Digital Act Could Spur Creation of Pirate ISPs In UK

scurtis writes "British anti-copyright group, Pirate Party UK, has predicted that Pirate ISPs will spring up across the country — promoting online privacy and allowing users to share files anonymously — in response to draconian file-sharing proposals outlined in the Digital Economy Act. The news follows reports that the Pirate Party in Sweden (PiratPartiet) will launch the world's first 'Pirate ISP.' The move is designed to curb the use of online surveillance in the country, and combat what PiratPartiet describes as the 'big brother society.'"

Comments

Yarrr

[Anonymous Coward]

Arrgh ye scurvy dogs!

Re:Yarrr

[Anonymous Coward]

We be sailin the seven ISPs.

Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[levell]

Hopefully public pressure (e.g. the ideas on the "Your Freedom" Government run website for suggesting laws to scrap: here and here) will cause the Digital Economy Act to be scrapped.

Aside from public pressure, there is also a possible review in the Lords so there are a few chinks of light in the sky.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Coward]

And just while the music industry is shoring up its defences in that particular house.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Moryath]

Sadly, we'll never see anything of the sort in the USA, because the MafiAA and ISP-Mafia ensure that 90% or more of our people don't even have two rival choices for their ISP - just whatever the fuck shitty company like Cocks or Comcrap paid off the local county board for the right to run "exclusive" cable or phone lines back in the day.

FiOS is 2 miles from my house, but I can't buy it because Verizon doesn't own the fucking PHONE LINES on my side of the interstate and therefore isn't allowed to service fiber to my house either. For fuck's sake.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Neil_Brown]

so there are a few chinks of light in the sky.

I would add to your list the petition for judicial review, which BT and TalkTalk have brought jointly to the High Court.

In my understanding of the situation, the basis of BT's decision is that BT does not consider that the DEA got a fair hearing in Parliament, as a result of being pushed through the wash-up procedure; BT feels that the House of Commons did not have the opportunity of giving the bill, as it was, adequate scrutiny, despite the attentions of the House of Lords.

BT took external legal advice, as to whether BT might face a challenge by users affected by the provisions of the Act, as to whether law was compatible with EU law, and considers that, on the basis of the advice received, that there is a distinct lack of clarity as to whether the DEA regime is compatible with EU law. On this basis, BT and TalkTalk want to seek judicial clarification.

There are four main strands to their petition:

• a.) lack of clarity as to whether law is proportionate – in particular, whether a proper impact assessment of the bill was done. To my mind, this could be a separate challenge on a proportionality basis alone, or else a reference to Art. 1(3)a of the Framework Directive;
• b.) that BT considers that the DEA does not respect the privacy of its users, and that it is not compatible with ePrivacy directive;
• c.) that the DEA may imperil the liability of intermediaries, such that it is incompatible with the eCommerce directive; and
• d.) that the Government did not follow due process, by failing to notify in accordance with the Technical Standards directive.

(Based on public comments by a senior manager of BT, at an event I attended last week.)

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

An excellent example of why a fully elected second chamber is the only democratic way forward...

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[digitig]

a fully elected second chamber is the only democratic way forward...

Pretty much by definition. But is a fully elected second chamber the best way forward?

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[VJ42]

I would add to your list the petition for judicial review, which BT and TalkTalk have brought jointly to the High Court.

When BT and TalkTalk announced that they were going for judicial review I emailed my (new, Tory) MP the following

...
could you please clarify the Government's stance on BT and TalkTalk's legal challenge to the Digital Economy act? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10542400.stm I note that the statement from BIS in the BBC article just commented on the purpose of the act, not whether the government would actually be defending it. Indeed, given the wiggle room it leaves, it could have been written by Sir Humphrey Appleby himself.
...

In response I've got, on House of Commons headed notepaper dated 12th July 2010 a letter a copy of a letter from her to the Secretary of State.
We've not yet received a response; I don't think that the coalition government has actually decided what it'll do with the act; it knows there's a lot of public pressure, the lib-dems opposed it a lot of Tory back bencher's are\were unhappy with the way it went through in the wash up without proper scrutiny. I'm not 100% convinced that they'll even defend it at the judicial review. Indeed, Nick Clegg is on record as saying that it "badly needs repealing"

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Barrinmw]

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Leia Organa

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[dotwaffle]

Personally, I don't think so. You only need look at the US to see that having two elected chambers is not necessarily a good thing. While the hereditary aspects of peerages are not very nice, the vast majority of the debate that goes on within the Lords would surprise you and some startlingly frank and honest discussion is carried out that really does represent the best interest of our country.

In my ideal world (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that this is a perfect system), the upper house would be replaced with a system of jurors. Just like in jury service, a selection of 100 people are chosen at random and they debate the bill under discussion, and place their vote in favour, against, or decline to vote. There would be no politics to play, as they have no seat to defend - just like how the Lords was designed. Only now, you get the common-man check on the bill that the Commons is trying to pass.

As a by-product, I think you'd get legislation that is also a hell of a lot easier to read and understand, rather than the legalese that seems to be produced at the moment.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[cjb658]

I think that's a great idea. We should just pull Joe Blow off the street and he'll be our president for the next year. It certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have now.

If he really sucks, we can recall or impeach him.

As for having a fully elected legislature, I disagree with this idea. US Senators were not originally elected by the people, but rather by state legislatures. The reason is that voters are very easy to manipulate. (Politicians can fool some people all the time, and all people some of the time.)

Of course, there are other problems created by not having an elected (by the people) legislature, so that's why we had the hybrid bicameral one.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[cjb658]

Well, most of us at least have the choice between DSL and Cable, or, God forbid, wireless and satellite.

P2P and web browsing aren't that sensitive to latency though, so it might make sense to have two internet connections, and use wireless for activities that might be censored, and get DSL or cable for games and VoIP.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[dotwaffle]

Sounds good!

One amendment though - you NEVER want one person in charge of something for a long period of time. They might learn how to do things better, for sure, but they're more likely to take self-interest into the equation much sooner.

That's why I suggested that for each bill, a new "jury" of 100 people were chosen. It seems fair, considering ultimately they would have to abide by those laws when deciding someone's innocence/guilt in a court.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[jonbryce]

The European Union's Council of Ministers is elected by member states, and I'm not at all convinced that they do a better job than the directly elected EU Parliament. Look at software patents for an example.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Of the ways that have been seriously suggested recently, yes, I think it is. The other ways are essentially some balance of government-appointed vs. elected people.

I think this is a "best possible outcome" vs. "best outcome possible" situation. The best possible outcome may well be something very different; I have in the past suggested something based on random selection from the population, not so different to the juror idea mentioned by dotwaffle in another reply. However, realistically, the best outcome possible for now is moving to a system that at least doesn't give arbitrary government cronies the power to legislate, because.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[digitig]

The trouble is that a democracy is based on a persons ability to get elected, not their ability to do the job. I understand all the arguments about it being the "worst form of government except for all the others", but I think it's important to recognise that it has faults. I can see an advantage in the second house being chosen by a completely different system, because even though that system will have worse faults than democracy most of them will be different faults. As an engineer I can see the advantage of diverse systems even if one of the diverse systems is clearly better than the other.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah - you are naive. Most people in the UK think computers are magic and that the internet is fluid based.

The UK has the most inactive population in the world. Labotomized by TV, they have allowed CCTV everywhere, imprisonment without trial etc. Nothing makes my countrymen blink. So long as the TV works, nobody will protest about anything.

Maybe the new government will sort it out, but it won't be due to public pressure, as the UK is full of zombies.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[mcgrew]

We need to start a wifi mesh network where possible. As I'm no expert in networking or security, I'm not the one to do it, but an app (preferably that will run on both 'nix and Windows) that opens your internet connection to all within range while keeping your box invisible should be developed.

I can see a time where traditional ISPs only service Starbucks, McDonald's, bars with internet jukeboxes, libraries, and other places that offer wi-fi.

The locked down, "every hotspot has a password" paradigm is crazy IMO. I don't see how my dream isn't do-able. Any volunteers from the FOSS community?

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I think we agree on a lot of these points. Diversity does have merit in this context, for one thing.

However, I am opposed to specifically a government-appointed second house, such as we have today. This system serves far too often as a way of keeping lifetime political animals in power when they no longer command popular support, rather than as a way to separate powers and create the kinds of checks and balances that reasonable government requires. Given that the fairness of our current voting system for general elections in the UK is in considerable dispute, allowing the winners to solidify their control via the Lords seems foolish. (The same is true of other senior government figures appointed in similar ways, e.g., most European government apart from MEPs, the US Supreme Court, etc.)

It is regrettable that the quality of debate in the Lords is often better than that of the Commons anyway. Then again, the quality of debate over dinner in a household full of reasonably experienced and well-informed adults is also often better than the quality of debate in the Commons, but we don't give everyone there the power to legislate. I suspect any credible second chamber needs either to have a clear popular mandate of some form or to be selected directly from the population in some unbiased way.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[mdwh2]

It was an elected house that passed this law in the first place, with little debate. Whislt there are flaws with the Lords, the last thing we want is a duplicate of the Commons.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[mdwh2]

But what are people to do? Thousands of people wrote to their MPs over the Digital Economy Bill, only to be ignored. When they protest, the Government can still ignore them. Or pass laws banning protest outside Parliament without permission - and then get the police to remove such protestors (as recently happened).

People do protest - such as the G20 protests (where peaceful protesters can be "kettled" for hours, and a complete bystander died after being hit by the police, the news today saying they won't face charges).

I know it's depressing that a lot of people don't care, but it is silly to say that no one is protesting.

What about all the things happening in the US? Is that because people are "zombies" too?

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It was an elected house that passed this law in the first place, with little debate.

That was rather the problem, though: it wasn't really the elected house that passed the law, because an election had just been called and almost no-one was actually in the Commons for the debates and votes on wash-up bills. There was widespread criticism of pushing the Act through essentially on a technicality, from members of all the major parties.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Lords, when it's been at its best, is a good example of why an elected second chamber is not only not a good idea but an incredibly bad one for Britain.

The whole point about the Lords, is that it's not, at heart, a law-making chamber; it's a revising one. The main role of the Lords is to be a (small-c) conservative buffer between the knee-jerk tendency of the Commons to legislate on the fads, fashions and media frenzies of the moment and the needs and interests of both the country and the legal system to have law that is reasonable, fair, actually makes sense and has a chance of working. That is, quite expressly, NOT a job for a career politician (let alone for one of the same hue as whatever party happens to be in power at the time), if we want a legal framework that not only works but also respects our rights.

