Slashdot Mirror
Napster Going Offshore?
BananaBoht writes: "According to this article, a Canadian named Matt Goyer plans to set up a Napster clone server off the shores of the UK on a sovreign island. Mr. Goyer is eyeing HavenCo Ltd. as a possible site for his cloned Napster computer server. The company rents computing power and Internet data storage space to those seeking to avoid government laws. It operates from an ocean platform called Sealand, which has operated for 30 years as a sovereign territory off the coast of England."
Guam is a US territory. While some laws might be looser, a Napster-sized copyright infringer in Guam would be shut down pronto. Taiwan has too much trade with the US - massive pressure would be applied. Even mainland China is starting to crack down on piracy as it tries to join the WTO and become part of the world economic community. Sealand will be pressured, but maybe they can pull it off. ... the VCR eeked through the courts because it had multiple uses, some legit.
If the software is single purpose (rip-off the music companies), it may not make it anywhere. If the software is a multipurpose distributed file sharing/internet file system, then it might make it
Heck, I think this could work. Back during the US prohibition, many cops looked the other way. It was only when people started getting 'whacked' that law enforcement really started to crack down. Probably the same will happen here. Oh the governments will cry foul, but will secretly love the way out. They are being caught in the crossfire of those who voted them into office and those who financed them.
(please forgive my comparison of apples and oranges (consensual crime and quasi-crime))
Sterling"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
It does not matter where the servers are. If you are a Canadian living in Canada you are subject to Canadian Law.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
> a young-at-heart Missourian of my acquaintance
> "plans" to father the children of Natalie Portman,
Good plan.
> but he'd be the first to admit it's a long and
> complicated process
Well, it is not *that* complicated, really. And it doesn't need to take *that* long, just ask Al Bundy.
> with no guarantee of success.
Then you try again. Getting there is (at least) half the fun, just don't ask Al Bundy.
> For a start, he has no money,
Well *that* is likely to be a big problem.
While its really great that people come up with "solutions" like this, it only serves as fodder for people who consider what napster was doing to be illegal activity. By running to another country and hiding, it makes the cause seem no better than imbezzlement. If we honestly believe that sharing music is a right that we deserve to have, then it should be fought for in the courts, or through the legislature. Otherwise we all look like criminals running to another country to continue our illegal activities.
So people who look on this as a good thing really need to take a step back and realize the whole context of what has happened. We've been denied something that a great majority of us believe we deserve to have. The ability to share music. That right has been denied to us and we've decided to give up going through the proper channels to get our right. That is why we all lost when napster lost. We all counted on them to do the fighting and we sat back prepping gnutella for the time when it would be necessary and hoping we'd somehow win in the end without having to try. When you're fighting tons of money you need an equal amount of effort in order to win. We deserve what we got.
If the US government were to send in the marines they'd be invading another country. A declaration of war. That would violate more treaties than you can count. The repercussions would be horrendous politcally.
That got me laughing real, real hard. The USA do not care for international treaties. Have never, will never. Examples: Iraq, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, Iraq, LaGrand, Iraq, Kosovo, Iraq, ABM Treaty, Iraq. You think Bush would hesitate for a steel plate sitting on a stone?
Censorship on Slashdot
The (then) colonial powers 'united' a lot of ethnical groups into 'territories' , (India, Indonesia, Congo, etc. for example). After these territories became independent they were basically countries made up out of ethnical groups that never chose to unite for themselves. In a lot of these countries the colonial government was merely replaced by a government of a dominant ethnical group. (the Javanese in Indonesia for example) This 'unnatural' situation has been the cause of many ethnical tensions resulting in violence in ex-colonial 'countries' like Indonesia, India, Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia etc. etc. Whilst I'm not making any judgment on who benefitted more from colonization (colonies or colonizers), the problems I have described are IMO at least partially based on the results of colonization....
Although, if I understand correctly, the main force behind colonization was the seeking of profit, spice-trade in far-East, slave-trade in Africa, gold in South-America ad South-Africa, the exepction maybe being North-America. (don't know about that)
IRC
Isn't this the way it always used to be done? If you're hooked on Napster, just learn to use mIRC and you'll be raking in the tunes in no time.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
It also doesn't protect the individual server sites in the US which are the ones really breaking the copyright laws by effectively offering on demand broadcast service for the music which is subject to royalties.
Sorry, I should have added this: The US, and the Falklands for that matter, were not considered actually *part* of the UK, only colonies. Hence UK law did not necessarily apply there. Sealand could only be claimed as part of England proper.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
should read havenco.com of course. sorry for that.
And further, if Sealand is a sovereign nation, the right to 12 mile territorial waters apply to Sealand as well, together with rules regulating the division in cases where there isn't more than 24 miles between the bodies of land (and thus both parties can't get a full 12 miles).
Whether anybody will recognize Sealand as a sovereign nation is of course a completely different issue, considering how hard it is even for entire well established groups of people with their own languages and culture to get their own nations, even in "civilized Europe".
How much bandwidth do you get over sattelites? And who ownes them? Do you own the satts, or do you just rent time on them?
Just curious...
-- juju
I agree, and as someone that has read animal farm, I agree more than most can. Just remember, "two legs bad" for now then when the RIAA is on two legs we will see the otherside.
eg: "The net is bad!!!" untill we control it.
IF your really afraid of corps ruling us, read http://www.adbusters.org
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
I'm not even sure if it's worth pointing this out, but do you not think that the RIAA might, just perhaps, have got in touch with some IT consultants who do understand 'this routing shit', sometime before the Napster case went to court? Maybe?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
So the real question is: Does Sealand have its own ICANN approved TLD like .uk, .ca, or .tv? Surely that is the real 21st century test of whether a country can be considered sovereign! ;-)
--
Keep attacking good things as "communist"
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Since when was Iraq well connected to the internet? I think trade restrictions might limit their connectivity.
But why waste time with a lump of concrete like Sealand, it's not yet been proven to be untouchable.
Why not Russia or China, as far as I know the RIAA lawyers wouldn't be able to do much there and Russia seems pretty well connected these days.
Personally I'd rather see a cryptographic true peer to peer network, that way they'll have to sue each and every user.
That (apparently) isn't the case. Check out the Sealand history page:
"The previous day, Prince Roy declared the extension of Sealand's territorial waters to be a like 12 nautical miles, so that right of way from the open sea to Sealand would not be blocked by British claimed waters."
We haven't moved www.havenco.com or www.sealandgov.com yet, and we set them up before we had service on Sealand. Since one of our investors runs a US ISP, we got a free box in colo there, so there's no real rush to move.
I've been working on some decent demo-services to host out of our space on Sealand, since most of our customers so far as pretty much internal-use-only.
It would take only very minimal checking to find servers on Sealand, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
But the real question is whether Sealand is an actual country or not. UK has questioned the sovernty of the island, but has not forced the issue. This may force UK to make a decision.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Eventually the RIAA and MPAA will demand that the Internet as we know it be dismantled in favour of a networking protocol that is better at supporting censorship. Eventually they'll demand an Internet that has "providers", who are big companies that can afford legal fees and scrupulously provide only legal content, and "users" who can send email and read content provided by "providers" but who can't afford the legal fees needed to publish anything, and whose communication with each other is heavily mediated by the "providers" taking legal responsibility. They'll want changes to the law, backed by new international conventions, that make even Slashdot illegal, because Slashdot can't guarantee someone won't put DeCSS here.
I'm sorry, but did I just sleep through something here? Since when is providing "illegal" content now legal on the Internet? How is giving away a corporations intellectual property for free without reimbursing them legal? Personally I think mp3 sharing is wonderful, but if we want it to truly be legal we should for our governments to enact legislation to do away with intellectual property rights altogether including copyrights, trademarks, and patents, etc. Let the free market really decide what products live or die instead of having artificial government monopolies supporting these companies in their quest to rape the public out of its money. Oh wait, I forgot... that would be communism. Government supported monopolies are part of capitalism. Silly me.
Admitted, they had the guts to fire (warning shots) at naval vessels.
Unless these are different shots than the ones I'm aware of, they were from a shotgun. Last I heard, HMG reserved the right to send a couple of destroyers and a detachment of Royal Marines over for a quick word. Sealand has "survived" by not rocking the boat, and if they become a serious irritant, they can expect to be closed down pretty sharpish, and if necessary with extreme prejudice.
How much time before the RIAA starts putting the pressure on the ISP linking Sealand to the shore?
Tell that to Manuel Noriega. We seem to have killed hundreds/thousands of foreign nationals to get him, too. Oh, and has he ever been tried for a crime yet, or is he still in limbo?
This is honestly great for the napster community.
