-anime-characters/

And many wwws were had amongst the Japanese.

Also, don't try forcing yourself trying to understand how internet society works there, this is a country where possession of child pornography is A-OK (seriously, the only other country in the G8 that does this is Russia), while uploading an album gets you in well, a lot of shit.

>>24 ... WOOOOOOW. That's just all sorts of fail. I just... WOW.

>>24 ...

...

...

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Yeah like that's going to stop anyone.

are there any dollars who are apart of Anonymous?

Well I'm kinda in the middle about this issue. Pirating in general sounds like something bad, something we should stop, but in reality, it's not as big of an issue as some companies make it out to be. Yes they will lose a few sales, but nothing that will directaly hinder their profits-as the truth is, more then 3/4 of the world has no idea how to pirate really anything. (excluding "stealing" music from Youtube, something which any middle schooler can fingrue out) I also kinda get the feeling of "good for them" when thinking about Anon's work. Their fighting for something they believe in, something that likely won't even effect most of them> But never the less their still working hard to protect something they care about, and I think that pretty cool.

.

.

Go Anonymous! Free stuff rules!

>>21 I'm not saying that anyone's going hungry, just that technically, pirating is stealing, which is illegal in the first place.

>>23...No. Most people steal something because it's something they want. Flipping and selling it is much riskier.And a black market isn't some dumbass who stole some shit.

>>32 Until everybody stops making anything at all because there's no profit. No profit = no product. No product = no free stuff.

hmmm. The problem I see is the definition of steeling. I mean, If I buy a CD and a friends buys a CD and make a copy for each other, I don't see much problems. Who really has money to buy every CD they want and what not? Maybe once a year I can buy one CD. That's the world we live in now a days. We both get the CD we wanted, and still payed money. But going online a down loading fifty CDs with out paying anything.... That's not right. We wont HAVE music if this keeps up. Companies wont have enough money to pay the artist, the artist wont have jobs and will stop making music. Way to go illegal down loaders! And that holds true for anything pirated.

Idk, maybe I'm ranting. As for Anonymous. I see pros and cons. I like that there are people out there willing to stand up for the people and have the means of doing so, but at the same time.... I just hope Anonymous can tell the difference between what our RIGHTS as human beings are, what PRIVILEGES we as humans need to earn, and what is WRONG despite what we WANT. Just because you want it doesn't mean you need it, doesn't mean you've earned it, doesn't mean you get it.

>>35 "Who can buy CDs?"
People with jobs.

I think Japan is wrong, as well as our government. Charging people who pirate isn't going to help anything, whether it's morally right or wrong. If you backtrace and charge the people who originally copy and post the materials, fine, but charging the people who take the stuff once it's up is a waste of time. Until you're caught, rules are meant to be broken; I have no problem with pirating, morally, but if you're caught, you better suck up and deal with the reprecussions.

>>37 What? Rules aren't meant to be broken. More often than not they're to protect something. That's why there are consequences to breaking them.

>>36 Dude, when both my parents and me were working full time and my little sister worked part time while going to school we still barely had enough money for food. Most the time the last week of the month there would be nothing at all except ketch up, caned tomatoes, and pizza sauce. No, I never had money to buy CDs. And it's about the same for everyone growing up in my home town.

>>39 Then it sounds like you need a new job. A CD is about 15 dollars. If all you can manage is 15 a year and your entire family is working, something's not right.

>>40, Yeah, because everyone can afford to just quit their job and get a new one. Because there are enough jobs available for that.

>>41 I know it's hard. I'd spent months trying and getting turned down for jobs before turning to the Air Force. I never even got an interview. But tough doesn't mean it isn't worth trying.

>>43 ...that first statement. Goddamn did that come out weird. I'm just gonna... redo that.

>>38 When laws get stupid, why not.

It seems like there's a law about everything these days, and a lot of it has nothing to do with your well-being. Plenty of them have to do with the government or other businesses getting your money. Some of the laws getting passed these days are ridiculous, and it's not just America.

Whether or not you agree with that part doesn't change that charging people for torrenting rather than charging the people who put the torrents up in the first place is a retarded ide- I mean, a useless fiasco. In case you haven't realized it yet, they're mainly just using this to make money. [Conspiracy theory time~] Why do you think they're targetting the people who download the torrents rather than those who put them up?

Here are some points to keep in mind.
1. There are more people who download them than people who put them up.
2. If they charge the people who put the torrents up, there won't be as many people who download the torrents to charge.
3. If they're making so much money on the people they charge, why would they want to actually stop torrenting?

Here are the government's main options (read with the previous list in mind):
A. Stop the people who are uploading things instead of those who are downloading. They won't make as much money, but it would stop torrenting and help the music industry.
B. Stop the people who are downloading things more than those who are uploading things. They'll make more money, but it won't stop torrenting or help the music industry.
C. Don't do anything, not make money, and not help anything or anyone at all.

Considering it's a government we're talking about, they would probably go with whatever plan means that they can charge get more money from. Which plan do you think works that way? (/coughBcough)

It's a stupid law in the first place, and the probable thought process behind it is even worse. Trust me, I'm all for buying the actual CD's or iTunes songs if you can afford it. But if the music is online, and you're not the richest person on Earth, why not? Somebody put it out there, didn't they? I believe in using your resources to your fullest rather than wasting your resources just to seem politically proper.

I think the people who actually make the CD's available online should be the ones charged.

God. It's like the government is trying to kill a giant tree that's in the way of a building by trimming its branches every now and again. They get wood, but they'll never get around to killing it if all they do is cut a few branches. There are thousands of branches to cut. Instead of doing that, why not cut the tree at it's base, or better yet, break it from its roots entirely?

The branches symbolize the people who download it. The base would be the sites that support the downloads, which still have a chance of being remade at any point if they're shut down. The roots symbolize the people who are actually making the shit available online in the first place.

>>44 Sometimes they need to be broken, but they raen't made to be broken.

And actually, there was a court ruling (in the US) stating that it was the distributors of file sharing software that were reosponsible, not the people who used it.