It is one of THE strengths of the Lords that its members aren't elected. Not only do they not need to be, it would significantly weaken their ability to do their job if they were. The Commons already has the ultimate right to legislate, and the Lords can't ultimately block it - but it CAN send stuff back (and has done repeatedly over the years, often in the face of storming outrage from governments of all political complexions). And it doesn't matter how much a government blusters and storms - the member of the House of Lords DON'T HAVE TO CARE. They're not looking over their shoulders all the time for political or popular approval, because they're not in danger of being voted out in a couple of years on an electoral whim - so they can stand their ground and take a measured or principled view. Even the nominally party-aligned peers have the ultimate option of resigning the party whip and sitting as cross-benchers. If the Commons cares enough, it has the right to override them, but it will do so in the light of full publicity, and it better have its arguments sorted - because the Lords most certainly will.

There hasn't even been a real requirement for members of the Lords to even turn up - which sounds appalling, but is quite the reverse. It means that, in practice, the people who have done so over the years have been those who have been genuinely passionate about doing the job and about doing it well. Further, both hereditary and appointed peers, over the years, have tended to be people with real experience of both business and law - so on the whole we've had quality people doing a job that they actually wanted to do, attempting to make considered, intelligent decisions, largely free from political interference.

I understood and understand why an hereditary house should have seemed so undemocratic to the Left. To a degree, I share that view, but with one caveat: the system WORKED. Replacing the Lords with an elected chamber would be disastrous, because it would inevitably lose the degree of "couldn't care less" independence that has been its massive strength over the years. That strength has already been seriously diminished by the reforms of the last decade, to the point where a government with a strong majority can act pretty much like an elected dictatorship; the last thing we need on top of that is an emasculated poodle that does whatever it's told, populated by career politicians with a vested interest in not rocking the boat. If the Lords has to be reformed, so be it - but it would take a seriously-well-thought-out system to produce an elected house capable of doing the job even half as well as the old, unelected one managed to. What's needed, if we're to have change, is actually more of the same (even if the way we arrive at it has to be different) - intelligent, experienced, independent people, doing a job on our behalves that they have a passion to do, without the need to be constantly looking over their shoulders at their political masters or the uncertainties of the next election.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[dotwaffle]

Bravo, that man!

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[jez9999]

If you're not joking... pulling Joe Blow off the street could easily result in your getting a president who is extremely homophobic, anti-immigrant (like kick 'em out!), racist, and crazy about religion. As for impeaching em, they might well get enough support from likeminded people in certain areas of the US to block impeachment.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[jez9999]

The REALLY depressing thing is that, despite the last 13 years, 30%+ people still 'identify as Labour' in polls. What the FUCK does it take to get these people to stop them support Labour? What more must Labour fuck up? I'm forced to conclude that these people are generally ignorant, stupid, or both. Better to at least identify with NO political party than your daddy's if you're unsure.

Re:Am I naive to think it might get scrapped?

[cjb658]

Or we might get one that puts people with communist ties in his cabinet, borrows money from China and spends it like there's no tomorrow, gives money to the very people that caused the financial crisis, and nationalizes our entire health care and banking systems.

Oh wait, that's what our current system produces.

Crazy Talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Next you'll be telling me draconian drugs laws could create multi-billion-dollar black-market economies that could turn streets into war zones, corrupt law enforcement, and actually bring down elected governments.

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

Re:Crazy Talk

[Anonymous Coward]

Next you'll be telling me draconian immigration laws could create multi-billion-dollar black-market economies that could turn streets into war zones, corrupt law enforcement, and actually bring down elected governments.

Go sell crazy somewhere else.

Re:Crazy Talk

[ooshna]

Next you'll be telling me copying someones thought and changing some words to make it work for another idea is cliche, done too much, and will get you modded down. Oh something about a multi-billion-dollar black-market economy too. Go sell crazy somewhere else.

Re:Crazy Talk

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron.

The drug laws make drugs completely illegal, which creates the opportunity for a black market. Stopping people from leaching digital goods for free isn't going to create some sort of black market for items people can just buy from the fucking publisher.

Go drink a bottle of drano while you sodomize yourself with a sandpaper wrapped dildo.

Why Pirate?

[ceraphis]

Why associate the creation of ISPs that protect your privacy with piracy?

I'm all for the idea of having certain protections in place at your ISP so you can sleep well at night, maybe even have an unsecured access point knowing that the ISP won't help authorities get you for something your neighbor or a wardriver did.

But what if I don't care for piracy and like to buy the stuff that I enjoy? Why do they want to, in a way, force you to be guilty by association?

Re:Why Pirate?

[stanlyb]

Regarding the law, you don't buy anything, but just borrowing it.....for awhile.

Re:Why Pirate?

[wisnoskij]

Not that I know anymore then you do, but I think pirate ISP is just them taking a name that induces more controversy. Not that they do not want people to pay for anything digital.

Re:Why Pirate?

[AigariusDebian]

Marketing towards computer-savvy customers? Those that usually recommend ISP to others too?

Re:Why Pirate?

[geekd]

I assume it's from "Pirate Radio". They are "pirate" because they don't have a license or permit to be a real ISP.

Re:Why Pirate?

[TarMil]

It seems that you didn't understand the idea behind the names "Pirate Party" and "Pirate ISP" in the first place. The word "pirate" symbolizes the public fear of everything people don't understand in IT. These guys are making fun of it, and in some way denouncing it, but they have never encouraged anyone to do anything illegal.

Re:Why Pirate?

[zero_out]

Many people associate pirates with freedom, not with theft and murder. It's this fantasized version of pirates that has permeated modern cultures. Have you ever seen the anime One Piece? It's a fantasized story of pirates, who are really just a bunch of people who enjoy being free, and go around fighting injustice. How much actual piracy occurred in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Some, yes, but not a lot. Wasn't the tale of Jack Sparrow more about his search for freedom? In the end, he was searching for freedom from mortality. Isn't the desire for privacy really a desire for freedom from some form of oppression?

Re:Why Pirate?

[houghi]

If having any privacy is outlawed, only criminals will have privacy.

Re:Why Pirate?

[mark-t]

That may be, but the word 'pirate' has been strongly associated with lawbreaking since the invention of the term, and there's very little that any sort of political campaigning is going to do to change that.

Now that said, I know that language evolves over time and words that mean one thing can come to convey another notion - but this sort of evolution takes a long time, and I really don't see piracy not having the connotation of breaking the law being strongly associated with it any time within the next half a century.

Re:Why Pirate?

[clarkkent09]

That was my first thought as well. Privacy and piracy are two very different things and it may be that these "pirate" parties are disingenuously trying to link those two together.

Of course, there is a connection in that by trying to stop the piracy the authorities are inclined to trample on our right to privacy, but if that is their concern they should call themselves the Privacy Party or something. They have defined themselves by their rejection of the right to intellectual property and in my opinion that taints whatever valid things they are trying to do.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And if having complete privacy is legislated, criminals will do whatever the f**k they want, safely hidden behind an anonymity shield that means they can never be held accountable for their actions.

The world is not black and white.

Re:Why Pirate?

[selven]

The "Pirate" movement has distanced itself from the "I want free stuff" mentality. Their platform involves freedom, privacy and individual rights, and many "pirates" that have actually thought about the issues do support their artists. The Pirate movement is using the word "pirate" specifically in an attempt to reclaim the word, which is currently used as a propaganda term by the copyright lobby in an attempt to link downloading to stealing ships, and associate it with freedom, privacy and all that other good stuff. It's all a war of words.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Monkeedude1212]

Why associate the creation of ISPs that protect your privacy with piracy?

Because those will be their strongest supporters. Not that it's their only supporters or that's all that they are good for, but thats who will identify with them most. No more, no less. Just like you don't have to be an environmentalist to support the Green Party in Canada, but they call themselves that.

Re:Why Pirate?

[anyGould]

I've always presumed that they use the word "Pirate" to poke at the idea that illegal copying is somehow equatable to high-seas violence. (As opposed to, say, "copying your neighbor's homework").

I think the next step is to apply the same overbearing verbage to those who are trying to screw over the consumers. I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.

And yes, I am fully aware that rape is a serious and not-funny crime. Kind of like actual piracy.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Nadaka]

And the world I want is somewhere in between.

Where you have the reasonable expectation of privacy, but given sufficient evidence, the authorities can get a warrant.

You know, the kind of place that America was supposed to be?

Unfortunately this concept is rapidly loosing ground to the Police Statist agenda.

You can not fight an extremist with reasonable moderation.

If you do, any compromise will result in loosing ground.

You need an opposing extremist.

That way, a compromise may hopefully exist somewhere within the reasonable area between the two.

Re:Why Pirate?

[lgw]

There are plenty of ways to track criminals other than IP addresses. But if the "crimes" don't involve money, or physical goods, or (physical) personal interaction, or something else trackable in the real world, then "safely hidden" is probably the same as "free speech", so I'm OK with that. The occasional act of digital vandalism is a small price to pay for protection from overbearing governments and corporations.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Nikker]

Coming up with a brain fart doesn't prove your point. The ISP is not some magical black hole that has ability to change server logs and make you invisible. Do you really think The Terrorists(TM) will be able to have some magical internet anonymity if they just pay a different ISP? I think the following link will clear this up for you....

The invisible internet

Re:Why Pirate?

[dangitman]

I think the next step is to apply the same overbearing verbage to those who are trying to screw over the consumers. I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.

IPillager

Re:Why Pirate?

[ooshna]

Take away the rights of millions to catch dozens. Yep that makes sense.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Local ID10T]

That may be, but the word 'pirate' has been strongly associated with lawbreaking since the invention of the term, and there's very little that any sort of political campaigning is going to do to change that.

That is the point of using the name.

The pirate party was established to fight the unjust laws. Thus breaking the laws as a political statement.

Re:Why Pirate?

[icebraining]

They aren't "linking" anything. Privacy is one of the things they defend - just like any other party, they defend more than one thing.

They have defined themselves by their rejection of the right to intellectual property and in my opinion that taints whatever valid things they are trying to do.

Then open your own "Privacy ISP".

Re:Why Pirate?