I wish everyone involved the best of luck. The only problem I can see, is the fact that napster might try to pull copyright infringement on this. to be honest, this probibly isn't set in paper anyways, but it's worth a shot.
CONGRATS#$
Cite please.
Your 'facts' are as convincing as "Princess Diana starred in a porn movie" without references.
THL
--
Keeping
This is exactly what I predicted would happen. What I wonder is whether the RIAA will be able to pressure ISPs not to route traffice from that island...
I don't see how this is different to making millions off dealing drugs and storing it in a swiss bank -- or a similiar situation for tax evasion purposes. Maybe (IANAL, so I can only say maybe) this avoids responsibility but does this make it any less illegal? Disclaimer: I am not saying Napster is wrong, just that to try and avoid the legal implications doesn't seem the right way to go about things (IMO)
I am a laweyr, but you'd have to be pretty damned stupid or fancy yourself a sovereign nation (but I repeat myself) to take this as legal advice.
Warning: check your idealism at the door before reading this. It is *entirely* realpolitick/positive law, and not the world as it "should" be.
There certainly is "the Law of Nations," which is ancient. It's a basic and largely unwritten code of conduct between nations (don't kill the other guys diplomats, etc.).
Treaties such as the Geneva Convention have extended these standars.
"International Law" is a newer concept. and is largely wieleded as a buzzword by discontents within a country to achieve what they cannot through the legal process. It tends to be claims of authority for unratified treaties and the like, an attempts to give authority to UN proclamations.
Basically, international law is whatever the victor of the last war says it is, or is willing to abide by. As an example, a "naval salute" in the days of cannons consisted of each ship emptying it's cannons to show that they were no longer prepared to fire on one another. SHips alternated cannons until each was empty. The exception was the Royal Navy (Britain), which was entitled to have the other ship empty its entire battery before emptying its own. Why? Because Britain ruled the seas from the smashing of the Armada until surpassed by the U.S. this century. Today, if we still had such ships, it would be the U.S. receiving the salute from Britain first.
The bottom line is that "international law" means nothing if you don't have the military power to back your position. ANother way of putting it is that today it is whatever the U.S. says it is.
Treaties are another matter, but they are generally not at issue when folks cry "international law."
hawk, esq.
I think you'll find the burden of proof would be the otherway round. The UK Courts or Police would act, and it's would be up to the 'Mr king' of 'Sealand' to challenge this, however he thought fit.
If it is a country then Britain would be on pretty dodgy ground as far as international law went.
Hardly since any actions would be carried out under UK law, by the UK Courts & Police.
Overall I think the best option for a true data haven in an existing 'trusted' tax/banking haven.
> Let's face it, if Britain decided to use force, do
:)
> you seriously think anyone is going to give a damn?
And that, if you refer to my post above (below?) is the crux of international law
Well, on the one side, he successfully raised $10,000 capital to launch fairtunes, but on the other he has singularly failed to get that back in revenue on the site, so raising the $15,000 p.a. to pay for HavenCo location will be a neat trick
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
So basically, you missed the point of this article, which is that Napster is dead, long live Napster. And of course we all know about the pure peer-to-peer filesharing systems out there (Gnutella et. al.) that still have a lot of kinks to work out. Freenet and Gnutella are just starting to be noticed by the RIAA, Congress and others. The reaction is quadrupled fear of a completely unregulatable mechanism. Makes them realize playing nice with a regulatable, controllable service like Napster isn't such a bad idea after all.
The end result will be playing nice with Napster, if the RIAA wants to survive as a money making machine. If they can't adopt, the backlash of fully distributed filesharing will get people used to anonymous, unrestricted, p2p music sharing, and micropayment or subscription service fees for Napster-alikes will have died as a model, thereby killing off the music industy's attempts to ever get involved in digital music distribution.
The Internet to RIAA: Hello gentlemen! All your music are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.
cant you just see the riaa hiring commandos to storm the "soverign" platform and destroying the entire thing. think about the amount of money the riaa has involved in this. people have killed for alot less.
use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
-- john
While I agree with you that the previous guy was not thinking about Sealand's ability to 'defend' itself, I think this goes to show the state of the world as we know it. Here in America, corporate money and giant lobby groups (usually backed by international corps.) usually have an influence in lawmakers and politicians both federally and locally. Not that every politician is guilty of taking corporate contributions, but I would have to say that the real rulers of government have always been those with the most money. The RIAA is a consortium of record labels, right? Well, it makes sense that by using their money and power to sway the leaders of any particular country they could in effect urge a nation to go and 'commandeer', aka attack, Sealand.
People sue foriegn captors for being held hostage, and win judgements against any property they can seize. Anyone operating an illegal service is still liable under US law, even if the servers are in foriegn contries, all that maters is if the plaintifs can reach any assets in a country that will support the judgement. Where copyright treaties exist, it think the defendant dozen have a chance of keeping the clothes on his back.
Be careful! IANAL, but you can be certain that any country that the US trades with will have a trade agreement with the US, which carefully lays out issues such as copyright/trademark infringement, tarriffs, acceptable imports/exports, etc.
Make note of that. Copyrights are an integral part of modern trade, and intellectual property is considered a tradable commodity, and since it can be traded between nations (import/export) trade agreements have to be able to cover it.
The guy might be Canadian, but the Canadian government and the RCMP will be happy to take him down if the government is served with 'sufficient evidence' by US concerns (i.e. the Ratcrabs Illicitly Aggreiving Artists) that he's breaking copyright law.
I hope it doesn't come to that, but look what happened in Norway, not at all that long ago....
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Just like Libya did in the 80s; look how well that turned out. I seem to recall the UK playing a role in breaking that up, too...
The most obvious ending for this is a military attack on Sealand. Egregious copyright violation like this will invite lots of pressure, up to the point where the right government officials are brought on board, money and power change hands, and eventually, a RAF Harrier drops a laser-guided bomb on the server room. The press, of course, trumpet it as a coordinated offensive against an international child pornography ring or something. (It's not like anyone will sort through the debris and prove otherwise.) Only the conspiracy nuts will say otherwise, and they're usually barking about reptilian aliens in the Royal Family and black helicopters and such, so the truth will be buried under crackpot ravings.
So, when can I come on tour and buy some postcards or souvenirs?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
always nice to see the subject of a story posting their comments. thanks for the extensive information as well as providing your personal take on the issue!
That, and that
a) Texas actually was independent, had broken off by military force, and was likely to keep that status on its own,
b) They planned to join the U.S. from the beggining, but were rebuffed.
The material in question is not unlawful UNTIL it reaches the destination server. On the originating server it can be presumed to be fair use.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
They can take a photo of palestine while they're at it too.
no sig.
You like it now when it's free. The problem is that Napster depends on others to provide the content. Once they start charging, the # of songs available will decline sharply.
--
Ty
alSeen@narnia.net
I originally was completely against the idea of a Napster clone that would be outside the RIAA's legeal reach because I am personally opposed to the fact that Napster prevents artists from making money of thier music and the thought of someone else making money of the work of artists either was distasteful to me. But now that I know that the creator of Fairtunes is behind it, some of my reservations have been removed and I have certain requests.
The main problem with Napster is that it does not give one an interface to pay the artist for their work. I've often downloaded songs off Napster and wished that I could click some link and send the artist a few bucks directly. Using Fairtunes and the like is rather inconvenient. Currently to use Fairtunes one has to
- Add artists to your shopping cart as usual
- Proceed to the checkout page
- Note the total amount of your shopping cart
- Click the PayPal button (to mail us the contents of your shopping cart)
- Go to: www.paypal.com
- Send paypal@fairtunes.com the same amount of money as your shopping cart.
Now if the OpenNAP servers that will be on Sealand supported a protocol/client combo that integrated Fairtunes with Napster, I'd be very interested in using this service. Simply replace the ads and HTML crap that Napster streams with "Pay The Artist" links and add an encrypted layer for actually making payments to the artists via Fairtunes. Heck, I'd even work on it if it was Open Sourced(TM).Well, bearing in mind that I'm not scottish and am extrapolating the party's position from their name, I would guess they'd say that its a complete slap in the face to a people with a real history as a nation to even think about extending recognition to a family of egotistical gits playing "castle" on a little fort they have to import drinking water to. (which britain built in the first place).
At least that's what I'd say.
[paraphrase morons] "this is the president of the independant nation of Texas! We are under attack by a forgien power and seeking international aid!" [/paraphrase morons] guess how many nations stepped in?
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Merriam-Webster thinks he may very well be an entrepreneur.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
"I'm sorry, chaps. We know you went through the trouble of declaring war and everything, but we can't let you invade Sealand."
"So you're saying Sealand _is_ a part of the UK? Great, then we'll just bring you up in front of the International Court of Justice for violating articles 11bis and 16 of the Berne Convention."
