You are proceeding to a page containing mature content. Is this OK?

check Yes, show me everything
close No, hide anything sensitive

Top 30 Anime of 2014 – According to 2ch


2ch has handily assembled a fancy video depicting what they consider to be the top 30 anime of 2014, with their picks not surprisingly differing a little from denizens of other sites.

The aesthetic video ranking:

The ranking, in list form:

1. Barakamon


2. Ping Pong the Animation


3. Monthly Girls’ Nozaki-kun


4. Kill la Kill


5. Fate/stay Night: Unlimited Blade Works


6. Yama no Susume 2


7. Locodol


8. Aldnoah Zero


9. Knights of Sidonia


10. Gochuumon wa Usagi desu ka?


11. Love Live! Season 2

12. Wake Up Girls!

13. Rage of Bahamut: Genesis

14. Mushishi Zoku Shou

15. Yuuki Yuuna is a Hero

16. Mikakunin de Shinkokei

17. Nagi no Asukara

18. Space Dandy

19. Psycho-Pass 2

20. The Irregular at Magic High School

21. Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure: Stardust Crusaders

22. Sabagebu!

23. Hanayamata

24. Nisekoi

25. No Game, No Life

26. Gundam Build Fighters

27. Brunhildr in the Darkness

28. Space Dandy Season 2

29. Amagi Brilliant Park

30. Sword Art Online II

Leave a Comment


  • who the fuck is even watching fate/stay every damn year. i bit on fate/zero only to see its the same show as the original with better art. story sucks, characters are all cunts. whats the draw here?

  • What amazes me is that this list doesn’t reflect at all in sales for any of the titles. A lot of shows on this list did quite poorly. Fans can vote them as being awesome but they sure as hell aint buying them.

  • Very good list. I’m glad to see that 2ch will always be a place of moderately good tastes that will keep these casual “new to anime” faggots mad. “Hello I am Pablo from Brazil and i like Naruto and Attack on Titan, I am Otaku yes!? xD”

    Kill la Kill yourselves

  • Home
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    Defending your rights in the digital world
    Search form

    Our Work
    Deeplinks Blog
    Press Room
    Take Action

    Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

    What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

    (1) IP chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.

    (2) Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.

    The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. The TPP contains a chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, patents and perhaps, geographical indications. Since the draft text of the agreement has never been offically released to the public, we know from leaked documents, such as the February 2011 draft US TPP IP Rights Chapter [PDF], that US negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

    The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

    All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked US-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current US law.

    The leaked US IP chapter includes many detailed requirements that are more restrictive than current international standards, and would require significant changes to other countries’ copyright laws. These include obligations for countries to:

    Place Greater Liability on Internet Intermediaries: The TPP would force the adoption of the US DMCA Internet intermediaries copyright safe harbor regime in its entirety. For example, this would require Chile to rewrite its forward-looking 2010 copyright law that currently establishes a judicial notice-and-takedown regime, which provides greater protection to Internet users’ expression and privacy than the DMCA.

    Regulate Temporary Copies: Treat temporary reproductions of copyrighted works without copyright holders’ authorization as copyright infringement. The language reveals a profound disconnect with the reality of the modern computer, as all routine computer functions rely upon the regular creation of temporary copies of programs and files. As drafted, the related provision creates chilling effects not just on how we behave online, but also on the basic ability of people and companies to use and create on the Web.

    Expand Copyright Terms: Create copyright terms well beyond the internationally agreed period in the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TPP could extend copyright term protections from life of the author + 50 years, to Life + 70 years for works created by individuals, and either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation for corporate owned works (such as Mickey Mouse).

    Enact a “Three-Step Test” Language That Puts Restrictions on Fair Use: The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is putting fair use at risk with restrictive language in the TPP’s IP chapter. US and Australia have proposed very restrictive text, while other countries such as Chile, New Zealand, and Malaysia, have proposed more flexible, user-friendly terms.

    Escalate Protections for Digital Locks: It will compel signatory nations to enact laws banning circumvention of digital locks (technological protection measures or TPMs) [PDF] that mirror the DMCA and treat violation of the TPM provisions as a separate offense even when no copyright infringement is involved. This would require countries like New Zealand to completely rewrite its innovative 2008 copyright law, as well as override Australia’s carefully-crafted 2007 TPM regime exclusions for region-coding on movies on DVDs, videogames, and players, and for embedded software in devices that restrict access to goods and services for the device—a thoughtful effort by Australian policy makers to avoid the pitfalls experienced with the US digital locks provisions. In the US, business competitors have used the DMCA to try to block printer cartridge refill services, competing garage door openers, and to lock mobile phones to particular network providers.

    Ban Parallel Importation: Ban parallel importation of genuine goods acquired from other countries without the authorization of copyright owners.

    Adopt Criminal Sanctions: Adopt criminal sanctions for copyright infringement that is done without a commercial motivation, based on the provisions of the 1997 US No Electronic Theft Act.

    In short, countries would have to abandon any efforts to learn from the mistakes of the US and its experience with the DMCA over the last 12 years, and adopt many of the most controversial aspects of US copyright law in their entirety. At the same time, the US IP chapter does not export the limitations and exceptions in the US copyright regime like fair use, which have enabled freedom of expression and technological innovation to flourish in the US. It includes only a placeholder for exceptions and limitations. This raises serious concerns about other countries’ sovereignty and the ability of national governments to set laws and policies to meet their domestic priorities.

    Non-Transparent and On The Fast Track

    Despite the broad scope and far-reaching implications of the TPP, negotiations for the agreement have taken place behind closed doors and outside of the checks and balances that operate at traditional multilateral treaty-making organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization.

    Like ACTA, the TPP is being negotiated rapidly with little transparency. During the TPP negotiation round in Chile in February 2011, negotiators received strong messages from prominent civil society groups demanding an end to the secrecy that has shielded TPP negotiations from the scrutiny of national lawmakers and the public. Letters addressed to government representatives in Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand and the US emphasized that both the process and effect of the proposed TPP agreement is deeply undemocratic. TPP negotiators apparently discussed the requests for greater public disclosure during the February 2011 negotiations, but took no action.

    Why You Should Care

    TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens.

    The US Trade Rep is pursuing a TPP agreement that will require signatory counties to adopt heightened copyright protection that advances the agenda of the US entertainment and pharmaceutical industries agendas, but omits the flexibilities and exceptions that protect Internet users and technology innovators.

    The TPP will affect countries beyond the 11 that are currently involved in negotiations. Like ACTA, the TPP Agreement is a plurilateral agreement that will be used to create new heightened global IP enforcement norms. Countries that are not parties to the negotiation will likely be asked to accede to the TPP as a condition of bilateral trade agreements with the US and other TPP members, or evaluated against the TPP’s copyright enforcement standards in the annual Special 301 process administered by the US Trade Rep.
    Here’s what you can do:

    Are you in the United States?

    Tell U.S. lawmakers to stand up for your digital rights and preserve our constitutional checks and balances in government. Demand your state representatives oppose any initiative to enact Fast Track (aka Trade Promotion Authority), which hands their own constitutional authority to debate and modify trade law.

    Join EFF and more than 30,000 people in sending a message to Congress members to demand an end to these secret backdoor negotiations. Tell the White House to uphold openness and transparency in TPP negotiations.

    For close analysis of the TPP and its impacts on digital rights, visit Knowledge Ecology International’s TPP resource page.

    For more information on other aspects of the TPP, visit Public Citizen’s resource page.