[shutdown -p now]

That's precisely what court warrants are for. Last I checked, none of those "extra privacy" ISPs claimed that they would ignore a warrant. They just don't want to hand anyone (including law enforcement) any information above and beyond that mandated by the law as it stands. Which is as it should be.

Re:Why Pirate?

[kz45]

"Why associate the creation of ISPs that protect your privacy with piracy? "

Because their intent is to allow people to pirate digital goods. Privacy is just the excuse.

Re:Why Pirate?

[kz45]

"Isn't the desire for privacy really a desire for freedom from some form of oppression?"

You are confusing freedom with copyright infringement.

"Have you ever seen the anime One Piece? It's a fantasized story of pirates"

Pirates have almost always been criminals that steal, rape, and pillage. Your one example of anime where they just so happened to be good doesn't justify a name change.

Re:Why Pirate?

[kz45]

"But if the "crimes" don't involve money, or physical goods, or (physical) personal interaction, or something else trackable in the real world, then "safely hidden" is probably the same as "free speech", "

Right, so if it doesn't meet you definition of crime, it's a-ok in your book. Since nobody here seems to care about the rights of content owners, I wonder why there is an outcry when people violate the GPL?

Re:Why Pirate?

[kz45]

"The Pirate movement is using the word "pirate" specifically in an attempt to reclaim the word, which is currently used as a propaganda term by the copyright lobby in an attempt to link downloading to stealing ships, and associate it with freedom, privacy and all that other good stuff. It's all a war of words."

If I posted your credit card info on a website, should the site get taken down? After all, it's just data and information. I should have the freedom to do what I want with it.

Re:Why Pirate?

[kz45]

"Because those will be their strongest supporters."

This is because software pirates don't care about illegally copying software and will support anything that will give them less of a chance of getting caught.

This is why I can't take the movement seriously.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is not, and has never been about privacy. It has always been a bunch of entitled people thinking they deserve to take whatever they want, without paying the people who made it.

Re:Why Pirate?

[ae1294]

Pirates have almost always been criminals that steal, rape, and pillage. Your one example of anime where they just so happened to be good doesn't justify a name change.

Sooo the MPAA is run by Pirates then? I'm so confused....and high....

Re:Why Pirate?

[selven]

If I posted your credit card info on a website, should the site get taken down?

Did you just seriously advocate taking down an entire site just because one person posted one other person's credit card data on it?

Also, I think that sort of thing is covered under the "privacy" section of the platform.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Znork]

but the word 'pirate' has been strongly associated with lawbreaking

That's not exactly a new thing in politics. Snipped from Wikipedia:

Tories: The word derives from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe; modern Irish tóraí: outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning "pursuit", since outlaws were "pursued men".[1][2] It was originally used to refer to an Irish outlaw and later applied to Confederates or Royalists in arms.[3] The term was thus originally a term of abuse, "an Irish rebel", before being adopted as a political label in the same way as Whig.

And they're hardly rare either...

Re:Why Pirate?

[jonbryce]

No, it is because small ISPs are exempt from the rules, so the answer is to create lots of small ISPs that are below the subscriber limit then people can do what they want.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There is no absolute right to free speech in this country (or any other than I am aware of, for that matter).

In any case, are you suggesting that spamming, phishing, credit card fraud or outright identity theft, selling life-threatening fake drugs, grooming vulnerable people (children or otherwise), DOS attacks, spreading malware, and all the other illegal things that get done on-line are just "occasional acts of digitial vandalism"?

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You can not fight an extremist with reasonable moderation.
If you do, any compromise will result in loosing ground.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I'm completely with you on the seeking-a-middle-ground part. I just don't think when we're talking about rules that have the force of law, any sort of extreme is likely to be a good idea. The elected governments in a democracy are supposed to be there precisely to ensure that only a reasonable balance actually makes it to the statute books. Giving in to extremism is just as damaging, whether it is Big Media "we own your soul" or freeloader "information wants to be free".

Re:Why Pirate?

[mark-t]

Except that the word piracy is most heavily associated with the breaking of laws that are *not* unjust, specifically laws that protect one's security of person and property, so no... the term remains invalid from any sort of literal standpoint. At best they might hope to appeal to people who have a more romantic ideal of piracy, perhaps brought about by some recent Hollywood imagery, but I remain quite convinced that the most they might manage to do in the next few decades as a result is make some people chuckle about their childish name.

If the public perception of the term "pirate" somehow evolves to mean, in a generally understood sense, something that is no longer associated with pillaging and with lawbreaking in general, then surely the term could have practical utilization in a political party's name. But not until then... they simply have no realistic chance of being taken seriously by any significant number of people, no matter how serious their actual platforms may be.

People who believe otherwise are simply engaging in fantasy. Not that there's anything wrong with that in a general sense, but it's nevertheless important to still be able to tell the difference between fiction and reality.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And which right would that be?

I am a firm believer in privacy being the default, and I have no problem with an absolute requirement for judicial oversight any time that privacy is going to be violated. (I never said I did, though a few people replying to my GP post seem to have read that into it for some reason.)

But an absolute right to privacy, including preservation of anonymity, by definition means that you can never be held accountable for your actions. The same practical measures that would let pirates get away with on-line copyright infringement (if they happen not to like copyright law and consider that to be ethical behaviour) would also let different people get away with other things, and those might be a lot worse.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I completely agree about having oversight by a court before compelling any ISP to reveal someone's identity. I'm just saying that there are times when doing that is justified, because some times you do need to be able to catch the bad people.

Given the fact that I was modded Troll and lots of replies contradicting me were modded up, I'm trying to work out whether I'm misinterpreting the post I originally replied to, lots of people are misinterpreting my post, or we're just all talking at cross-purposes...

Re:Why Pirate?

[mark-t]

And I dare say it took many centuries for the word's meaning to evolve to that point, which is what I am saying. The language has to evolve before it will be practical to use a word that has so much negative connotation with a political party that has a respectable set of platforms and hopes to be taken seriously by the general population. That much evolution is not liable to happen in my lifetime. Past precedent for how quickly languages have evolved does not really apply, as the evolution of all printed languages slowed substantially with the invention of the printing press.

Re:Why Pirate?

[ooshna]

Well everything the NSA can track you doing its worse than illegal wiretapping

Re:Why Pirate?

[lgw]

Right, so if it doesn't meet you definition of crime, it's a-ok in your book.

Close: if I don't see something as immoral, then by definition(/i> it's OK in my book. Not that laws should directly encapsulate morality - that never ends well - but morality sets the objectives. I certainly care more about the rights of content creators than content owners. I've long argued here that if you use a copy of a song or game or whatever without paying for it, you're morally a thief, and getting pedantic about legal definitions doesn't change that fact. But that's pretty low on my list of what's important in life: better to depend on an honor system for paying artists than to surrender privacy for the sake of enforcement!

Re:Why Pirate?

[mavasplode]

I think "rights rapist" has a nice ring to it.

IPillager

iPillage

Re:Why Pirate?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Naturally, since breaking the laws without a political statement is generally frowned upon.

Re:Why Pirate?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The "Pirate" movement has distanced itself from the "I want free stuff" mentality. Their platform involves freedom, privacy and individual rights, and many "pirates" that have actually thought about the issues do support their artists.

Yes, they say they support the artists, but they advocate legalising non-commercial file sharing. That is, it's OK for people to share works for non-commercial purposes as much as they like, but when a company does it, or someone sells copies, or uses the copies to sell something else, then it's not OK. That sounds fine on the surface, but it starts to look rotten if you actually explore the reasons behind the banning of sharing of copyrighted works. Most of their sales, and hence, most of their income, comes from people using their work for non-commercial purposes. They can only sell these copies in any reasonable volume if these copies are scarce. By allowing non-commercial sharing, you take a huge chunk of their market, and hence a huge chunk of their livelihood.

Compare this to commercial sharing. Where is the harm in commercial sharing? Well, it eliminates demand, just like non-commercial sharing. And... er... that's about it. It doesn't matter whether or not the receiver is a company, since the company only has to buy a single copy, just like any individual. It doesn't matter whether an individual receives a copy in exchange for love, money, or nothing at all, since the end result is that they have a copy of the artist's work, and the artist gets nothing. Besides, who actually pays for pirated materials, when you can get equally legal free copies off the internet? I doubt that commercial infringement is even an issue for the average artist. Much of their grief is coming from, and always will come from, non-commercial sharing.

So, forgive me if I'm sceptical when the pirate movement says they want to protect artists' rights.

Re:Why Pirate?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The "Pirate" movement has distanced itself from the "I want free stuff" mentality. Their platform involves freedom, privacy and individual rights, and many "pirates" that have actually thought about the issues do support their artists.

Yes, they say they support the artists, but they advocate legalising non-commercial file sharing. That is, it's OK for people to share works for non-commercial purposes as much as they like, but when a company does it, or someone sells copies, or uses the copies to sell something else, then it's not OK. That sounds fine on the surface, but it starts to look rotten if you actually explore the reasons behind the banning of sharing of copyrighted works. Most of their sales, and hence, most of their income, comes from people using their work for non-commercial purposes. They can only sell these copies in any reasonable volume if these copies are scarce. By allowing non-commercial sharing, you take a huge chunk of their market, and hence a huge chunk of their livelihood.

Compare this to commercial sharing. Where is the harm in commercial sharing? Well, it eliminates demand, just like non-commercial sharing. And... er... that's about it. It doesn't matter whether or not the receiver is a company, since the company only has to buy a single copy, just like any individual. It doesn't matter whether an individual receives a copy in exchange for love, money, or nothing at all, since the end result is that they have a copy of the artist's work, and the artist gets nothing. Besides, who actually pays for pirated materials, when you can get equally legal free copies off the internet? I doubt that commercial infringement is even an issue for the average artist. Much of their grief is coming from, and always will come from, non-commercial sharing.

So, forgive me if I'm sceptical when the pirate movement says they want to protect artists' rights.

(I just encountered a weird /. bug, where the post doesn't display, but it claims that it has been posted, so I'm adding this gratuitous line here to get around the filter.)

Re:Why Pirate?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Oh crap. I think I just opened myself up to double the downmods, huh? ;-)

(Mods, feel free to mod this offtopic. I deserve it.)