"Err, on second thought, have fun storming the cast^H^H^H^Hbunker."
Seriously, though, either Sealand's a sovereign nation, in which case obtaining permission from the UK to travel through their territorial waters in order to attack should be fairly trivial. I admit that, given the rocky history between the US and the UK (WW I, WW II, and even the recent joint US/UK bombings on Iraq all come to mind), it might be difficult for us to reach a compromise, but I'm sure we'll work something out.
And if the UK decides that Sealand isn't sovereign territory, then suddenly the regular UK copyright laws take effect. At worst, it would be mildly inconvenient for the RIAA to have to pursue a UK-based legal battle, but I'm more than confident that they've got the money to pull it off.
1) Those from sealand do not travel under Sealand passports, though they hold them.
2) Many people have 'forged' sealand passports that they mistakenly try to travel under.
C'mon!
So why is it that hostages of several foriegn lands have filed suit and won against their captors assets?
... and how many contries are partners in the international copyright treaties?
You can serve the person abroad, and they can choose not to appear, but the cival proceedings can still proceed against them with a strong proof of claim. The defendant "had" their opportunity to return (or hire remote counsel) to defend themselves. Once a judgement has been served, most countries will honor it with a hearing - especially if the actions were illegal in that country too
ARMED security? Okay... Remind me to behave very, very well if I ever visit... :)
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Never underestimate the power of political pressure.
A Bugg
I take it you haven't even bothered asking ICANN for your own geographic TLD ;)
IIRC SeaLand extended its borders to include parts of costal UK shortly before the UK did the same. It's a game, and my bets are on SeaLand.
> It's tolerable. The main problem was that it's rather cold in the winter; -2 to 5 degrees. Only some parts of the structure are heated; some rooms, like the kitchen, are pretty much the same temperature as outside, just without wind -- you can see your breath, the room is about as cold as the fridge, etc.
See the bright side of it. You can host overclocked servers easily.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
If anyone else tries to copy the HavenCo/Sealand...
You'd probably have to kill me if you told me, but has anyone else thought of doing this? Are there other little tiny soverign nations that HavenCO could approach?
Are there any other wackos (and yes, before HavenCo came along those guys were wackos) sitting on used up peices of metal claiming to be king anywhere? I know if I were the British gov't (or American/Japanese/Canadian/etc.) I would've made sure to recount all the abandonned platforms when Sealand first started making waves several years ago...
.sig this!
can someone please do this for scour exchange? please? please?
since "material that is ruled unlawful in the jurisdiction of the originating server" is against the AUP of Havenco"
As a citizen of the right and honourable Canada - I can tell you that 'maintaining a database of MP3 data' is by no means illegal. Dont forget - NapsterServers never EVER EVER actually contain/move/transfer any files, as much as the RIAA would care to mislead otherwise. It only responds to queries. No DMCA here. No Plutocratic Court ruling about 'contributory' infringement (whatever). This activity is certainly not "illegal" in Canada... for now.
Just out of interest, what are the living conditions over there like?
;)
I gather that there's a lot more space than on first glance, the "legs" being inhabitable, but just how much space is there? How often do you leave? How many people are living over there with you?
How're the beds? bedrooms? bathrooms? food? What do you do for entertainment? Do you have a good sound system? (one would think that with a net connection of any great magnitude, you'd go nuts downloading mp3s
Sorry for the barrage of questions, but we (or maybe just I) want answers! Thanks.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
It's not even a natural island... it's a very small platform about the size of a McDonalds, it doesn't even look like an island, it's just resembles an oil platform :)
;-) (how about one of those Tomahawk's the Brits have just bought off the US?)
The Brits could literally blow it off the face of the earth in a second if they wanted to, and do you think these guys are gonna be any defence against a cruise missile?
There's a picture of some geeks inside the place too. And one of the boss, Sean Hastings, did anyone say Alan Cox?
Also, the island has to patch its satellite/microware link back to the mainland somewhere, the government could just put pressure on the upstream provider.
Considering the Brits actually built the island as WW2 defence platform, maybe this could affect the sovereignty of the island. When the courts last ruled on the independence of the platform, it was purely a humours peculiarity bought forward by an ex-military eccentric, obviously they didn't envision data heavens when they made the ruling back in the 60's, after all, who would want a decaying remote platform stuck on the east coast, they thought. I'm sure the government were happy to give the platform away so they didn't have to bother paying maintenance or demolition costs (at the time).
Being only 20 miles of the coast is a little precarious, it could be annexed at any time.
well damn john holmes, all 10 taped? geez I wonder just how much that would hurt when you pulled it off.. much worse than a duct tape gag I would guess.
In which case you must admit, the Australians, the English and the French shouldn't have been there either. In FACT, it's really all the Frenchies fault - we vowed to give Vietnam back to the Vietnameese for their assistance during World War II, and never did - why? Because the French asserted it was theirs and they'd do what they damn well pleased with it. So don't get on our case for something we had to get into because of obligations to our allies - unless you want us to forget about England the next time she needs our help, which wouldn't bother me in the slightest. "British Empire" indeed.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Wow, that'll be quite something when the recording industry starts launching millitary assualts on sovereign nations.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
in the solar federation...
we have assumed control
we have assumed control
we have assumed control
Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
Because that takes them out of the equation! Napster's only potential value is in it's servers, banner ads, and whatever else they come up with now that they have a captive audience.
Well, only one nation, but on the other hand there were really only two countries bordering Texas, and Mexico sure wasn't going to help out.
Of course it helped that Texas had something that the U.S. wanted; Sealand does not. Unfortunately, when it comes to international law there isn't really a higher power; even treaties get broken with relative impunity. If you want to have your own country, you'd better have some powerful friends. Sealand is toast once the U.K. can find or fabricate an excuse to re-occupy it.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
If you read the history, this is the case. I don't recall the exact details but it goes something like this. Sealand is in International waters outside of Englands territory. It was abandoned years ago and the current tenants started living there. Somewhere in Englands laws it says something to the effect that if a territory is abandoned for so long, it is no longer England's and this is where the loophole is. It is past that time period so legally (by England's own laws) it is not theirs any more. England has tried to increase the amount of water they own off their shore to include Sealand, but legal experts say that it is too late, Sealand is it's own country. They have to go to court to decide and England doesn't want to press it for fear of looking foolish if they lose.
It's not like they want to take and hold the place. A good thorough smart bombing would be a much more effective solution. Of course, there is the potential for a public backlash if the RIAA demonstrates the willingness to take lives to protect their profits. I doubt public opinion would be enough to stop the RIAA though. They've shown no regard for it in the past.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Um, the Brits would go apeshit if the US put marrines anywhere near Sealand.
Let me make this totally clear: Sealand is an independent nation entirely surrounded by waters jointly claimed by Sealand and the United Kingdom.
There are lots of places in the world which have jointly claimed waters. The UK and France share miles and miles of jointly claimed waters and I'm sure the USA and Canada do too.
In order for ANY armed group to approach Sealand, they would have to pass through waters claimed by Sealand and the United Kingdom.
There is no fucking way ever, full stop/period, that the UK would allow anyone with guns anywhere near Sealand unless they are part of the UK navy or Sealand government.
I don't understand the whole attitude on this page.
SEALAND AND THE UK ARE NOT PART OF THE USA.
Get it into your head!
US rules and regulations DO NOT APPLY in the UK and Sealand any more than UK/Sealand laws apply in the USA.
The US are nothing more than another bunch of FOREIGNERS as far as we are concerned.
US law is NOT world law. Your rules do not apply. Why the fuck do Americans have such a problem understanding this? Do you spend your whole lives in stuck your country or what? You need to get out more!
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
It's tolerable. The main problem was that it's rather cold in the winter; -2 to 5 degrees. Only some parts of the structure are heated; some rooms, like the kitchen, are pretty much the same temperature as outside, just without wind -- you can see your breath, the room is about as cold as the fridge, etc.
We have water and toilet and such; even a shower. The shower was rationed initially, but now we have a 10 ton capacity watermaker and a few large storage tanks, so it's ok. We're upgrading a lot of the residential features constantly; we don't have satellite TV or anything, although I do have a server with about 130 GB of mp3s, dvds, etc.
for local use. Due to generator and computer noise, I mainly just use headphones.
Everyone has a private room, although when we expand datacenter into a second tower, we might need to construct more accomodations up on deck. Initially we were thinking of housing servers in 20' containers on deck, vs. in the concrete towers, but having 12-24" reinforced concrete around machine rooms is much cooler.
We have onsite food preparation, although since the cooks are British, it's mainly meat-and-potatoes every day. If anyone else tries to copy the HavenCo/Sealand idea elsewhere, I suggest they have a sushi chef as member of the team.
