Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Sails To a New Home
the monolith writes "Back in August, the company supplying bandwidth to The Pirate Bay was forced to disconnect them. Quoting TorrentFreak: '"It took just 20 minutes before the Hollywood companies telephoned the new host who took over operation of The Pirate Bay," commented Patrik from the ISP which had been indirectly supplying bandwidth to TPB. Despite initially putting on a brave face and standing strong, Patrik's company continued to feel the heat. It is not a large outfit and doesn't have the resources to fight the entertainment industry and its threats. Last night, Patrik could hold off no longer after receiving mounting threats from the entertainment industries, which culminated in threats of a court summons. Having come this far, there is little doubt that IFPI and the MPAA would litigate if necessary. ... On the heels of several rumors today, Patrik said he could confirm news of the move, saying that he believes The Pirate Bay is now hosted in Ukraine.'"
The pirate bay will never die.
The industry will be satisfied when they gain the ability to monitor everyone's net connection for signs of "illicit filesharing activity." If you think I'm joking, watch the kind of legislation the entertainment lobbies put their weight behind.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Uhhhh, that is a little bit of bullshit right there.
1) Morality -- Are you really bringing copyrights into the realm of Good, Bad, Evil, and Virtuous? Really? Copyrights themselves are intrinsically evil? Copyrights lack character and fail to conform to current standards? Are you going to tell me there are passages in the bible about how thou shall not create intellectual property and restrict distribution and sale of thou works?
I am not buying that. Current copyrights are of course way off balance and are clearly corrupt tools of a few mega-rich groups of people. However, the idea of myself being granted a temporary group of legal protections under the law to ostensibly allow me to make a living off my creative works is not immoral, evil, indication of bad character, incorrect behavior, or outside of the norm.
2) Financial -- Huh? It makes perfect financial sense. Without the copyrights there is no incentive to be paid at all for your works unless you are DIRECTLY the one performing them or distributing the media they are contained on. Point of sale or performance only. What would stop a megacorp from just copying your works and using their existing infrastructure and wealth to distribute your creations? Nothing. Nothing at all. Put bluntly, the only way to get paid for your work outside of charitable contributions and direct performances is copyright.
3) Logical. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The thinking behind copyright is valid and reasonable. It's implementation may be horrifically flawed and may be arguably harmful to society, but that hardly justifies calling it illogical.
4) Lacking any philosophical sense -- Who the hell are you? No, seriously, not trolling here.. Who the hell ARE YOU?? WOW. You're going to sit there and make absolute statements about philosophy like that? Sorry, you don't get to state absolutes like that.
Owning ideas is as valid a philosophy as not being able to own ideas. There IS a "sense" to it. The idea of copyright is reasonable. You're idea of how our creative works should be treated and expressed, is also reasonable.
Now, I don't mean to make any assumptions about you, but you clearly fall into the category of "Imaginary Property" IMO. That's okay. You can argue for a society in which there are no copyrights or patents, or protections on creative works of any kind. That is a philosophical exercise and I will leave it you without denigrating your position (your presentation leaves a heck of lot to be desired).
However, although your little ditty may sound good, it was neither reasonable nor valid. If you want to argue that intellectual property is not a good thing for society than make some cogent arguments. Not the trolling that you are doing here. It does not serve copyright reform, nor does it serve to promote your ideas either.
Your post makes you sound like a bigot.
Morality -- Are you really bringing copyrights into the realm of Good, Bad, Evil, and Virtuous?
Freedom of speech is good and virtuous.
Copyrights are restriction on freedom of speech, ergo they are the opposite of good and virtuous.
You connect the dots.
2) Financial -- Point of sale or performance only.
Bingo was his nameo!
What would stop a megacorp from just copying your works and using their existing infrastructure and wealth to distribute your creations?
Absolutely nothing. So don't give it away at the point of sale for less than it is worth. Then it doesn't matter if megacorp spends their own money to distribute a million copies, the creator's been paid and all those copies megacorp has distributed are just free advertising for the creator's next work.
3) Logical. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The thinking behind copyright is valid and reasonable.
Maybe that was true before the internet made copyright enforcement impossible, now -- under current conditions -- is quite logical to say that copyright is entirely unreasonable.
Owning ideas is as valid a philosophy as not being able to own ideas.
Yes indeed, just as sensible as legislating pi to be exactly 3.14. With out billions of dollars spent on lawyers guns and, er, money, copyright could never even pretend to exist. But the free distribution of ideas, well that takes exactly zero dollars to make happen, its the natural state and has been since the dawn of man sitting around campfires reciting oral traditions.
Copyright isn't even the ownership of an idea anyway, its the ownership of the right to distribute that idea.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The question is not whether it's legal, the question is whether the small guy can afford to raise that concern...
"Good news, everyone!"