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

the use of the word pirate for copyright infringement dates back about 400 years. Its not being misused. You just don't like the label.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Tim C]

an attempt to reclaim the word, which is currently used as a propaganda term by the copyright lobby in an attempt to link downloading to stealing ships

The first recorded use of the word "pirate" to mean "one who takes another's work without permission" is from 300 years ago (source). This is not a new invention, and that battle is already lost.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think those interpretations are more correct than you think. Many pirates in that age weren't simply bandits, but ex-sailors and other men and women typically on the run from their nation's navies, who had a habit of getting 'recruits' by getting them pissed in a local tavern. The Royal Navy was supposed to be particularly notorious for this.

At the end of the 'age of piracy' many pirates took offers from the governors in America and settled down, some even actually becoming legal landowners.

Re:Why Pirate?

[delinear]

You don't believe language can evolve at a much faster rate in a world that's constantly connected via the internet? Remember, back when the term tory was evolving, you were considered a wise traveller if you visited the next village over. Look at how many terms specificially invented for use with technology have already become common-place - grandparents using the term "LOL" when they wouldn't even know how to plug in a DVD player. Maybe you're right that it's currently offputting in a political party (although I'd have voted for them if they had a candidate in my area at the last election - it would send a pretty strong message) but whether it will take a lifetime for that to change depends on what happens over the next few years. The more the **AAs tar everyone as pirates, and the more people who believe IP is too restrictive use the mantle in fun, the less effective it is as a derogatory term - in any case it always takes someone to be the first to stand up and say "you're accusing me of being this thing - well you know what, I am this thing, moreover there's nothing wrong with it and I'm proud of the fact".

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing the purpose of the GPL - it was never intended as the geeks wanting a piece of the IP pie for themselves, rather it's a way to hold a mirror up to the big companies who are the first to scream that strict IP is necessary to protect their hard work, but are happy to profit from the hard work of others. It's the geek way of saying - hey, you wanted these rules, we might not agree with them but they're here now at your bidding and now you have to play by them. Or do you think we should sit quietly by while big business tramples on everyone's rights with restrictive bought-and-paid-for laws while being the worst violators of said laws?

Re:Why Pirate?

[selven]

It's not about "making money is evil". It's about giving people the right to freely share works while still leaving room for the content creators to make money. Things like paper books, CD/DVD sales, movie theater tickets and merchandising are inherently commercial activities, and you can't possibly participate in them without being commercial (and don't forget live concerts, you can't digitally infringe those). Sure, the big name studios/artists will see their profits go down by half an order of magnitude, but they'll still have enough to make a living, and piracy actually helps the more obscure artists by getting them recognition.

Re:Why Pirate?

[selven]

There is no such thing as a lost battle unless one side is fully exterminated. We may have lost centuries ago, but it's always possible to get the battle started up again and win it. Just look at the browser market - IE convincingly "won" in the early 2000s, going up to a 90%+ market share, but we started up the battle again and now we're winning.

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because someone needs to stand up to the ninja parties. Who else would sneak in mass surveillance or MAFIAA sponsored laws while most people don't even notice it? Surely most people would normally notice how anti-scarecrow laws are eroding their own freedom? Right guys? Right?

Re:Why Pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what happens when the mainstream tries to abuse words to create bias. The misused label evolves; to end up meaning the thing it's been incorrectly applied to.

If you call nice people assholes, then eventually "assholes" will come to mean "nice".

If you study neural networks, this is call "adaption".

Re:Why Pirate?

[mark-t]

"The more the **AAs tar everyone as pirates, and the more people who believe IP is too restrictive use the mantle in fun, the less effective it is as a derogatory term."

You could be completely right about that, but as I see it, before the general notion of what the term conveys is likely to shift simply on that account, a *LOT* more people are going to have to do it.

"...although I'd have voted for them if they had a candidate in my area at the last election - it would send a pretty strong message."

Even without the strong negative connotations of the term "pirate", the name still at best sounds like something out of a children's story, and isn't something people are liable to take seriously... so no, it wouldn't send a message. Until the language evolves to a point that the term does not have either of these connotations, either the negative connotation of lawbreaking, or else the connotation of character straight out of some Disney movie, a political party with that term in their name, no matter how respectable their actual intentions may be, simply has no chance of being taken seriously. Any other perspective, as I see it, is simply not a realistic or tenable one at any point in the near future.

Now that said, believing in something that's currently impossible isn't necessarily a terrible thing... it can gives one something to strive towards in order to someday make it possible. I'm just recognizing that it's currently not realistic to think it's going to actually happen anytime soon enough that it will ever make a significant difference for most people who are already of legal voting age right now.

Re:Why Pirate?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

But that answer just raises more questions than it answers! If the pirate party actually believe the creators don't need to make money off selling their works, then what's the point of their supporting copyright for commercial entities? And, if this is the solution to piracy, then why aren't more people electing to eschew their copyrights, and go down this route? And why, if it helps obscure artists get recognition, aren't more obscure artists using this technique? And if they are, why aren't they getting the recognition they're being promised? And what about people who don't want to be stuck reading off dead trees, or having to watch movies in overpriced cinemas, or having to listen to music at designated times and places, for a lot of money? Where is the incentive to produce quality musical recordings, or release movies for home use?

I'm sorry, but this picture being painted sounds suffocatingly restrictive and poorly thought out to me. Not to mention, there seems to be this incorrect assumption that you can halve the income of artists, and we'll be none the worse for wear. If we artificially restrict the income of artists, then the net result will be less artists. Fewer artists will be able to survive, especially the unknowns, and as a result, fewer people will lust over the stardom which reels in so many potential artists these days.

I'm sorry, but what you're describing sounds pretty much like a death knell for our culture. We'd be stuck back in the cultural dark ages, when the few artists that existed only created for a commission, and only the rich would have access to a culture.

Re:Why Pirate?

[mcgrew]

It's all a war of words.

Oblig. Pink Floyd:

"Haven't you heard? It's a battle of words," the poster bearer cried. "Listen, son," said the man with the gun, "there's room for you inside!"

Re:Why Pirate?

[Ashriel]

if this is the solution to piracy, then why aren't more people electing to eschew their copyrights, and go down this route?

It's called the Creative Commons (CC) license, and many artists are marketing their works under it.

And why, if it helps obscure artists get recognition, aren't more obscure artists using this technique?

They are. Getting your stuff online is pretty much essential for any artists these days. I've even found a few obscure artists that I never would have discovered otherwise via torrenting. The reasons you aren't noticing this are probably because:

1. You probably aren't filesharing that much.
2. Obscure != Good
3. You probably aren't looking very hard (see #1).

And if they are, why aren't they getting the recognition they're being promised?

1. Mainsteam media has a vested interest in only promoting commercial artists (i.e., that pay them something)
2. See #2 above

And what about people who don't want to be stuck reading off dead trees, or having to watch movies in overpriced cinemas, or having to listen to music at designated times and places, for a lot of money?

Why these people get their music and movies for free! Yay! Honestly, this question seems more directed at asking what's wrong with copyright, rather than free sharing

Where is the incentive to produce quality musical recordings, or release movies for home use?

Don't worry, the users will fill in this gap in no time - in fact, they already are. There doesn't need to be incentive on the artists part, the fans will quickly convert their works into some form of distributable media

Not to mention, there seems to be this incorrect assumption that you can halve the income of artists, and we'll be none the worse for wear.

Actually, the grandparent said half an order of magnitude, which is a 5x reduction. That's actually not true, in any case: artists see very little of the money made from the cds and dvds of their work - the greater part of income earned from those sales feeds the production company's advertising costs, salaries, and legal fees. So, actually it would mean a reduction in advertising, unnecessary corporate management, and lawyers. Not a great loss.

If we artificially restrict the income of artists, then the net result will be less artists.

Yes, that's correct.

I'm sorry, but what you're describing sounds pretty much like a death knell for our culture. We'd be stuck back in the cultural dark ages, when the few artists that existed only created for a commission, and only the rich would have access to a culture.

Quite incorrect. You are assuming artists only create for the sake of fame and fortune, when in fact real artists create works because of passion. The reason that artists were only available to the wealthy back in the day was because it took a great deal of resources to support their art, and they would otherwise be unable to afford such things. This is no longer true today; now anyone can produce content on a tiny budget, and need not spend every waking moment creating, for that matter - they can get real jobs to support themselves and their art. This is the truth of today, this is the truth that the **AA's are trying to hide.

Writing that last paragraph made me realize that the system hasn't actually changed that much - the production companies have merely taken the place of the wealthy patrons of the past. And since art is of no real use to an evil corporation, they simply copy (freely) what they get from the artist and dole it out in measured amounts to the public.

Also, consider this: even if you were correct and utterly free sharing of all artistic works becoming the norm causes all artists to disappear from the face of the earth overnight,

Perhaps, but superfluous anyway

[Mathinker]

Even in the event that the "less than 400K subscribers" loophole doesn't manage to give people enough freedom, there's always the various darknets. And if the freedom is for copyright infringement, actual physical "sharing parties".

Really, if you don't have enough freedom to break the law, you probably don't have enough freedom. (And before the comprehension-disabled jump on me for encouraging crime, I did not imply that people should break the law --- just that they should have enough personal freedom that they could.)

Re:Perhaps, but superfluous anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree, freedom is a responsibility, this requires trust from government and the people, some will abuse it but most will not....

Re:Perhaps, but superfluous anyway

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Really, if you don't have enough freedom to break the law, you probably don't have enough freedom.

That may be an oversimplification, but it's probably true. I would perhaps qualify it slightly differently: if you are going to be completely, preemptively restrained from carrying out an act, the consequences of that act had better be serious and non-reversible enough to justify the constraints. Would I want to allow just anyone to have a large nuclear weapon that they could detonate in the middle of a city? No. Do I think that locking down the entire Internet to prevent a bit of song-swapping is justified? Also no.

Re:Perhaps, but superfluous anyway

[Mathinker]

OK, OK, I admit it. It just didn't have the same "ring" after it was properly qualified. Your comment about nuclear weapons is justified. However, the reality of the situation is that there are so many layers of laws now that even if you tried hard you probably couldn't avoid breaking some of them. (See this post and the thread it's in.) So if you read my comment as meaning "break any law", you don't really need to qualify it.

<offtopic>(BTW, I've always admired your inspired Slashdot name).</offtopic>

Re:Perhaps, but superfluous anyway

[Grumbleduke]

It should be noted that the "less than 400k subscribers" loophole isn't actually in the law but the draft code. It is subject to being changed at the whim of Ofcom. Also, all that means currently is that those with fewer than 400k don't have to implement things right now, but Ofcom is required to re-evaluate things regularly and can drop that number if they feel it is needed. There's a lot of misinformation going around about what is actually in the Digital Economy Act, and I hope some upcoming posts on the PPUK website should help clarify some of it (as Ofcom aren't doing a particularly good job themselves).

