ThePirateBay Will Rise Again?

muffen writes "IDG.se has an interesting article up giving more details about the raid on PirateBay, and a little history of the organization. The news organ reports that nearly 200 servers were taken, and many of them had nothing to do with the torrent-serving group. After yesterday's raid, the site is back up with a single page explaining the situation. Brokep, one of the people behind PirateBay, claims that the site will be up and running within a couple of days. He also says that there is no legal basis for the raid against them and that he is certain that the case will not go to trial." From the site: "The necessity for securing technical evidence for the existence of a web-service which is fully official, the legality of which has been under public debate for years and whose principals are public persons giving regular press interviews, could not be explained. Asked for other reasoning behind the choice to take down a site, without knowing whether it is illegal or not, the officers explained that this is normal."

Comments

The Purpose of Copyright

[amoeba1911]

The media companies make it sound like copyright is a way of limiting your rights, but it was created with the intent of creating more diversity in content by limiting the rights of the content distributors (like MPAA). It used to have clauses which ensured the consumer's rights wouldn't be stifled (such as fair use). Why was copyright law created?? Because with the invention of the printing press things could be mass replicated much easier, the idea behind copyright was to limit who could print/sell stuff, taking power from printing press/distributor and giving it back to content creator, to allow people to create and distribute new content instead of letting the printing press have a field day selling us the same old crap making huge profits. Copyright law was created so that the content creator would be properly compensated. So that the consumer wouldn't be subjected to the same crap over and over again with no new works being created. The copyright law was made to protect the content creator and the content user. The copyright law was created to stifle the content distribution companies like MPAA, not the consumer. I don't know when this changed, but whoever had the wonderful idea of copyright would probably jam a sharp stick in his eyes if he saw what crud the content distributors have turned this law into. The copyright law has obviously failed in the past half a century and content distributors have too much power now. It's time for another copyright law with the original intent of protecting the consumer and the content creator and to make sure media conglomerates like MPAA don't make huge profits from nothing. There's no reason why a CD should cost $20 (and only a dime going to the creator) when the manufacturing cost of CD is in pennies... just my two cents. Sharing is caring. Let's try to put an end to the tyrannical misuse of copyright law. Thanks for reading!

Since when are the **AA confined by mortal laws?

[Qa1]

The MPAA can hack servers and harvest private information if it wants; not a single MPAA employee would suffer any sort of police harrassment. But someone ostensibly assists violation of MPAA copyrights and BAM! - 200 servers are confiscated by police authorities.

The reason for this is explained in Sterling's account of the first major institutional crackdown on hackers, ezine publishers and other dispensers of information which some powerful corporation don't want to see in the wild. From the text:

Another problem is very little publicized, but it is a cause of genuine concern. Where there is persistent crime, but no effective police protection, then vigilantism can result. Telcos, banks, credit companies, the major corporations who maintain extensive computer networks vulnerable to hacking -- these organizations are powerful, wealthy, and politically influential. They are disinclined to be pushed around by crooks (or by most anyone else, for that matter). They often maintain well-organized private security forces, commonly run by experienced veterans of military and police units, who have left public service for the greener pastures of the private sector. For police, the corporate security manager can be a powerful ally; but if this gentleman finds no allies in the police, and the pressure is on from his board-of-directors, he may quietly take certain matters into his own hands.

So police is acting as mercenaries for the big corporations, since otherwise they'd hire their own. Not a very comforting thought, especially considering you are nowadays likely to be arrested for suspicion of violating corporate copyrights. Remember when police and laws were used to protect citizens, not criminialize millions for hurting corporate profit machines...?

Re:BAD name

[asuffield]

Come on, the PIRATES bay?!?!?!?!?

they were just sayin g NA NA NA NA NA NA: you cant catch us!

Yes, that is exactly what they were doing. It's roughly similar to civil disobedience.

They were saying: We are the people, we want things this way. A democratic government is obliged to respect our wishes because we are a majority of the population. Foreign corporations cannot make up ethics and laws to suit their business plan, they require our consent.

They have always been treating this as a political battle, not a legal one. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Sweden is unusual in that a large portion of the populace is informed about this issue and supports TPB rather than the MPAA. I don't think this is over yet.

This is the stuff that brings down governments.

you are SO wrong

[zogger]

You are automatically equating protest with the word disruptive. Look what you have written. This alone proves you have little idea what you are talking about, nor have you been paying attention to the long past history of political "protesting". And before the knee jerk denial that you said that, look what you wrote.

I have personally witnessed this violation of rights BS and been the target of cops at *completely* peaceful protests where they went apeshit under some orders and attacked the crowd, going back to civil rights days, pre-anti nam war days, and from then onwards. Not to say violent protests don't happen as well, I won't deny that, but by no means are they all, most usually at least start out peaceful until the overt or covert(yes, this happens) functionaires start the violence, giving them the excuse to go nuts. I have seen it too many times now to not know this isn't SOP with them.

It does no good if you can't assemble where the action is, 10 miles down the road behind a fence is not "the right to assemble",the government has placed illegal and unconstitutional restrictions on a right, they have said you need "permission" to exercise a born-with right. This is illegal. That right no where states you have the right to assemble where THEY tell you to assemble. That's something they just started doing because they got the guns and follow orders from their "superior beings" whomever those entities are.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

It does not state you have "some" rights to assemble or that you can only assemble in some designated "zone". Show us where it says that, I have provided the full quote. If you can, I'll concede gracefully, but I have read that numerous times in my life, and can't seem to see those little clauses you insist are there. If it is public property, you have a right to assemble there (obviously personal private property is a different subject entirely), you have the right to your speech, and the right to be heard with your petitions, whether the petitions are oral, written, or visual, as petitions could take any or all of those forms. We the people have a right to tell our elected folks what we think about what is going on. Period. If they keep trying to dodge the petition, they are violating their duties as elected people, no matter what media form the petition is in. They can't refuse the petition. They can't legally order their mercenaries to keep you away from them when you are trying to deliver your petition to them, but they constantly do that. I know why of course, it's because by and large they are mostly corrupt crooks and want to keep their cushy well paying jobs and positions of "rule" over people.

If you got a political beef, you and your peers have a right to assemble, and to petition the government. That's it, it is that simple ancd clearly the intent of the founders. they were just coming from a time where the redcoats broke up crowds, told them they couldn't be in the town square in a group, arrested "ring leaders' for their "speech", kept them from "petitioning" the crown's authorities, etc, that's why the amendment was written exactly like that. It is beyond clear. They do NOT have the right to restrict you in such a way that they are dodging their duties as governmental workers/politicans/or functionaires, they are REQUIRED to listen to your petitions as acceptance of their official office, to follow the laws. Yes, they have to listen. They still might not agree with your petition, but they have a duty that goes with their oath. And if you come in a group, to show solidarity and the numbers,i.e., an assemblage, too bad, that is a free persons right.

They are NOT RULERS, we are NOT SUBJECTS, much as they and apparently you seem to believ