Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay to Purchase Sealand?
paulraps writes "Notorious Swedish file-sharing website The Pirate Bay is planning to buy its own nation in an attempt to get around troublesome international copyright laws. The organization, the world's largest bit torrent tracker, has set its sights on Sealand, a former British naval platform in the North Sea that has been designated a 'micronation' and claims to be outside UK jurisdiction. With a target price of £500m it won't be cheap, but Pirate Bay says contributors will become honorary citizens."
256kbit over point to point radio last time I checked.
I think they might need an upgrade to do file sharing.
So how do you intend to get money out of leachers?
I though the whole point of the Pirate Bay was that they got everything for free?
Next RIAA tactic -- sue all honary citizens of Sealand.
They wouldn't be buying just a platform. Sealand has a complex history; it was in international waters when built in WW2, and still was when its owner/leader declared it an independent nation. Since then international maritime laws have changed, and if a similar platform was built today it would be a part of the nation closest to it. There was actually a confrontation between Sealand and the Royal Navy in the 70s, IIRC, a standoff which ended with the withdrawal of the RN, supposedly cementing Sealand's place as a sovereign nation. So, that's what The Pirate Bay would be buying: not just an offshore platform, but a true data haven, a sort of modern-day Tortuga, a port from which to set sail on the high seas of the internet with blatant disregard for copyright law.
Sealand claims some sort of special status, and has indeed seen off a couple of half-hearted attempts to get rid of it.
However, let's be serious for a minute. The UK does not recognise the independence of Sealand, which is entirely contained within UK national waters under international law. Seeing off the navy is a cute joke, but if anyone who "bought" the "nation" started seriously impeding UK interests, for example by flagrantly violating UK law, then the "nation" could cease to exist rather abruptly. More realistically, the government would probably just ship a few police officers over there, arrest everyone, and throw them in jail. You'd hear their cries of "You have no jurisdiction!" all the way to the police helicopter, of course. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
No, actually the UK claims it to be inside UK jurisdiction. It was outside UK territorial waters, and the UK then decided to extend its territorial waters further and claim Sealand. K.
Copyright infringement is not theft. The most obvious and conspicuous difference is that the former is civil and the latter criminal law. This has vast implications vis-a-vis the manner in which suit is brought, the possible penalties for the defendant, and the burden on the plaintiff. Another huge difference is that the latter involves denying the owner the use of an asset whereas the former involves unlawfully creating/distributing copies of a work. Copyright infringement and theft are not even closely related issues, and it's impossible to discuss them usefully without realizing that.
Now, these are obvious, relevant, basic facts about a topic which is important and much-discussed on Slashdot. And yet there a largish population (maybe 15% of those who express an interest) on Slashdot of people who just physically cannot learn them. Whence, then, this 'fool reserve'?
Originally I theorized that it relates to sunspot activity but later I came to feel that El Nino, peak oil, the war in Iraq, and the new 'gritty' James Bond may all play a role. And maybe chupacabra. Chupacabra's a pretty sinister beast... think about it, it's a monster named after a lollipop... what could possibly be spookier?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Exactly. If I was to start calling my house a country that doesn't make it one. Nobody other than the current "owners" of the tower considers it a country. It is nothing more than an abandoned antiaircraft tower that some guy took over and claimed was his and started calling it its own country.
So yes it wouldn't change anything as they aren't really buying a country but are just buying a ran down set of towers.
I think the primary problem with your thinking is you like to equate disagreement with you as stupidity. Here, let me show you.
"but the people who say stuff like "Oh, piracy isn't stealing" (I'm not referring to just music here) are just as stupid."
There is not a consensus that obtaining a digital copy is stealing. Whether you want to believe it or not, there still is the inescapable point that in many cases if I obtain a copy of your so and so and had NO intention what so ever to buy it in the first place, you have lost nothing. So, how can that be theft? You must lose something for theft to have occurred.
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: theft
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property.
Of course, if you follow theft with steal and look at the many definitions of the word "steal" just the right way, you COULD twist it into having been stolen. But you really do have to do some gymnastics with the situation to make it fit that too. While I can understand your position, and prefer to buy my music, unfortunately its just too damn expensive. When the music industry gets their head out of their asses and prices music reasonably I will buy all of my music. Until then, I will buy what I can, and obtain the rest however I do.
The OP used the word "steal" not "theft".
Actually, the OP used both words: "They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft."
The start of the reply was then "Sure it is.", which is clearly a response to the "copyright infringement isn't theft" part rather than the "They don't steal anything" part, but then the definition given is for "steal" rather than "theft" -- probably because the definitions for "theft" explicitly refer to "taking and carrying away" and/or "larceny", neither of which applies to "stealing" in the copyright-infringement sense of copying ideas or words.
This thread is fully of misdirection and confusion (whether intentional or not). Be careful who you are defending.
</pedant>
As much as I like the cut of Sealands jib, Brecqou is a prime example of why this will not happen.
Brecqou is a very small island in the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey etc. - Yes my American friends, that's where New Jersey comes from). The Channel Islands have a very complicated political status, but basically they are part of the British Isles and roughly a Crown Protectorate. They're not part of Great Britain, but the pretty much belong to the Crown anway.
It was bought by the Barclays Brothers years ago, they have since been lobbying to have Brecqou considered an independent nation.
£500mill wouldn't break the Barclays Brothers Bank. And yet their bid is going nowhere, basically because the UKs response is 'Ha ha. Don't be silly.'.
Sealand have no chance of maintaining autonomy as soon as they start to piss anyone off, it's all about authority, and at the very root of nationalism, the threat of violence or sanction. Can't withstand/rebut that? You're not a nation.
Except the courts have stated that the British Government has no juristiction over Sealand.
Let's try this again....
I'm afraid not. Copyright infringement is not a crime. If it were a crime, then cases in courts involving copyright infringement would be in criminal courts. They are not.
From: here
Under the Copyright Felony Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233 (1992), infringement of a copyrighted work may now constitute a felony under federal law
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Actually, one local court in Essex stated that it didn't have maritime jurisdiction, and the owners of Sealand managed to convince a lot of people that this meant that all courts in the UK agree that they have no jurisdiction over Sealand.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
What you have done is infringed their rights. That's why this particular immoral act is called "copyright infringement", see?
And the fact that nothing is taken in the process of infringing the copyright-holder's rights is why this is different from theft, where property is actually taken. Copyright infringement is more akin to trespassing. (Are you going to argue that trespassing is also theft, because you are "stealing" someone's right to control who enters their land?)