Is Pirate ISP viable?

[DeadDecoy]

In most of these digital rights doctrines that are popping up, ISPs receive a safe harbor status provided they actually respond to DMCA takedown notices. If some DRM law does get passed, how much do you want to bet that the pirate ISP will be drowned in litigation for not complying to it? Even if they don't take logs of their customers, they'll just be disbanded for not complying.

Re:Is Pirate ISP viable?

[Neil_Brown]

ISPs receive a safe harbor status provided they actually respond to DMCA takedown notices

To my mind, it would depend on whether the "Pirate ISP" simply handled traffic (i.e. was an access provider), or whether it provided hosting services too.

s.512 of the DMCA, and Art.14 of the eCommerce directive (European) offers protection for hosts (in Europe, the provision of services which "consist of the storage of information"), provided that the ISP takes steps to remove infringing material upon becoming aware of them. However, the corresponding protection for traffic carriage, Art.12, has no such requirement - as long as the IAP does not select the receiver of the transmission, initiate the transmission, or modify the content of the transmission, it is not liable for the traffic which it carries.

That being said, I would not be surprised to see an application of the Sharman Networks / Grokster reasoning, that there is a difference between being a mere conduit, over which parties transmit and receive information, where these acts are infringement of copyright, and promoting / encouraging copyright infringement (using these words loosely).

Re:Is Pirate ISP viable?

[Zerth]

The trick would be to provide just bandwidth and privacy, no storage nor any sort of search/matchmaking service.

If they emphasis that they are selling "lack of logging", then they should be better off than "file exchange" services.

Re:Is Pirate ISP viable?

[DeadDecoy]

That might work if the ip addresses were dynamic (most are nowadays) and retrieved content through a TOR network. Otherwise the host that you got the actual data could still be used to track you down if they kept a visitor's log. I wonder how much weight an ip address carries in court nowadays. Yes, I know it's not a unique identifier, but against most naive users, it's probably good enough.

Re:Is Pirate ISP viable?

[Neil_Brown]

I wonder how much weight an ip address carries in court nowadays

It is likely to be the identifier for Copyright Infringement Reports submitted by Copyright Owners to Internet Service Providers, under the Initial Obligations Code for the Digital Economy Act.

(Capitals used, as these are the "defined terms" in the DEA itself)

What to call groups like these

[bonch]

I take issue with something in the coverage of these groups on Slashdot--why label them "anti-copyright" instead of "pro-piracy?" There's not exactly a question of intent when the groups have the word "pirate" right in their names, and since there is a difference between having some issues with current copyright law and outright ripping artists off, it's blurring the distinction to label these groups as anti-copyright groups. In fact, it hurts the movement to modify copyright law. You can't get rid of copyright completely and wouldn't want to. Without copyright, companies could steal GPL code without consequence because the GPL is a copyright license and is thus protected by copyright law.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, without copyright GPL software is no longer necessary and the license is useless.
You should not keep obosolete stuff around for the keepings sake, if it has served its purpose but is no longer needed, get rid of it.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

> You can't get rid of copyright completely and wouldn't want to. Without copyright, companies
> could steal GPL code without consequence because the GPL is a copyright license
> and is thus protected by copyright law.

Much as I like the availability of the GPL and other copy-left licenses, if you would give me a magic wand which would erase copyright, I would have a hard time deciding if I should use it. Face it, copyright can never really get fixed --- as in, optimally benefit society as opposed to large corporations --- because "society" doesn't help elect politicians since most of "society" are sheeple who vote for the politician with the biggest advertising budget (supplied in part by, guess who, large corporations) as opposed to voting for politicians who reform copyright laws.

Re:What to call groups like these

[bonch]

The GPL exists to ensure source code is available to the user. Without copyright, companies would use your volunteer code in their own binaries without contributing back. You may be able to pirate the binaries, but you wouldn't have the freedom of source code access that the GPL is supposed to protect.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Nadaka]

Without copyright, GPL could be implemented as a contractual agreement. It would loose some of its teeth, but it could still bite.

Re:What to call groups like these

[AigariusDebian]

GPL is a clever hack of the copyright system created because people did not agree with the predominant (then) system of knowledge lockdown. Stallman has stated in the past that if he would have the power to abolish copyright, he would do so, even considering the fact that this would also kill the power that GPL depends on, because this is what GPL was created to defeat in the first place. By hacking around it.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

> You may be able to pirate the binaries, but you wouldn't have the
> freedom of source code access that the GPL is supposed to protect.

Ah, but any anonymous leak of that source code would have no protection, either. (OK, not exactly, the leaker might still be liable for damages of revealing a trade secret. Might even be criminal. But the code itself would automatically become free of that protection after it's been leaked, a la, RC4.) Somehow, I think it might not be as bad as you paint it.

Re:What to call groups like these

[bonch]

"Sheeple." Ugh.

Anyway, the thing about copyright is that it protects things that aren't necessities. We're not entitled to movies and music. They're entertainment we are able to enjoy. Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society. If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.

I never understood the complaint when Slugboat Willy was about to fall into public domain. We have a right to Mickey Mouse? Who cares about it? If Disney is still making money off of it, why shouldn't they still own it? We live in a different era than when copyright was first created, an era in which media is far more pervasive and long-term than before, so it makes sense to extend copyrights to reflect today's media reality.

Re:What to call groups like these

[bonch]

Really? You'd rather rely on some percentage chance of good will from an anonymous leaker who would be risking their jobs instead of having a law that 100% guarantees source code access and legal options in cases of theft? How would you even know the anonymous leak was the real thing and not a decoy?

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

> a law that 100% guarantees source code access

No law guarantees anything.

> and legal options in cases of theft?

Theft? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

> How would you even know the anonymous leak was the real thing and not a decoy?

Code review, my boy, code review. How do we know any submitted patch to a GPL project is "the real thing"? This doesn't create any additional vulnerabilities which weren't already there.

Re:What to call groups like these

[drsmithy]

Without copyright, GPL could be implemented as a contractual agreement. It would loose some of its teeth, but it could still bite.

How much community involvement do you think you'll get if everyone (or their guardian) has to sign a legally-binding contract before they can do anything ?

Re:What to call groups like these

[bonch]

No law guarantees anything.

Laws make guarantees of things all the time. As a software license, the GPL cites copyright law to make a guarantee that source code be accessible, with legal consequences for violators.

Theft? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Theft of intellectual property. You've never seen a "GPL code theft" story on Slashdot before?

Code review, my boy, code review. How do we know any submitted patch to a GPL project is "the real thing"? This doesn't create any additional vulnerabilities which weren't already there.

That doesn't make any sense. What I was talking about is a decoy source release "leaked" from the company itself via a fake anonymous source that contains inefficient or misleading code which isn't the code being used to compile the binary release. Your scenario in which we wait on anonymous sources to leak code is fraught with problems like these.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

"Sheeple." Ugh.

Anyway, the thing about copyright is that it protects things that aren't necessities. We're not entitled to movies and music. They're entertainment we are able to enjoy. Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society. If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.

Somehow I think you lack imagination, and culture would survive quite well, even without copyright. Not that it's going to happen, anyway.

I never understood the complaint when Slugboat Willy was about to fall into public domain. We have a right to Mickey Mouse? Who cares about it? If Disney is still making money off of it, why shouldn't they still own it?

Now it's my turn to say "ugh". Corporations, unlike people, are virtually immortal. Your paragraph is something which could only have been dreamed up by someone who doesn't actually create any "culture", because the vast majority of the those who do create culture (the ones who aren't too full of themselves) will tell you that they are just recycling and revitalizing material from the public domain. You know, the public domain which no one would have if corporations could maintain copyright forever (by showing a profit of $1 even on things which no one is currently interested in and which they don't even sell --- make way for the new form of Hollywood accounting).

We live in a different era than when copyright was first created, an era in which media is far more pervasive and long-term than before, so it makes sense to extend copyrights to reflect today's media reality.

Actually, in our era, the term of copyright should be shortened because practically no works generate any significant income after 10 years. Didn't you listen to Andy Warhol (well, actually it's because the production of content is now so much more widespread that most older content just gets drowned in all the new stuff)? I think something like 15 years from publishing plus another 15 years if you pay to extend would be plenty.

Re:What to call groups like these

[lgw]

I'd say books were pretty pervasive and long-term when copyright was created. Copyright's primary purpose is to maximize the works available to the consumer, or more specifically, to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Ensuring payment to the author is a (very important) means to that end, but not the end itself.

Copyright needs to last long enough for the creator of a work to make good solid money off of his idea, but short enough that other creators can build on that idea and take it further while it's still culturally relevant. Of course, no one wil be making Mickey Mouse cartoons regardless of copyright, since that's a trademark issue, and that's OK - brand protection is a different topic.

Re:What to call groups like these

[dangitman]

... since most of "society" are sheeple...

Surely, you must be quoting one of the great philosophers with such elegant verbiage. Which one of the great thinkers are you cribbing from?

Re:What to call groups like these

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that sound? My sheeple radar is detecting sheeple!

Re:What to call groups like these

[countertrolling]

Actually being anti-copyright is anti-piracy. To claim ownership of something you can't own is theft, and it's piracy if you sell stolen (from the public in this case) property. And your arguments are specious, at the very best. It's like saying I should pay your electric bill because I take advantage of the light shining from your house into mine, or that there should be a law requiring me to pull my shades down.

To repeat about the GPL, which you like to twist to suit your agenda, you can't steal it while I have my copy. And anything you make from it is ours for the taking in the same fashion.

You really ought to try to come up with a new argument. All you do is repeat yourself, and it's quite tiresome. You only display your willful ignorance.

So there.. I hope you like apples

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

What I was talking about is a decoy source release "leaked" from the company itself via a fake anonymous source that contains inefficient or misleading code which isn't the code being used to compile the binary release.

Ah, yes, I admit I didn't understand you there.

Your scenario in which we wait on anonymous sources to leak code is fraught with problems like these.

The only problem is the problem which you have already stated: we might not get the real source code. Yes that might be a problem, and I pointed out how not having copyright partially improves this situation.

The other "problems", however, are just in your mind --- if MegacorpX leaks out useful source code which isn't the "right" source code, it's still useful. Or not, and whoever vets the commits is responsible to figure that out. Just like now.

