Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Files Suit Against Big Media
Join the Pirate Party writes "Having found the necessary proof via the leaked MediaDefenders documents, the Pirate Bay is filing suit against the big record and movie labels operating in Sweden who have allegedly been paying professional hackers, saboteurs and DDoSers to destroy their trackers. They also claim to have filed a police report."
What revolution will that be then? an anarchist or communist one? where all the media companies go out of business, and all music, software, TV and movies become free for everyone? Also known as the day that mass culture died, to be replaced by endless crappy youtube videos of cats falling off chairs, because that is what you get when you demand that media is produced for free.
Like it or not, even the media that slashdot geeks love (star wars, heroes, firefly, star trek, matrix) is produced by big companies that take a big risk in producing content that will sell. Many companies lose a fortune trying to do this. Not every TV series is a hit, many movies lose money, software companies fold all the time, and most new acts promoted by record companies lose money.
Yet there are people who campaign to actively do away with the whole system and replace it with 'free media' which is basically youtube.
I prefer things the way they are. Its a pain not being able to copy a DVD to my laptop to watch in bed, but I can deal with that. If thats the price of making sure the whole software and entertainment industry sticks around, I'm all for it.
And while we are on the topic, lets not kid ourselves that the owners of the pirate bay give a fuck about freedom, music, DRM or music. Those guys host a site that makes millions in ad revenue off providing a search engine to steal other peoples hard work. ALl those guys give a fuck about is money, its just sad to see so many people fall for their pseudo-political justifications.
And as we all know, all revenue generated by this criminal activity by big records and movie labels is used to fund terrorism.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
> You did not answer his question.
Yes, I did.
No you didn't, and claiming otherwise doesn't make it so. Nor do your subsequent remarks that fail to address this point.
He asked what "right" I [...] had to own property
Yes, and your answer was:
Your ability to stop anyone else having it is not what gives you the right to own it. To claim otherwise conflates ownership with posession/occupation, which you do a lot of in that earlier post. However, if you own it, that does give you the right to stop anyone else from having it, which was my subsequent point, about the question you were really answering, even if you continue to fail, as I note below, to recognize it as such.
One of the points of my answer is that you don't have a "right" to own anything.
You didn't say that. You said:
Furthermore, just because you claim someone doesn't have the right to own anything doesn't make it so. Granted, rights must be interpreted in some context. Perhaps in the context of drsmithy's imaginary fantasy world view, nobody has the right to own anything. But in the real world, there exists a legal framework, dependent on jurisdiction, upon which the concept of ownership, and the rights which derive from it, are clearly defined. You allude to this in your next statement regarding the "legal concept of ownership", but utterly fail to recognize that this is precisely what the "right to own" something refers to in this context.
I've already demonstrated otherwise above, and there's no need to repeat it here, despite your continued failure to recognize it as such.