I can't imagine Sealand has very numerous internet connections. Probably there's a single trunk from the U.K. or France.
Could the U.S. pressure one of those governments to stop the telco or ISP that's supplying the connection to Sealand?
Of course, this would simply mean that Sealand would shop around and find another provider, but what else can the RIAA do?
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
No, that was some German businessman who was making a mint selling many more fake Sealand passports than there are real ones that actually exist..
yeah, um er ah... THAT'S the ticket! Just like North Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos... LMAO!
The only flaw in that plan is that any necessary central server for banners trashes the advantage of p2p; ie you still have a central server to kill. Any proper p2p solution involves getting rid of a showstopping central server, not just cutting down the bandwidth one needs.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Basically, what this guy is saying is 'Let's put a opennap server on Sealand'. Why does he not save the hosting fees and run it from his dorm room?
This guy is not the only hope for Napster; the fact of the matter is that Napster Inc is dead, but it has served it's purpose, P2P music sharing will continue to survive, everything has been taken down to the grassroots and we don't need a high-profile opennap server running on Sealand.
-James deBoer
Apathy -- The state of numbness of the mind. When you are apathic, you can think.
It's been ruled that Sealand isn't part of Britain, but we don't maintain diplomatic relations with it. Why can't we invade?
Possibly there's a UN resolution preventing this. Not that it would make any difference if we did break it, practically, but I'm interested as to whether it's against any specific international law.
The real problem will be when they have to defend themselves. Sealand probably has no treaties with other nations to help in their defense, and if they piss off enough countries whose to say that some 'renegade' pirates or terrorists or something decide to come in and take over? Or even better, England could declare war and just take it back. I don't think there would be much of a struggle.
In general, slashdot would do well to remember that clever-clever solutions which seem to magically get round the letter of the law have a long and depressing history in the courts.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Like this one?
--
--
no sig for you. come back one year.
i guess this means that the previously sold-out metallica/dr. dre double header on sealand will be cancelled. do you know how hard it was to get tickets?
Wired did an article on Sealand sometime back. If you can get the print copy it's excellent. There's also a trimmed-down online version that I found here.
Michael J.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
The UK would have no compunction whatsoever about sending in the navy to occupy sealand if the present incumbents did anything the UK govt. objected to.
After all, who is going to stop them?
In fact, it's the other way around entirely: the People's Republic of China is an assemblage of provinces which broke away from the national government, now in exile in Taiwan. Not that many world leaders will actually espouse this viewpoint any more, but technically it is true, or at least was until the PRC finally became recognized by enough nations and the U.N. to be a "real" country.
Not that I would support Taiwan retaking China - I'm happy that the Chinese had their entirely justified revolution, I just think they might need another one to really finish the job off right.
I don't see how you can expand your territorial waters over another sovereign nation and automatically retake it; the U.K. would have to actually conquer the island to effectively reassert control of it. If the territorial waters trick worked, don't you think the U.S. would own Cuba by now :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The simplefact is that the Principality of Sealand is quite legal under common law.
Under common law one fight against ones own nation (or to use English parlence, the crown) without it being treason if one is fight for a prince.
Also Sealand was claimed the day before the UK extendend its sea frontier from the traditional 12 mile.
Consequently some bright chappy went & called himself a prince & claim a WW11 era fortication thats 13 miles off the Themes Esturie, the day before the UK sea claim extensions.
But it also means he has no protection from the laws, twice he had to reppeal attacks from helicoptpers, as others also want sealand too.
>Hardly since any actions would be carried
>out under UK law, by the UK Courts & Police.
They've tried, but UK courts have ruled that UK law does not apply as Sealand is not in the UK.
Nick
So you mean that if somebody manages to develop a P2P based banner/ads service, he might make a lot of money ?
What would the constraint be ?
Just encapsulate in the protocol some way to force the guy who downloads to get some banner and Bob's your Uncle.
After all, this doesn't look that complex to realize.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
> In Britain we'd rather dual at five paces and then make up over a afternoon tea.
:)
damn, you guys are lousy shots if you can do this. No wonder we were able to run you off with squirrel guns
hawk, noting that making squirrels a dietary staple required high marksmanship skills.
I fear that the major labels probably have enough money for this...
[[ I admit I tried Napster for the first time a couple of days ago (even if I followed all the copyright discussion from the start), and it's really a killer. I'd be ready to pay a fee for unrestricted usage. Just throw in md5sums to verify file integrity and I'm ready to pay up to 50FF/month without even *thinking* about it. ]]
Here again we see individuals going to extreme lengths to flee out from underneath an ever-expanding tangle of partisan legislation. The ironic part is that any one of us [in the States] could do it right here. We would need only bandwidth, server space, and sovereign citizenship. The last removes one from the jurisdiction of federal legislation altogether, by rejecting the dubious privileges of citizenship under the 14th Amendment and returning to the status of a Citizen of one's State and of the several States. The federal government was only given jurisdiction and scope within a specific limited bailiwick, primarily keeping interstate trade conflicts down and arbiting in cases where two states were involved in a dispute. To the extent that the federal government is involved in legislating on everything from gun ownership to abortion issues to pro-RIAA legislation, it's essentially out of bounds. In order to have the authority to effect legislation of this variety, a new category of citizenship was created under the 14th Amendment (which itself was rushed through into law and never lawfully ratified.) A new category of citizenship was created to be within the scope of the federal government's power (rather than the original class of citizenship, which grants the federal government all of its authority) and to this category of [second-class] citizenship, all legislation created by the federal government applies. It was originally an opt-in system, but due to gradual changes in paperwork and the introduction of new simple-sounding terms with rather treacherous legal definitions ("resident" is one of my favorite examples of this breed, with "driver" not far behind) it became the de facto standard. Rather like opt-in SPAM that quietly became opt-out, and now the details of just how to do that (or that you even can) have become buried in obscurity.
The point of this post is to pass the word around that one can opt out, and be subject to none of this asinine legislation, and that we're not sheep at the mercy of federal and corporate wolves. Anyone with a Napster server can remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the offending legislation and be done with it, keeping the Nap server functioning as-is without liability. I consider the whole thing to be a prop media issue, since the major media is too well-heeled to go anywhere near the sovereignty issue. Talk about a conflict of interest.
From the Sealand FAQ:
Does the Principality of Sealand sell its passports?
No. The Sealand government has issued passports only to certain individuals who have lived there, or who have been of service to Sealand. It has never sold its passports. Unfortunately, on more than one occasion, criminal groups have gone into the business of selling forged Sealand passports. They target Sealand because it has very little recourse to stop them. Sealand's resources are much too limited for it to launch its own investigations on foreign soil, and its lack of formal recognition by other countries makes it difficult for Sealand to enlist the aid of foreign authorities in such matters.
In the History Of Sealand there is more information about how a German businessman claims to have sold 150,000 fake Sealand passports for $1,000 each. As there are only 300 real Sealand passports in circulation there are 500 times as many fakes as authentic Sealand passports.
--
01 13 19
TVDJC TDSLR AZNGT NWQSH KPN
I'm not kidding. Sealand has lasted thus far because there's been no good reason to take it over. The RIAA is not going to let Napster get away, though, and they'll hire government agents to destroy any Sealand operation that Napster might try to start.
It's about time Napster rolled over and admitted that they can't fight money.
So I sez to him, I ain't givin' you no damn three-fity.
Look out Sealand! These guys have a pocket full of dough, mind control capabilities, a ferocious pack of lawyers, and friends with missiles.. Only a matter of time before they declare themselves sovereign and declare war.. Is this how we will settle billion dollar lawsuits in the future?
Marques Johansson
Why not just move all the way into Canada where the music can be copied for personal use.
That is unless I'm mistaken about the reasoning behind the audio media levy.
untrue.
The "originating server" is the system built in Sealand. It is 3500$US 2u rackmount.
nothing illegal will be uploaded to the server.
-EvilMonkeyNinja
a.k.a. Joseph Yarbrough
Computer Security Grunt by Day
Linux Developer by Night
-EvilMonkeyNinja
a.k.a. Joseph Nicholas Yarbrough
Security Grunt by Day
Programmer by Night
-EvilMonkeyNinja
Mild Mannered Host by Day
Wild Hammered Programmer by Night
Sealand isn't really much of an island. It's an old WW2 concrete artilery platform - completely man-made. It was abandoned for many years, before being settled on by Paddy Roy Bates, who has since been proclaimed 'king'
Their main claim to sovereignty is that the UK ignored them for many years, writing them off as a bunch of loonies. However, in the last few years they've been allowing HavenCo to situate their servers on the island, and the UK government have started laying claim to the island.