Re:What to call groups like these

[bonch]

What MegacorpX leaks may or may not be useful. It could even be downright crap. You're leaving it up to MegacorpX to decide, but under copyright law and the GPL, it's not up to them.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Nadaka]

That is a good question. And it is one that there is no clear answer for.

A lot of people agree to click through EULA's, but that isn't the greatest example.

But perhaps more than you think.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Local ID10T]

Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society. If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.

Wrong. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the release of creative works to the public domain by providing a temporary monopoly on the work in exchange for this release. Its not for making money off of work so we have an economy. Its for the sharing of ideas, the ability to springboard off of an existing creation to a new creative height.

Copyright is about sharing, not hoarding.

Re:What to call groups like these

[pclminion]

Without copyright, companies could steal GPL code without consequence

So what's your point? Suppose some company takes my code, adds cool features to it, and starts selling it. Well, I'll just copy that code, improve it further, and sell it myself. THERE'S NO COPYRIGHT, remember?

Re:What to call groups like these

[icebraining]

Anyway, the thing about copyright is that it protects things that aren't necessities. We're not entitled to movies and music.

Let me rephrase that: Content creators aren't entitled to our tax money to protect their monopoly.

Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society. If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.

Yes. That's why art has only existed when copyright was created.

We have a right to Mickey Mouse?

We have the right not to pay for courts and all the required law enforcement resources to protect their monopoly.

Re:What to call groups like these

[kz45]

"Without copyright, GPL could be implemented as a contractual agreement. It would loose some of its teeth, but it could still bite."

It would have no bite. I could take GPL software and do what I want with it. You could take the binaries and share them, but I would not be obligated to give you the source.

Re:What to call groups like these

[countertrolling]

Copyright's primary purpose is to maximize the works available to the consumer...

Rubbish! Poppycock! Copyright came about as a reaction to modern technology to protect the writers guilds, an entrenched interest. It was the DMCA of the times to restrict the use of the printing press

Re:What to call groups like these

[drsmithy]

Good, without copyright GPL software is no longer necessary and the license is useless.

The GPL is certainly useless without copyright. Whether it's "no longer necessary" depends on whether you believe the GPL exists so you can have free stuff, or source code.

Re:What to call groups like these

[drsmithy]

Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure people make money from their work so that we have an economy, which is a benefit to society.

Copyright's primary purpose is to make sure a given piece of work can be sold more than once (effectively infinitely in its modern incarnation).

If nobody pays anyone for their work, you won't have the amount and quality of art as before, and culture would suffer. It's common sense.

So you're saying there wasn't any art and culture to speak of before a couple of centuries ago ?

There's plenty of ways people producing "art" and "culture" can be paid for their work without copyright.

I never understood the complaint when Slugboat Willy was about to fall into public domain. We have a right to Mickey Mouse? Who cares about it? If Disney is still making money off of it, why shouldn't they still own it?

The real question is what have they done to justify such extraordinary legal privileges as copyright provides, that no other form of productive labour is given ?

We live in a different era than when copyright was first created, an era in which media is far more pervasive and long-term than before, so it makes sense to extend copyrights to reflect today's media reality.

This is completely backwards. We live in an era where creating is much easier, where distribution and advertising costs can be practically zero and where distribution time is effectively instant. Or, to put it another way, where most of the expenses and risks around content production (that copyright is supposed to help) have been significantly reduced, if not practically eliminated.

Copyright terms should be getting *shorter*, not longer, especially if you believe its purpose is to "encourage the progress of the arts". Where's the motivation to produce new content if you (and your family, down to your grandchildren's grandchildren) can be selling the same piece of content you made when you were a teenager ?

Re:What to call groups like these

[drsmithy]

Well, I'll just copy that code, [...]

From where ?

Re:What to call groups like these

[drsmithy]

A lot of people agree to click through EULA's, but that isn't the greatest example.

EULA's aren't contracts.

Re:What to call groups like these

[lgw]

Well, it was more about ensuring the writer got paid by the printer back then, legitimately protecting the individual from the Evil Corporations(TM), rather than the reverse. Seeing the writers get paid maximizes the available works - then and now. But we don't need the "printer" in the digital world, and I think it's just a generational thing for writers accepting the way the internet works. There's a webcomic I follow where the author sells printed book versions of his work, but won't sell a PDF because he's afraid he won't get paid for each copy ... of the same material in his free web comic.

Re:What to call groups like these

[countertrolling]

By writers guild, I'm talking about transcribers, not the person creating the thought to be written. For that creator, a printing press meant freedom from the transcribers' stranglehold. Yes, there was the issue of the press operator selling copies without paying royalties to the creator and plagiarism. (still a common problem today despite copyright law). In later times (middle 1700s?), for a short while (I believe in France), the creator was left completely left out of the picture, and copyright only protected the publisher or distributor. Again chaining the creator to them. Now self publishing is very easy. And present day copyright is trying to prevent that by restricting the use of the available tech (remember the recording restrictions built into the original minidisk machines?). Kinda like today's HDMI restrictions... The publishers screaming about "piracy" is the distraction for the public. Kind of "wag the dog". You got it wrong. Copyright is designed to protect vested interests, little to do with protecting artists' interests. That's the way it has always been.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

I'm not sure if you're making fun of me via my later post that creative people are just building on the public domain, or you're deriding my use of the "sheeple" term, which I probably heard first on Slashdot, actually, if I remember correctly (even though it seems to have a much longer history --- see the Wikipedia entry).

Perhaps one could say I'm uninspiredly cribbing from the Slashdot group mind?

Re:What to call groups like these

[IBBoard]

Stallman has stated in the past that if he would have the power to abolish copyright, he would do so

That always seems odd to me. I hate the abuse of copyright and the extent of some of the terms, but I like it for what it can do with the GPL. If he wants to abolish copyright, why not go for a BSD license rather than the GPL? You'll get a closer match to the behaviour, since the copyright-less world will have nothing stopping people locking code up in binary-only apps.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Nadaka]

It would have to be reworded from its current form. But as a contract, it can most definitely be held up in a court of law.

Under the current system:
You may not distribute the work or any derivatives, but with the GPL you can if you provide the source code.

Under a contract based GPL|GPC (Gnu Public Contract) without copyright:
You may distribute the work or any derivatives, but the GPC would restrict that right unless the source code is also provided. The GPC would have to be agreed to before receiving the software and may require some additional obligation for both parties, but it can be implemented.

The enforcement of contract law varies at a state level instead of a federal level as well.

Re:What to call groups like these

[spanky the monk]

Without copyright, you can't make money by selling a software product. join the dots.

Re:What to call groups like these

[spanky the monk]

To repeat about the GPL, which you like to twist to suit your agenda, you can't steal it while I have my copy. And anything you make from it is ours for the taking in the same fashion.

Exactly: sure a corporation can "steal" GPL code and use it in their product without releasing the source, but i say "good luck to them" in trying to sell it for more than $0 when there is no copyright. I think that the concept of a no copyright society hasn't been properly considered by many people.

Re:What to call groups like these

[spanky the monk]

How about: no one will buy your product because there is no copyright and they can therefore legally copy it.

Re:What to call groups like these

[mcgrew]

We have a right to Mickey Mouse? Who cares about it? If Disney is still making money off of it, why shouldn't they still own it?

They never did own it; they have a "limited time" monopoly on its publication. Read the US Constitution some time. WE own it, we have always owned it. You are as much an owner of the copyrights I've registeredas I am, and as is everyone else is.

If you rent a house, you have a limited time ownership of that property, you don't own it, regardless of how much money you make subletting it. Like your copyrighted work, it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to your landlord. We, the people, are the landlords of creative works.

We live in a different era than when copyright was first created, an era in which media is far more pervasive and long-term than before

That's moronic. Ever heard of William Shakespeare? Ludwig Von Beethooven? leonardo Da Vinci? Those works are far longer term than Steamboat Willie and far more important, and were never covered under copyright.

Re:What to call groups like these

[mcgrew]

I disagree. Return copyright to sane lengths (perhaps 20 years) and make all noncommercial use noninfringing use, and make it only apply to tangible media (books, CDs, DVDs) and the problems all disappear.

Note that I hold registered copyright on works that would be in the public domain were these reforms to pass.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Mathinker]

I disagree. Return copyright to sane lengths (perhaps 20 years) and make all noncommercial use noninfringing use, and make it only apply to tangible media (books, CDs, DVDs) and the problems all disappear.

I'd throw a big party to celebrate! Unfortunately, the point of my post wasn't that there cannot exist a near-optimal copyright law, it was that there is no driving mechanism in reality which would drive us to this outcome.

Ah, and I think you should consider adding a cap on the damages for commercial use of an orphaned work which is a fixed percentage of the profits or of the gross income, if the creator should somehow pop up again (assuming due diligence has been done by the reuser). Oh, and in that case the original creator cannot bar continued reuse by the reuser, his only rights are that he continues to get paid.

Re:What to call groups like these

[mcgrew]

If there were sane copyright lengths, the problems of orphaned works would disappear as well. But like you say, it isn't likely to happen.

Re:What to call groups like these

[Nadaka]

Yes, they are.

They only lack power because most people:
A: do not read the agreement.
B: can not understand the agreement if they read it.
C: are presented with the contract after the transaction has already taken place, making it invalid because no value is transferred to the user.
D: they lack a documentation trail, but so do verbal contracts, and they are enforced.

Legality?

[stagg]

What would the legality of this be? I RTFA and am still unclear, yet it seems that a lot hinges on this question.

Re:Legality?

[julesh]

What would the legality of this be? I RTFA and am still unclear, yet it seems that a lot hinges on this question.

The legality of what? TFA basically states the new law doesn't apply to ISPs smaller than 400,000 users. Are you questioning whether it's legal to operate such an ISP? Or what?

More harm than good?

[bit9]

I wish the people behind these anti-big-brother movements would stop calling themselves pirates. There are LOTS of good reasons to support file-sharing and a free-as-in-speech Internet, and to oppose abusive government intrusion and the commercialization of the Internet. Those who fight for this cause under the "pirate" banner are not only doing a disservice to their own cause, but to the rest of us who want a free Internet for reasons other than downloading the latest crappy summer blockbuster movie via BitTorrent.

