Civil disobedience is a very well-defined term in its proper usage, and does not extend to all forms of "breaking the law because you're angry about something".
Civil disobedience goes like this:
1. You observe that a law is unjust (no blacks at the front of the bus, no Indians making salt)
2. You break that law, and only that law, deliberately and openly.
3. You get arrested and punished.
4. The fact that you're being punished for breaking an unjust law draws attention to that unjust law.
DDoSing a website is only civil disobedience if you think that laws against DDoSing a website are unjust, and if you plan to get caught and punished for doing it.
"Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government" - Wikipedia.
Based on that definition I would say those guys managed to actively disobey many laws, including the unjust and discriminatory ones.
If this one guy is hitting another guy do you have the moral right to use force to stop him? I'd say yes, or at least I'd sacrifice my moral purity to defend that person. However in the case of anonymous vs MPAA/RIAA, is there a moral right to sidestep laws (unrelated to copyright, btw) just because the MPAA/RIAA doesn't let people get movies and music for free? Copyright is different from DoS attacking. Choose what you stand for clearly. If you truly believe in DoS attacks AND anti-copyright go ahead and actively disobey both (not that you're automatically right). But if you only believe in disobeying one and breaking the other law just to further your motive in the former objective, well then that's bad.
Well, I'm not American and I'm not especially familiar with all the details of US history, so this is the first I've heard of this particular event. However, I'll have a read of the wikipedia article (there's a longer article about the actual event linked from the one on the location) and see what I think.
Well, it certainly doesn't fit the definition of "Civil Disobedience" under any circumstances. Whether it was justified or not is a question I'll leave to others with more knowledge of the era... but to me it certainly doesn't seem to me like it was a good way to pursue the political aim of ending slavery.
We'll, we're discussing the MPAA, which is an American organization, American civil disobedience with regard to Rosa Parks, Harpers Ferry and the catalyst for the American Civil War.
When you say, "Civil disobedience goes like this:", but are not American, don't live in America, and are unfamilair with the history of citizen's rights within the US, you are, for lack of a better phrase, talking out of your anus.
No what 4chan is doing is akin to telling a white person to go to the back of the bus in retribution.
Of course nothing is perfect, which is why if you don't believe in the democratic and judicial process then you might as well have anarchy and take everything into your own hands. We don't have a government because it's perfect. We have it because it allows us to funnel all problems with respect to it. A standardized process with which to improve society instead of having mobs act on impulse everytime they get angry.
No, it's like telling George Wallace to go to the back of the bus. If the MPAA wants to be the chief asshole of the internet then they don't get to play in it with the rest of us. It's not the downfall of society, it's just a little mischief to compensate for an obviously broken democracy. It has always happened and always should.
Then let us shed some blood and refresh the tree of liberty. Who cares about the MPAA. Let's DoS the government so we can fix it. For if we ignore the root of the problem we'll have to keep being mischievous to compensate for everything, and then what are we? We would no longer be civil, and disobedience would govern us. Seriously what's the problem? Government or one anomaly that is the MPAA? If it's the former then well need more than a little mischief. We'll need revolution (or at the least major reform)! If the latter, then why the mischief, go through proper channels.
Or maybe this is about having our constitutional right to bear cyber arms (and use at will). In which case I would encourage every cyber citizen to ignore the unjust anti-DoS laws and proudly use his/her low orbit ion cannons at will. that would be civil disobedience.
Sure we're angry at the MPAA. We can choose not to accept their terms (by not buying or pirating). Or if you don't believe in copyright, pirate the stuff and take on the legal consequences. But stooping to their level is dishonorable, and questionable in motive. Sure these dos guys are probably kids but we should encourage them to hold back and fight back honorably.
What, precisely, has the MPAA done that is so wrong?
Personally I'd take the copyright debate a lot more seriously if I could separate the folks who have legitimate and well thought-out points to make about the weaknesses of existing copyright law from the folks who just want to get stuff for free.
> What, precisely, has the MPAA done that is so wrong?
I know right? If they did something wrong point that out. Attacking them because you think they're assholes and you feel like it is just plain immature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
It very well could indicate a flaw in democracy, nothing is perfect.