Note however, they get all their power and internet connection from nearby countries, who would be entirely within their rights to switch off the connection if Havenco start doing something they disagree with.
Useful Links:
-Ciaran
Do you have some flats for rent there?
A country can't just expand its borders and retroactively claim anything that now appears within them. Because Sealand claimed sovreignity before the expansion, if they are a country then their territory isn't part of Britain at all.
The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
It's a nonsense to claim this ruling is an implicit recognition of Sealand.
Blah blah blah. It's a nonsense for any country/state/region/city/individual to claim independence; such claims are never recognised by the mutha-land, and are always dismissed as "nonsense". Independence, as many US types will happily tell you, is only achieved by repeatedly asserting and defending that your claim is not nonsense, usually with guns.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Up heree in Canada, we call the crap on that link Hate Literature. That'as why guys Like Ernst Zundel move to the States. I am all for free speech, until it promotes hatred of any identifiable group through lies.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Burris
I wouldn't get too excited.
Sealand has survived up till now by not doing anything that annoyed anyone very much.
Officially it's a British crown dependency (its independence certainly hasn't been recognised by anyone that I know of) and if enough pressure is put on the British Government then they'd probably end up shutting it down. The UK extended her territorial waters a few years back, so it's no longer outside them (as it was in '67).
There's an article about it from Wired here
Absolutely right. And add to that eventually Napster 2 will suffer the fate of all .coms, make money or go away. If you can't pay for yourself you will run out of money and shut down. If you can't make enough money to make people who put their sweat into it to make it what it is rich, they will leave for somewhere that will pay "what they deserve" and you will shut down. So eventually you need to make money. You start to sell the stuff. You start to promote certain artists so you can "maximize your profits". You enter into contracts with some artists to "help" them break into the business and "maximize your profits". You hire some whiz bang business people to effectively run your business. Maybe you go the dot com route and do an IPO and then have shareholders to please. Then you have just another record label. One more company trying to make money between the artist and the consumer. They will NOT survive simply by giving away free stuff and pissing off the artists they are trying to make money from.
Sealand has no courts, it is a dicatorial monarchy. If you have a problem, you talk to the guy who owns the island (the "Crown Prince") and if he agrees with you, the people who have annoyed you get chucked off the island. That is the entire legal process in Sealand.
Let me try to help you understand:
Suppose the Crown Prince of Sealand passed a law saying that chocolate was illegal in Sealand.
Would that make chocolate illegal in the USA?
NO!!!
Equally, laws made in the USA or as part of an international convention (such as the Berne convention on copyright) do not apply outside the USA or outside those countries which signed up to the convention.
Sealand is not a signatory to the Berne convention.
So, FIRSTLY, there is no law for anyone to sue with and SECONDLY there are no courts to take your case to.
I'd say that makes suing a fairly unlikely option (note: this is what us Brits call "sarcastic understatement").
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Won't be too long before the RIAA will get the USA Marines to enforce their copyright. ;)
I hope you're joking. For starters, I believe music is illegal in Iraq (or is that Iran?). Second, the government is highly oppressive and there is no freedom of speech in Iraq. It is illegal for newspapers to write anything but the best things about the government. Any government this totalitarian would be completely against any sort of 'free for all' communication system, like Napster, which could be used for all sorts of subversive activities. The US is *by*leaps*and*bounds* the most free country in the world, and if their government doesn't like it, other countries would be significantly more against it.
"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise" Did you really expect for some comany and/or person to NOT do that? I'm surprised Napster stayed in the US at all, since it would be much harder for the RIAA to get them (Napster Inc.) legally if it was WAAAAAY out of jurisdiction (i.e. Antarctica, Guam, New Jersey). ;p
Hm...how far DO these copyright laws extend anyways? If I happen to download a Zeppelin track (don't worry, I own all 10 cds) while vacationing in the Congo...theoretically, could the RIAA go after me for copyright infringement? (Sorry if its a dumb question, but copyright law is fairly new to me).
Sealand has multiple connectivity into the UK and into Amsterdam.
Now, maybe all of those ISPs will capitulate. But supposing they don't? Supposing, say, one of the well-connected Amsterdam ISPs stands firm, and is backed up by the Amsterdam court? I don't think the RIAA are going to try and cut off Amsterdam, which is a major Internet hub for Europe, but maybe they'll demand that US ISPs fake the routing tables so you can't route to Sealand? Then another offshore alternative opens up, more routing frob...
Eventually the RIAA and MPAA will demand that the Internet as we know it be dismantled in favour of a networking protocol that is better at supporting censorship. Eventually they'll demand an Internet that has "providers", who are big companies that can afford legal fees and scrupulously provide only legal content, and "users" who can send email and read content provided by "providers" but who can't afford the legal fees needed to publish anything, and whose communication with each other is heavily mediated by the "providers" taking legal responsibility. They'll want changes to the law, backed by new international conventions, that make even Slashdot illegal, because Slashdot can't guarantee someone won't put DeCSS here.
They won't necessarily get what they demand, but they will eventually be forced to demand it if their position is to make any sense at all. And they're not the kind of people to say "OK, that would be too nasty, we'll concede defeat."
--
Xenu loves you!
There was a lot of coverage of Sealand on Slashdot last summer. There was an article when Sealand's data haven opened and somebody from Sealand did a Slashdot interview later.
--
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Isn't it a bit ironic that people would want to pay to be able to freely trade copyrighted music.... or is it just me.
Just a thought:
If he is setting up a Napster clone and Napster plays all goody goody with the RIAA, what will stop Napster from suing the maintainer of the clone?? Heck, they may get the RIAA's help to do it! Is the Napster software protected (or not) by a restrictive license that does/doesn't allow for rogue clones?
rLowe
----- rL
I sometimes wish I could get my hands on the weed people smoke when they decide that napster can afford to spend a billion dollars to the record industry over five years.
No weed involved, dude. Let's try some math. 60,000,000 Napster users. Guess that 15% stay with the subscription service, each pays 5$ a month. Meaning that Napster rakes in 540,000,000$/yr. At that rate, it looks quite likely that they could pay the record industry a billion over five yrs.
Sure, you can debate the fine points of how many people would stay, gross vs. net, and all that, but I don't see how you can say there is no reasonable case for Napster being worth quite a lot.
"The good Earth--we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."K. Vonnegut
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Incase you're wondering about Sealand, here is the official website. For pictures, look at their old website.
If you ask me, it looks like a raft on stilts rather than a sovereign territory, but hey. To each his own. {=)
Napster should appeal to Saddam for asylum (i think that's the word). I'm pretty sure he'd do anything to piss the west off and what better way than destroying a billion dollar industry and rewriting international copyright laws in the process... he could also download some cool songs inbetween signing execution orders.
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
That's a little different problem though. That is happening IN the Philippines. Sure from OUR legal standpoint it hurts our artists and businesses, but the whole process of distribution is on there soil. MP3's can be downloaded from anywhere any number of times. There is very little cost setting up distribution (you don't have to have a physical disk for each copy) so a 14 year old with a cable connection can give away thousands of copies.
There is no copyright law in Sealand. Sealand is not a member of the Bern Convention and it does not have a copyright law of it's own.
The only intellectual property law in Sealand is that child pornography is illegal.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Second, he's actually in the clear from the moral point of view. As evidenced by him spending about $10,000 to set up Fairtunes, a site which allows fans to donate directly to artists, he cares about seeing that artists don't get ripped off. I've personally donated $25 through Fairtunes. To get the same amount of cash into artists' hands, I'd have to spend over $300 on CDs.
Third, Sealand's independence has, to some extent, recognized by British courts. Sealand fired a warning shot at a boat that approached too closely, and Roy Bates was taken to court for some weapons violation. The court ruled something to the effect that the weapons laws didn't apply to Sealand since it is sovergn. Also, Sealand established its independence before Britain extended its teritorial waters, so Sealand is in the clear on that front, too.
Fourth, the Sealand guys seem to know what they're doing. They have generators and redundant internet connections. Their server room is filled with pure nitrogen for security and fire prevention. Cool shit. I'm sure they could handle Napster II.
Fifth, Sealand might take this on just for the publicity. With Napster in the news nearly every day, this could get Sealand some much-needed press.
For the same reason Shell didn't train their own death squads to use in Nigeria. It's cheaper to rely on governments and militaries, who are already in that line of work, to do your bidding. All you have to do is grease the right palms.
Since the place is a mere 6 miles off the coast of the UK. The real question, is then, what would the UK government do to Sealand at the behest of the record companies? Since Sealand seems at a minimum quasi-legitimate, it seems that they might just do nothing!