At the very least, the word "pirate" should be avoided because that is the MAFIAA's loaded word of choice for painting file sharers as dangerous criminals. Why let your enemy frame the argument in his own terms? It's akin to the way the neocons in the U.S. frame the war debate as a question of whether or not you support the troops.

Re:More harm than good?

[Nadaka]

And I think that the MAFIAA's should stop using the word pirate to talk about people who are infringing on their temporary state granted monopoly handout. Piracy requires the threat or act of violence to capture ships, cargo or hostages at sea. But it isn't going to happen.

Re:More harm than good?

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughts exactly. Mod parent up!

Re:More harm than good?

[Neil_Brown]

At the very least, the word "pirate" should be avoided because that is the MAFIAA's loaded word of choice for painting file sharers as dangerous criminals

Whilst I agree with the substance of your comment, that "pirate" is an inappropriate descriptor, used to gain emotive advantage, the term has been used in this context for far longer than just this round of the "copyright wars".

For a great history of the term "piracy", and on copyright infringement generally, I'd recommend Adrian Johns' excellent book, "Piracy". For a look at the use of emotive language in the "copyright wars", I'd recommend Bill Party's "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars".

Re:More harm than good?

[AigariusDebian]

I don't think so. For one pirates are cool. So your argument is invalid. Also it is much easier to counteract MAFIAAs message if we 'embrace and extend' their message against them. They call us pirates, so we have fun like all the cool pirates do. If they can make stuff up, so can we! Piratez of the world unite and fight back the ninjas of MAFIAA! For the boooty!

Re:More harm than good?

[Neil_Brown]

I'd recommend Bill Party's "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars".

Sorry, Bill - that would be "Patry", and not "Party".

Re:More harm than good?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the best post I've seen on /. in a very long while. Succinct and spot on.

By contrast, the infantile reply below stating that pirates are cool is one of the worst posts, and has been written by a fool or a MAFIAA sympathizer. "Pirates are cool. So your argument is invalid." What a buffoon. Are Somali pirates 'cool', /. member 721386?

Re:More harm than good?

[Monkeedude1212]

I think what you were trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with uniting people behind a symbol, the only people who consider pirating (in today's terms) a crime are the record companies, and a few of their lackies.

Re:More harm than good?

[shutdown -p now]

"Piracy" has been used in the meaning **AA uses it today for over 300 years now. You're a bit too late at trying to change that article in the dictionary.

Re:More harm than good?

[kz45]

"Piracy requires the threat or act of violence to capture ships, cargo or hostages at sea. But it isn't going to happen."

Words change over time. Deal with it.

Re:More harm than good?

[tobiah]

The Religious Society of Friends were mockingly referred to as "Quakers" for the way they quaked with the power of the lord. Officially they're supposed to call each other Friends for short, but Quaker stuck and lost its derogatory meaning. Same story with Mormons, Moonies, Queers, and probably every group with a short name. They adopted the name used to demean and mock them, and it became legitimate.

Re:More harm than good?

[bit9]

That may be, but I don't see the "pirate" moniker working out very well for people fighting for Internet freedom. Despite the fact that a lot of geeks think that "pirates are cool", most members of our society hear the word "pirate" and think exactly what the MAFIAA wants them to think: criminals, thiefs, etc, etc.

Re:More harm than good?

[Nyder]

I wish the people behind these anti-big-brother movements would stop calling themselves pirates. There are LOTS of good reasons to support file-sharing and a free-as-in-speech Internet, and to oppose abusive government intrusion and the commercialization of the Internet. Those who fight for this cause under the "pirate" banner are not only doing a disservice to their own cause, but to the rest of us who want a free Internet for reasons other than downloading the latest crappy summer blockbuster movie via BitTorrent.

At the very least, the word "pirate" should be avoided because that is the MAFIAA's loaded word of choice for painting file sharers as dangerous criminals. Why let your enemy frame the argument in his own terms? It's akin to the way the neocons in the U.S. frame the war debate as a question of whether or not you support the troops.

While we are on that, hacker needs to go back to the non criminal meaning.
Unlimited needs to mean that, unlimited.

people been changing the meaning of words since the beginning of time. Just deal and accept it.

Re:More harm than good?

[bit9]

people been changing the meaning of words since the beginning of time. Just deal and accept it.

You're missing the point. I don't have a problem with the meaning of the word pirate - neither the old meaning nor the new meaning. I just think it's folly to call yourself a pirate when that's exactly what your enemies want you to be called.

This is not a war that can be won without having the public on your side. It doesn't matter how many geeks on Slashdot or elsewhere think that pirates are cool. Most of the public hears the words "pirate" or "piracy" and thinks exactly what the MAFIAA wants them to think: criminal, thief, bad guy.

The real battle is getting the public to understand why they should give a shit about keeping the Internet free (as in speech). You're not doing yourself any favors by saying "Fuck yeah! I'm a pirate, bitches!"

Re:More harm than good?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least, the word "pirate" should be avoided because that is the MAFIAA's loaded word of choice for painting file sharers as dangerous criminals

I thought that was the point? It's the creation of a totally anti-MAFIAA organisation which is just being moral. It's the antithesis of what's currently wrong, and paints a target for the MAFIAA to swing wildly at by bribing politicians, police, court and government. It provides a means by which the true character of people and organisations can be demonstrated through action ... because inaction might be unthinkable whereas immorality is the likely basis for a thriving business.

It seems like there are brooder issues here than just a few (million) people downloading movies and music from the internet.

Re:More harm than good?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just like what happened when the U.S. fought the British. They took a term of derision(Yankee Doodle) and made it into a rallying cry.

The ACTA will squash these . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

From the leaked draft:

Rule One: No Pirate ISPs!

Rule Two: No member of law enforcement agencies are to maltreat the innocent Internet users in any way at all -- if there's anybody watching.

Rule Three: No Pirate ISPs!

Rule Four: From now on, I don't want to catch anybody not using DRM.

Rule Five: No Pirate ISPs!

Rule Six: There is NO ... Rule Six.

Rule Seven: No Pirate ISPs!

Re:The ACTA will squash these . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the first rule of ACTA is you don't talk about ACTA

From the leaked draft:

Rule One: No Pirate ISPs! ...

Re:The ACTA will squash these . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The Philosophy Dept of the University of Wooloomooloo wants to sue you for copyright and patent infringement.

Re:The ACTA will squash these . . .

[LoverOfJoy]

Sorry, I'm playing multiplayer on Sony's new 3d system. I can only see rules 2, 4, and 6. You were saying?

Re:The ACTA will squash these . . .

[Archwyrm]

Don't be such a poofter, Bruce.

I don't need a "pirate" ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy with an ISP that considered itself a collection of dumb tubes.

Re:I don't need a "pirate" ISP

[tnok85]

What about an ISP that considered itself a big truck that you could just dump something on?

What has piracy got to do with it?

[nurb432]

Sounds sort of like community or municipal efforts to me. The 'pirate' label really should be dropped to help with marketing. Sure, its cute, but wont help.

Welcome to the age of marketing

[Mathinker]

> when the groups have the word "pirate" right in their names

When was the last time a political party with a name like "copyright reform party" succeeded? Using "pirate" is just good marketing and a droll way to turn the rhetoric of the pro-copyright side on its head. In fact, the Swedish Pirate Party got its name from the Piratbyran who got its name from humorously dropping the "anti" from the pro-copyright side's "AntiPiratbyran".

what immature bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the children who waste their lives pretending to 'stick it to the man' in the 'retard party' should get a fucking job and grow up.

Re:what immature bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That is no way to talk to 'your' kids.

How does one form a PIrate ISP?

[celtic_hackr]

The article's definition of a "Pirate ISP" is somewhat misleading. It really is just talking about making smaller ISPs.

I've thought about how to do real "Pirate ISP" stuff myself a few times, but how exactly does one go about becoming an ISP?

1) You have to have some kind of facility, even if it is a ship at sea.
2) You need to have lots of bandwidth.
3) You need to have some connection to other facilities, to form a root DNS zone.
4) You need to have a way of connecting others.

Now, if you plan on just being a small ISP, like the article says, then step 3 isn't necessary.

The thing that I have been contemplating is the creation of a truly "pirate" ISP. That is, one that uses the backbone fibre of the internet to create an internet within the internet. Here, I thought the article was really about that. An internet within the internet is the likely outcome of all this heavy handed behavior of the Entertainment industry, via politicians.

In a few more years, it'll be possible to build a wireless "alternet". A new internet with it's own DNS stack separate from the internet and the eyes of Big Brother. Except by capturing the signals and decrypting them. Technically a wireless alternet is feasible now. I have several wireless routers in my neighborhood. We could form our own network, and they can probably see a few routers I can't see further out and could connect with them. The question is: is there enough density now, that we could grow that out city-wide, county-wide, state-wide, country-wide, worldwide(how)? Certainly is major cities this is feasible. This will happen if the powers that be don't relent. If you make the internet illegal only the criminals will have internet, and almost everyone will be a criminal. The technology is out there. People have a real need to b e connected to the internet now. Take it away and they'll find new way.

Re:How does one form a PIrate ISP?

[ZERO1ZERO]

In a few more years, it'll be possible to build a wireless "alternet". A new internet with it's own DNS stack separate from the internet and the eyes of Big Brother. Except by capturing the signals and decrypting them. Technically a wireless alternet is feasible now. I have several wireless routers in my neighborhood. We could form our own network, and they can probably see a few routers I can't see further out and could connect with them. The question is: is there enough density now, that we could grow that out city-wide, county-wide, state-wide, country-wide, worldwide(how)? Certainly is major cities this is feasible. This will happen if the powers that be don't relent. If you make the internet illegal only the criminals will have internet, and almost everyone will be a criminal. The technology is out there. People have a real need to b e connected to the internet now. Take it away and they'll find new way.

I've always thought this would be an excellent thing. How does one go about setting this kind of thing up? I guess it could be kind of like the BBS days.

Re:How does one form a PIrate ISP?

[lgw]

The thing that I have been contemplating is the creation of a truly "pirate" ISP. That is, one that uses the backbone fibre of the internet to create an internet within the internet.

This is a solved problem, and your personal Freenet node is just a download away. True anonymous peer-to-peer for web browsing, filesharing, or whatever, is already here. It just needs more nodes, and a lot more content. The "network effect" is not yet working in Freenet's favor, but technically it's solid, and there's nothing wrong with it that more users won't fix. (Well, what it really needs is a client that's as easy to use as Bittorrent).

Re:How does one form a PIrate ISP?