"Chill, Orrin!"---Trent Lott
Its fgunny to see that us citecens some always think they own the world. with thear law :)
Well sorry this is eurpoe.. I doubt that a napster sever will be ever iligal in holland.....
well the same will be for manny ohter countris...
drugs a a good camparation softdrugs is now legal in the netherlands AND swiss
If he makes enough to cover the bills, he is not only a web entrepreneur, but one of the very few successful ones!
An addition to this is, if I actually had the resources to launch a satellite (which I don't at the moment, hehe), what is the regulatory body that would determine where it would go? I can imagine that it would cost a ridiculous amount of money to get the "licensing"? Are there any geostationary spots left? That seems like something that would fill up.
Someone in the know hook us up with some knowledge.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
I sometimes wish I could get my hands on the weed people smoke when they decide that napster can afford to spend a billion dollars to the record industry over five years.
Why would you invest in something like that? I do agree that millions of people would be willing to pay for mp3's on a subscription basis. But what's to differentiate napster from the hundreds of over clones that Canadian CS students set up in their dorm?
It's true, the Napster name brand has house hold recognition. But not the kind of recognition that's worth a billion dollars.
I really doubt napster will be around still by this Christmas.
"cyberworld"
"data-dollars"
"info-economy"
There is no new world. We still live in the old one, there's just a lot of changes. This happens constantly, particularly over the last century.
TO answer your question, no, Sealand does not have it's own TLD, but politics at this point are not determined by your web status. I'm sure that when politics are run by the web-savvy you'll be able to get yourself a nice Ambassador positions with words like "info-economy".
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Actually, it isn't. At some point _after_ Sealand declared soverignty (sp) the UK decided it wanted to increase it's territory, which engulfed Sealand and as a result was a bit on the illegal side. It's like Australia claiming their territorial waters extend into and past New Zealand - it just doesn't work that way.
Of course the question now is if Sealand's claim of soverignty is justifiable; apparently the UK gov. doesn't think so.
Cheers,
levine
Indeed, and a young-at-heart Missourian of my acquaintance "plans" to father the children of Natalie Portman, but he'd be the first to admit it's a long and complicated process with no guarantee of success. For a start, he has no money, and therefore can't pay HavenCo's bills. For seconds, unless he intends to move to Sealand for the rest of his life, he'll end up in jail. For thirds, since "material that is ruled unlawful in the jurisdiction of the originating server" is against the AUP of Havenco, it's quite arguable that they won't let him do it.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Tell that to Jon Johannessan (sp?)
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
For example, let's say you set up a gambling operation there. You're running along happily, until one day the British Gov't comes calling because you've violated the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000, which was enacted so that MI5 can listen for bad guys by reading your email. Then some bigwig public official in Norwich happens to be gambling on a game of canasta with the Crown's money, and the Brits get all upset because they can't find out who he is, what he bet, when he plays, etc. So they sue, he sues, everyone sues everyone else. It becomes a big mess, and the anonymous email operation you set up six months prior is caught in the middle of it. How do you repel a DoS attack from the Home Office?
Later on, the providers of HavenCo's bandwidth get pressured from all sorts of people. See, Sealand might be independant, but the companies that give HavanCo their pipe are based in countries which most certainly are not. They can (and will) be pressured. They get leaned on, and then HavenCo gets leaned on. Shit runs downhill. (And don't give me that satellite rap; you know that's only an expensive worst-case backup of dubious technical merit.) The upshot here is that everyone who gave money to HavenCo is now officially S.O.L.
Which is why we need something "friviolous" like a Napster server to take up residence on Sealand. If it goes down because of the Strong Arm of the Law(TM), then it really isn't that big of a deal. It gets sorted out in court and we all wait to see what happens. In the meantime, we run our gambling and pr0n operations off some island like everyone else has been doing. We're listenign to stuff off FreeNet, and grabbign MP3s from OpenNap servers.
But the court will have to decide one way or the other. The RIAA -- for one -- will surely force the issue (like through the U.N., maybe?). And the decision will likely be binding; what's good for Mr. Napster Server Clone is good for you and me (please note: IANAL and I don't want to be one, either). If the verdict is for the Napsterites, then we can all put our servers on Sealand. If the verdict favors whatever government happened to bitch, then we lost no money setting precedent ourselves.
It's a good thing. I want to see it happen.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
> I think that you will find that Britain was one
> of the first countries in the world to make
> slavery illegal.
Domestically, perhaps, but they enjoyed the fruit of the American South, cotton, big time, all the way through the US Civil War. Lincoln had to internationally embarass England and France halfway through the war by freeing the slaves, hoping that would delay them from attempting to break the North's port blockades on the South, all so that good old no-slaves England could start reimporting cheap slave-made cotton.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
-- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
I believe in reading the sealand notes posted in the past, that they would abide by certain rules and regulations. I would think that posting copyrighted material on there servers would be a claim that they have no desire to have.
/. individual that has skills above the common computer person. You only provide so much traffic and when that door closes another one will open but it will get harder and harder each and every time, and to the end user it will be VERY very hard.
....
Don't they want to be a secure data-hosting service? Whom in corporate (world) would want to do business with someone, if they are willing to host copyrighted material? I would not, most likely anybody that is going to generate significant revenue for them would not, no bank in their right mind would, no content provider would because sealand's lack of copyright enforcement.
Also don't forget that ISP can reduce traffic or block it entirely if they so dire. Just check your user agreements. Now you will come with the arguement that I know another way to the servers and you are correct, but here is the problem. You are
Also ISP have enough problems with the stock markets, do you think that they want a global press release that states they are common carriers ( bandwidth sellers ) to sealand which inturns post music. I smell third party lawsuits. Negative press releases, stock tanking
Free music will alway be around, but the Music industry does not want it to be very big. and they will fight it at every door.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I'm thinking that the ideal system isn't one actually *on* Sealand, simply because the bandwidth consumers aren't also there. You're paying for traffic you'd get cheaper elsewhere.
You'd also create problems for Sealand if you ran something like Napster there, people would target them much like ISPs get targetted these days. They'd have proof of violation of international treaty and they'd make everyone's life dificult.
So the answer is to put the main part of your server on the mainland in a large city. Then encrypt all client communications via keys served from Sealand. It wouldn't be any more secure vs crypto attacks, RSA is still RSA... the benefits come in when the corporation realizes it can't simply demand the police arrest both ends of the communication and subpoena keys.
Do an anonymous system where the server doesn't know who clients are (except by a MD5 hash of their IP, etc). All the server does is match requests to providers, then passes the hashed IDs to the Sealand server which looks up the real IPs and passes the information to both parties.
This way the Sealand system isn't involved in anything illegal by the laws of any big country, meaning that there's no justification for international action to shut them down or open their records. But without doing so, the clients are anonymous until they actually start the peer-to-peer trading action.
As long as the system on the mainland has other reasonable uses than trading MP3s (like Gnutella which will trade any files) then it can't be directly shut down without evidence, but the evidence is locked away in a foreign country (Even if Sealand is ruled to be the UK after a tense armed standoff and years in court it wouldn't be the US, forcing the RIAA to fight a legal action while coordinating in two countries.) and can't be obtained without essentially an act of war.
The key is to have plausible uses for these systems other than the 'illegal' uses. Then have one end in one jurisdiction and the other end as far away as possible.
(Someone mentioned Iraq... If there wasn't a trade embargo it'd work great. Your bandwidth requirements in the US-hostile country are minimal, you're just using them as a blind transfer point for the setup data. Afghanistan might work, there isn't an embargo but they're pretty down on the western entertainment industry and other things.)
>>napster simply privides an easy way to find these computers and establish a direct connection to them.. Thank you for making that clear. the problem lies when you have the traffic cop (napster) point towards the drug dealers so a person can get a fix. This will also lead problems to the directories and maybe search engines. I think (so don't flaim me correct me ) that search engines just find things based on following the traffic (links) and user input and submissions. they basicly post what they see, w/o peer review. Directories are based on the above and peer review. So if peer review show that xyz is hosting copyrighted material that is not owned by that web site. The directory should not post it on thier web site. The real problem is that music has titles and a specific time. two item that can be cross checked against a data base Now I don't realy know where yahoo falls under but I think it might be a directory. ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
I wonder if there are any old oil rigs sitting on top of natural gas deposits in internation waters? What a deal they would be totaly independant for power, and could be used for co-location, banking, porn production. The oil companies my be drooling.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
HavenCo fully complies with content restrictions on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, and does not allow content illegal in a given country to be hosted on servers at HavenCo facilities within that specific country.
If they are hosting in Sealand, then serving MP3s, which a Napster-like service wouldn't do anyway, wouldn't be illegal because Seland has no IP laws.
For a slightly more cynical take (and in my view, more realistic), take a peek at the Register's coverage of this story
I like how a Joe Blow CS student with a good idea is all of a sudden labeled a 21-year-old Canadian Web entrepreneur. How is he an entrepreneur? How is this plan of his going to make him money? It seems he's just after enogh ($15k) to pay the bills.
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Though the RIAA would most likely pay some underwater welders to flood the thing - sorta like what the french did to the greenpeace ship . . .
And yes, people have killed for less.
I have a shotgun, a shovel and 30 acres behind the barn.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
While I'm not saying you're wrong (since it's entirely a matter of viewpoint), I'd be interested to hear your definition of "free".
It seems to me that some people have a very narrow view of "freedom", restricting its meaning to basically absence of illegitimate force. That is indeed important, but in practice, freedom is about much more. I see it as the abilities put at one's disposal that enable one to pursue one's dreams, goals and desires. That includes universal access to basic services such as education and healthcare, and other "enablers" that give people more control over their destiny.
You're forgetting -- with Napster, no copyrighted content is stored on the server. All it does is help people find each other.
OK, but Sean looks nothing like the wonderful Alan Cox. He doesn't even have a five o'clock shadow.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I woke up this morning to find about 500 messages in our trouble ticketing system about this. Heh.
/29, so if any government decides they must protect their citizens from human-rights information, music trading services, etc., they would need to block the customer's /29, affecting only that customer. I personally think the chances of IP blocking at the borders of a country are pretty slim in any marginally free country -- it's difficult from a technical perspective, would be widely opposed by users, and is generally not worthwhile.
:)
(I'm one of the cofounders of HavenCo, and the CTO, if you didn't already know; I'm also an active slashdot reader (what else do you think we do for fun out in the middle of the north sea?))
First of all, www.fairtunes.com is hosted in Canada, is slashdotted, and isn't our fault!
Second, I can't comment on confidential discussions with customers w/o their permission, but yes, from looking at the fairtunes site, it looks like they're trying to raise money to pay for a year of service on one of our boxes with the goal being to host an offshore OpenNap server. I'm personally a user of napster (although I mainly use Mojonation now. We definitely would like to have them as a customer -- what they're doing doesn't violate our AUP, and we're happy to offer service to anyone who will pay. Of course, what they are doing is NOT being done by us; if they choose to host with us, it's still their responsibility.
We have network connectivity through multiple providers around the world, and can easily add more. We assign customers a
As for HavenCo's service, we've been up since May 2000, and now that we have high-speed low-latency network, fully debugged power systems, etc. we're offering commercial service to anyone who is interested and obeys our AUP. Our pricing is standardized, and is USD 1500/month for a 2U box with redundant power, cooling, 24x7 network monitoring, armed security, etc., and 256kbps of Internet bandwidth (local 100baseTX is free, so people can offer services to other HavenCo customers without paying for bandwidth). We charge a USD 1500 one-time setup fee, and USD 3500 for hardware (we can use any high-quality 1U or 2U box, and pricing is US cost; we don't try to make a profit off hardware, but we can't accept non-rackmount, low quality, etc. stuff). We have about 3-5 days lead time, from receipt of payment, before we can have a server up and running, and as long as you're not doing spam/spam support, child pornography, or hacking from our machines, we'd love to have you as a customer; contact sales@havenco.com for more info.
We're in the middle of a web redesign, and have been trying to focus on getting services fully up, rather than getting more press, but we're about to begin a big sales and press push. This is a bit earlier than was planned, but now that people are getting slashdotted, might as well post.
Here's an aerial shot to illustrate how arbitrary soveregnity is. Quick - what part of the above photo is an independent nation of long and undisputed standing, and what parts are just an ordinary city?
Okay, let's try another country. The narrow strip of coastal buildings in this photo is a centuries old (far older than Germany, to cite one example) nation of undisputed sovereignity.
For that matter - I can think of a dozen nations that are a single rifle shot from end to end. You'd have an interesting time explaining why this structure made of coral is an independent nation (more precisely, a disjointed major fragment of an ocean nation -- just as the Sealand photo in the parent post showed only one platform of Sealand)
National jurisidiction is arbitrary. Who will get mad if the UK invades Sealand? The UK courts , who have already ruled that the UK could not assert territoriality or jurisdiction over these platforms. (The British press would have a nice field day with the 'underdog' angle, too. It's funny how stuff like that weakens or topples administrations in parliamentary systems -- it's kind of like counting chad...)
I think there is a better way to fight the RIAA, and one that is perfectly legal.
First of all, I must say that we are the ones who are fools in agreeing to buy music that denies us of the freedom to distribute it. My suggestion is to keep our hands clean. If we don't like the terms of an agreement, boycott it massively. Don't tolerate it. Boycott it until they get the message. Make your opponent see that there is something like a fair-use policy, and that they should be fair if you have paid for the music. Freedom! Nothing else will suffice. If you don't give us the freedom, we don't pay for it. (Kind of similar to my rejection of closed software that usually doesn't allow you access to the source code of software you buy, makes you pay for each user, and doesn't allow you to distribute it, legally anyway.)
To re-iterate my point, if it is unfair, REJECT IT. Running around the law isn't the way to do things - though you may be in the right, it only makes you look bad. Buy and support only things that respect your freedom. In the long run, the greed that has led these people and corporate entities to unfair practices, will also lead to their losing money - the only thing that they seem to understand, cherish and indeed worship.
Maybe you're missing the fact that Nap servers do not serve any content. The Mp3's reside on the other users computers and the Nap server only points it out. This is the reason behind the debate. I don't think everyone here would be so pro-napster if they were actually distributing the mp3's themselves. It may seem like semantics because Napster "allows" the serving of the mp3's but it's a question of distinctions.
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
Because like I've posted on slash several times before, under our copyright law it is not illegal to make personal copies of any musical work you so desire. That is why we have the infamous levy.... And this copyright act was only passed in 1998.
I am a laweyr.
:)
`Nuff said.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
I believe you. That sounds like a truer test of national sovereignty than a server responding to Napster requests. But I don't think business will see it that way.
In order to for commercial entities to put their money into Sealand/HavenCo, there must be some sort of precedent set that protects their investment. They have to know that the model is tested and stable. The rescue of a POW doesn't do it for them. They need a court somewhere that says "Yeah, you bad guys tried to get at these poor fellows, but we have decided that doing so would be tantamount to invading France. Piss off." Then they can sink time and effort into setting up some servers because when someone comes after them, they can point to precedent (without hiring expensive lawyers).
Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of HavenCo, and Sealand. (I'm card-carrying member of the Libertarian party, after all.) It's just that someone needs to prime the pump of sovereignty with a legal battle. POWs and armed captures do nothing but scare the corporate mind.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
You're only immune if you have a bigger army.
The US invaded Panama, seized Manuel Noriega, and dragged him to the US for a trial, whereapon they jailed him for his crimes -- even though it appears that US officials were co-conspirators in some of those crimes (using drug sales to raise money for the Contras after Congress cut off the supply of taxpayer money).
The way I see it is the equivalent of the United States telling Amsterdam that it is illegal to smoke marijuana in cafes, and then criminally charging these complete foreigners in the US and serving extradition papers. This idea seems ridiculous and I don't see how it is different regarding copyright violations in the States versus an activity that probably isn't a copyright violation in the foreign citizens respective country. (We have no DMCA in Canada, and its legal to make copies of musical works).
Does anyone wonder why hotline (http://bigredh.com) is located in canada, while the creator is Australian? If you take a really close look at the hotline scene you'd find that it would be completely impossible to shut down and/or censor under canadian copyright law, at least in terms of the software it's self. Just some food for thought. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then move on to the next post.
Maskirovka
They do have a hole in the middle. Mybe he's built along the lines of a pencil.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
never underestimate your enemy, it can be fatal
Well I think it will be the end off posebiities of the riaa :)
then they finaly realise that they only heve power IN the USA and not outside.
Like the DCSS thing I got it stored on my homepage in amsterdam :))
http://www.worldcity.net/~frank/dvd/
And they cant do a fuck about it since here in holland we dont have theese laws
even it is very doubtfull if a napster server will ever be iligal in holland
And they setup a sever in sealand
that suports SSL like https pages on the web...
and a plugin for napster to work with it ..
well then the record industry can pack there backs :)
nt
This isn't going to work. The entire idea of the data-haven as small and untouchable only works if no one knows where it is (or it is on the move). In other words, it only works if no one CAN shut it down (economicaly that is).
The only way a stable, useable data-haven is going to work is if it is located in a country large enough that shutting it down would require and act of aggression equal to war. If it's going to be public and stable, it has to be defendable.
Imagine a data-haven set up in Russia. If Iraq or Thailand decides to set up a data-haven it's going to be as hard to shut down as drugs are to stop now.
But back to reality, even if they get this Napster Clone to work, it STILL isn't going to make them any more money than NAPSTER has. NOTHING! And if people DO pay for subscription, then they'll have to compete against the record companies' future subscription services.
Add to that the fact that most of us would RATHER pay the artists if we're gonna have to pay anyway.
This idea is just wrong-headed. Interesting, good news, but not sustainable or even desireable.
I've got a lot of respect for the guys at Sealand, but they're a very small fish and this might end up being exceedingly bad for them if the RIIA decide to squash them.
Anyone who's serious about doing this should consider another host country - China. Think about it. No copyright or IP laws, so Napster is both perfectly legal and doctrinally sound in China, plus even the RIIA might think twice about spilling China's pint. OK, the reliability isn't great, but that'll only improve with investment.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Selling Nazi artifacts and nazi related materials are illegal in Germany, France, Austra, etc. Yet no US court acts to shut down US based Nazi sites.
Trading copyrighted materials for free to people who didn't legitimately pay for them is illegal in the US. Why should other nations give a fuck about our laws. Especially in nations not signed onto the Berne treaty on intellectual property, like Brazil, China, Russia, Malaysia, and Taiwan.
Yesterday I couldn't spel lawyer - now I are one!
DD
"You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
If only things were that good
The internet is already ruled by a few big companies that sell connectivity to smaller providers. And unfortunately they have already showed their willingness to censor and govern who publishes what according to what ever whim they feel like at the moment.
Just look at what UUNet/Worldcom and KPNQwest did to Flashback.se (Slashdot's coverage, founder Jan Axelssons coverage) and that was only because a Swedish politician made a few phonecalls. I can imagine the RIAA has a few more and nastier tricks up their sleeves.
.oO Kaa Oo.
Why? Because most consumers never used Napster, and most likely never will. They will simply pay the price of a bunch of music pirates force on them by flaunting laws.
Napster was illegal from day one, and all it accomplished was to deprive many shareholders of their money to line the pockets of certain core company executives. It also forced the hand of the RIAA and that is coming out as a mailed fist.
So cheer on you Napster goons, you've screwed us royally. Hell, whats so damn funny about it is the simpletons who claim Napster are great only got to steal songs, the real beneficiaries of Napster already cashed out - the execs of the company
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The individual in question, although Canadian, and proposing a service in yet another country, is not shielded by American law. Should he be sued in American courts, any decisions made will be binding. Should he be found guilty on anything and not pay up, he could face extradition at the worst, and at the least, if he were to set foot on American soil, could be arrested. If the folks in Sealand don't get paid, then guess who's SOL.
---
Desperation is a stinky cologne
I looked into building some equipment rooms that way. The benefit is the ability to prefab and test the room completely away from the construction site. The drawback is that if you're providing front and back access, you only get one row of racks in a 96" wide container. Therefore, you end up using twice as much aisle space as you would in a conventional equipment room. In the conventional arrangement, the cost of an aisle is shared by the rows of racks on each side.
If you used an architecture where only front access is required, then it would be more feasible. You could have racks against both walls and an aisle in the middle.
There is one vendor offering this type of intel-based server, but this limits equipment choices too drastically.
As for testing sovereignty, I'd say the armed invasion over a decade ago, and subsequent military recapture, where the Germans send diplomats directly to Sealand to negotiate the release of a private citizen being held as POW, is a stronger test of sovereignty than a Napster server!
But yes, we're always happy to have more legal experience and affirmation of Sealand's sovereign status.
And as for satellite bandwidth -- it's certainly not as good as other bandwidth, but even being connected only by high-quality satellite bandwidth during a legal challenge to the UK or Netherlands over terrestrial links wouldn't be the end of the world; since in the absolute worst case, security of servers is assured, even in the event of invasion, Sealand is still the best place to host data which truly needs the highest security.
...from the subscription service that Napster will roll out later this year? This guy has to recoup his costs somehow, and I doubt he will be setting up a "donation box." He'll have to charge something, either metering by bandwidth or by a flat fee. This whole thing seems more along the lines of a upraised finger than a legitimate plan.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Wouldn't something like this be an admission of guilt. If they really believe what they are doing is right, then they should stand and fight, except, of course, that you would need to be based in a free country where the government represented the people. Let me know if you ever find one of these.
Find funky gifts
"Napster is simply another kind of link" is all the lawyers have to say, and since the law is already on their side following the DCSS debacle, the courts will most likely give them whatever they want.
The United States is no longer a free country. It's a lukewarm mix of freedom and corporate dictatorship that's getting colder all the time. Perhaps on the freedom scale, the US ranks the highest or is pretty close to the top. But how long will it be before comparisions that benchmark freedom evolve into choices of lesser evils?
Satisfaction by contrasting lesser choices is a fool's paradise.
Critical opinions from citizens of $UTOPIA will be regarded cautiously. Think long and hard before contrasting $UTOPIA with the US when it comes to the subject of freedom and how it is earned. Take a stroll though Arlington national cemetary sometime if you really want to know what the price of freedom is. Count your dead.
Great Job, I thought I was the only one that read something like "willing to respect other peoples law"
I can still see them arguing if they have to respect it.
Onepoint
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
According to HavenCo.'s acceptable use policy: Unacceptable publications include, but are not limited to: Material that is ruled unlawful in the jurisdiction of the originating server (Such as child pornography in the case of our flagship Sealand datacenter). HavenCo fully complies with content restrictions on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, and does not allow content illegal in a given country to be hosted on servers at HavenCo facilities within that specific country. Which would lead one to believe that a napster clone (who would concievable profit from the trafficing of pirated media) would not be allowed to co-locate on Sealand.
Unless Matt himself *live* in Sealand, he didn't enjoy any kind of protection from RIAA. If I am the bad guys, I'd just sue his ass till he can't afford to pay Sealand (do you how much lawyers charge these days? :-). I am sure the Sealand guys are nice people: but business is bussiness, if you can't pay your bill, the server will be shut down.
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
or he can't hack.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
That's what I get for posting at 3:30am with a coffee deficiency. What I meant to write is that I doubt the "donation box" will cover costs. He will have to charge something etc etc blah blah blah
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Hell you can set your servers up in my house if you want and the Government over here is ...., hey, wait, shit I just remembered, no dont do it, turn back I got it all wrong, please ignore this post and slashdot DO NOT FORWARD THIS, I do not
want to be sued
http://www.luf.org/artisle.html This page has a lot of info and thought on forming states ... can a corp. form a state on a unclaimed island ... can a group of normal people, etc. oh and it talks about making islands aswell ... hummmm
Tecnical knowledge should be the judge on internet
and internet users the jury.
-- I don't need PGP, dyslexia encrypts my mail and makes it unique.
---
For a lawsuit to be brought, first the Canadian would have to be served with papers from a US court.
Guess what? You can only be served with US court papers... if you're in the United States. The US has no legal authority to go about co-opting citizens or residents of other countries in order to enforce its own laws. Even in the event that criminal charges were filed, extradition from a foreign country is never guaranteed.
So as long as the Canadian never sets foot in the US, he's totally immune to the United States civil-justice system.
SeaLand was originally outside UK territory but the UK later extended its territorial waters so that SeaLand is now *INSIDE* UK borders. They tried to get some people living on SeaLand for not paying taxes but if memory serves, the court gave them some kind of special permission to NOT have to do it. In other words, it's up to interpretation if SeaLand is actually part of the UK or not. If they start creating lots of problems, I'm pretty sure it won't take long before the UK government shuts them down and throws their silly asses in jail. Putting a lot of faith in SeaLand is naive and not very realistic. In any case, even if nobody touches SeaLand, they have to connect to the net somehow so you can just shut down their net connection.
If no law against copying in that 'country' (no copyright treaties exist) - who is to enforce other countries law?
WIPO.org.uk
What i wonder: Does anyone have real proof that sealand has any hosting facilities and/or leased links? Do they really do host there, or is this all an giant bluff?
...). They all have assigned ARIN-based IP addresses. ARIN-assigned addresses are _NOT_ for the use in europe, so if they use these addresses on sealand, ARIN will call these addresses back. IP addresses in Europe are assigned by the RIPE.
Lets take a look on the known servers (heavenco.com, sealandgov.com
And then: traceroutes to this servers all end somewhere in the US in big server housing farms _not_ operated by heavenco. Isn't it a little bizarre that a hosting / colo company which claims to have redundant links and their own location still relies for all of their servers on other hosters?
The idea is nice, but i doubt if they actually do any hosting there. Has anyone any evidence showing otherwise?