[quercus.aeternam]

Here's a specific example: http://mapa.buenosaireslibre.org/
The site is all in spanish, but the map should help you understand the scope. Internet access is orthogonal to community wireless access.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network
That article is a should be a decent jumping point. Enjoy!

Good Luck With That

[dangitman]

British anti-copyright group, Pirate Party UK, has predicted that Pirate ISPs will spring up across the country

Independent slashdot user, dangitman, predicts that the Pirate Party UK is incorrect in their statement and is just attempting to get publicity. A wave of "Pirate ISPs" suddenly appearing is about as likely as the British people rising up in mass revolt against the government.

Re:Good Luck With That

[Andy_R]

Leader of Pirate Party UK reveals that he wasn't actually trying to get publicity, he was just answering a journalist's question about the possibility of the UK party following the Swedish party's lead and setting up their own ISP. Out of all the countless quotes he's given to journalists over the last year, he's actually quite surprised that this one made it to the front page of Slashdot.

Re:Good Luck With That

[mjwx]

Independent slashdot user, dangitman, predicts that the Pirate Party UK is incorrect in their statement and is just attempting to get publicity. A wave of "Pirate ISPs" suddenly appearing is about as likely as the British people rising up in mass revolt against the government.

Enlightened Slashdot reader MJWX predicts that British people are sick of the crappy service from BT and Virgin. Micro ISP's will pop up everywhere. People will not know about this crazy notion of Pirate ISP's.

In other words, what happened to Australia's ISP industry a few years ago when regulators tightened the screws on Telstra. Wholesale price gets fixed. Any sysadmin with a modicum of marketing skill could set up an ISP in his garage and eventually get bought out by iinet.

Re:Good Luck With That

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the idiot who runs the uk pirate party should grow up and get himself a proper job, rather than spending his life trying to justify mass theft of other peoples work.

I bet in twenty years time he looks back on what he did and is embarrased to hell as to what a dork he looked.
They might as well call it the 'duH! shit should be free! innit!' party...
buffoons....

Re:Good Luck With That

[BeardedChimp]

Quite a few of my mates voted for your candidate covering Gorton, Manchester. I believe they were the most successful of those in the UK?

If Manchester had a Pirate ISP I would definitely switch, Virgin are awful.

Re:Good Luck With That

[psone]

... about as likely as the British people rising up in mass revolt against the government.

You mean, with the help of a Dutch invasion like in 1688?

Privacy has been redefined

[freaker_TuC]

Privacy has been redefined; from the sixties where nudity was a sin, the seventies where everything was relaxed and aliens visited the world, the eighties where nudity was a common thing, the nineties where the .com market was blooming in size, after 2000 where our privacy started to erode and take different terms and conditions.

Phonelines can be tapped, faxmachines and e-mails can be read, privacy does not exist anymore because the current technologies allow for high-speed capture of such content. Not only taps but trojans, backdoors and other nasty programs can be installed to redirect such traffic (including passwords) used on that pc to a remote location.

The "ring of trust" lies in how far the user takes his security in his own hands. Use the same password on all sites and you will ask for a disaster to come. It takes only one to break that "ring of trust" to get hacked on many more sites, even some which the user doesn't remember and/or got joined with another service provider on the net.

Emails are important in a way that they will offer unlimited access to some of such services. There is no end in how far privacy can be broken by using a simplistic password or recovery routine by finding the mothers maiden name through Facebook or any other alike service. By getting access to the "ring of trust" they get access to everything. Only one flaw and the ring is broken. "One ring to rule them all". Being lazy in using the same password will bite you once in the nuggets...

To beat the system, everyone has to stand up for their own security, privacy and protection. That means, everyone should be fully informed how important it is to keep a system safe from any trojans or backdoors, how to safely communicate with others and websites, how to determine malicious e-mail versus good, be informed how safe communication really is, what the dmca and eucd means and many more. More information to the public means more understanding. Too many things are being hidden away by legalise which only a third of the population might understand.

There are so many flaws in society and many definitions that we often don't know it anymore by ourselves. What privacy really means versus secrets. We used to play in a camp we built at a small river in a town called Duffel. We told secrets there as kids. As adult I've got a few secrets too. The Internet and cellular technology has sure redefined communications and the "can you keep a secret" thing...

I'm as open as a book although if someone asks me to keep a secret I do that in respect of that person. I don't know if I have to take that with a very sarcastic smile or not.. I'm not paranoid, although I do know reality since i'm born.

Please please please please........

[Anonymous Coward]

Please god, let this happen. I don't care if I have to pay twice as much because they can't oversell the fuck out their bandwidth and then punish anyone who uses it for more than checking their e-mail.
If I'm extra good can I get an improvement on the industry wide policy of offering 3rd world upstream with all purchases of "OMGWTF 100Meg Fiber Optic Unlimited Broadband!!!*"

*Your definition of "unlimited" and "fiber optic" may vary

Reform != anti-copyright

[bbqsrc]

Most Pirate Parties internationally are for copyright reform, not the abolition of copyright. I'm tired of the misconception. It's like saying the Australian Liberal Party is about freedom. Ha.

hohum

[BigBadBus]

As long as the ISP exist in a country where copyright holders are revered, this won't work; the ISPs will be shut down faster than you can blink. The only key is to host such ISPs in a country that doesn't give a toss, and then hope that they aren't shut down, or the ability to connect to them is severed...

Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead.

[westlake]

Even in the event that the "less than 400K subscribers" loophole doesn't manage to give people enough freedom, there's always the various darknets.

I have wondered now and again how the ever-paranoid geek builds a network of trust that he can trust.

He trusts A because B trusts A. He trusts B because C trusts B. He trusts C because D trusts C... He doesn't know how big the network really is. He doesn't know how many nodes or super-nodes have been compromised.

It all seems very fragile.

mid tier dslam business model

[Anonymous Coward]

with all these mini ISP's sounds like a great business model to provide shared dslams for the adsl copper connections to each house.

Does anyone now of a shared dslam company in the Uk yet ?? Hey why not make it an open source company and run the dslams under an ISP co-operative..

Just Another Pro-Theft Story in Slashdot-ville

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another day in Slashdot-ville where people are idiots about copyright because they don't understand it or what it's benefits are. Funny, all the ocpyrighted material that pirates want to steal for their own personal pleasure wouldn't exist without copyright. But, they'll moan and bitch about wanting everything for free. That's as ridiculous as demanding that nobody should have to pay taxes, but demanding tons of well-funded social programs. Grow up and go read a book about economics.

Sympathy=0

[Anonymous Coward]

I must admit that I am fast losing any sympathy I ever had for the RIAA and copyright holders given the behavior of these various groups. Copyright was originally meant to give very limited time and limited scope protection. DRMA and such have abused it so badly that the public is just going to throw their hands up and vomit at the RIAA and their ilk.

Wow, thats retarded

[mjwx]

You can not fight an extremist with reasonable moderation.

Oddly enough that's the only way to fight extremism with any meaningful end to the conflict.

For every impassioned hate speech, have a well reasoned response.
For every senseless attack, have a precision response.
For every threat, have nothing but indifference.

If you do, any compromise will result in loosing ground.

If you believe this then I suggest you take a look at your own views. You may be the very extremist that other extremists tell me I need to fear.

You need an opposing extremist.

This can only end in an extremist winning. 1 Extremist + 1 Extremist does not equal out to 0 Extremists. They will just butt heads until one side finally gains the upper hand and starts to push their extremist agenda over everybody.

In effect by pitting extremist against extremist you're only proving each others point. Party B says that Party A is a dictatorial force with no thought for the will of it's people so it attacks Party A. Party A believes Party B is a terrorist group who must be stopped so they come down on Party B with an iron fist proving party B's point. Do you see what is wrong here, you cant pit anarchists against police statists and expect a representative government to arise when neither party has any wish in representative government. This has been proven time and time again in various 3rd world nations. So...

What happens when you respond to hate speech with hate speech?
What happens when you respond to senseless violence with equally senseless violence?
What happens when you respond to threats with more threats?

Asking people to choose between which extremists will hurt them the least will leave them with no choice what so ever.

That way, a compromise may hopefully exist somewhere within the reasonable area between the two.

No.

The best outcome you can hope for is that a moderate response that draws support away from an extremist organisation by not presenting them with an enemy that is as bad as what they claim.
The most likely outcome is that a terrorist group is so marginalised that it does not present itself as a problem.
Northern Ireland was a bit of both, but many of the clashes were between Irish (real IRA vs provincial IRA).

The worst outcome is to train another generation to hate you because you responded to senseless violence by bombing their homes and doing exactly what the other extremists said you'd do.

Re:Wow, thats retarded

[Nadaka]

Imagine there are two sides to a debate.

One side says that the government should tax every American and just give that money to the RIAA because every American is a thieving pirate and the RIAA are entitled to their profits in exchange for extracting entertainment from artists before dumping their empty and abused bodies in a river. In addition, copyright infringement should default to "guilty until proven even more guilty" instead of "innocent until proven guilty" and be punishable by a life sentence of slavery. This is unfortunately not that far from the actual truth of the matter.

Consider starting from the reasonable stance where the government does not have the right to prop up a failing economic model of an industry that abuses the people it claims to represent and uses deception, diversion and outright fraud as a matter of course and that copyright infringement is subject to just and reasonable prosecution including damages not significantly greater than the actual harm caused.

From those two positions, every time a compromise is reached, you will slide closer and closer to the unreasonable nightmare scenario.

That is why we need the pirates who believe that information wants to be free. Not because they are right, but because we need them as a counterweight to unmitigated greed and malice on the other side.

Re:Wow, thats retarded

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

Unfortunately your "two sides to a debate" maxim more or less embodies all of the problems currently existing in American politics.

There is never _just two sides to an argument_ with only a gradual slide in between the two viewpoints.

Reality is infinitely more complex than that.

I give you props that you do suggest sensible prosecution strategies - I just don't agree that extreme viewpoints are productive to a sensible outcome.

In my ideal world, extreme viewpoints should remain that, extreme. As they don't encompass a large enough segment of the population their opinions should be drowned out through numbers.

Anonymous P2P

[Anonymous Coward]

With networks like Freenet or Tor, these types of laws will be impossible to enforce without an outright ban on strong-crypto. Even if there were such a ban, brightnets like OFFSystem (or even Freenet, if configured in Darknet mode) would be unaffected.

However, back in the real world...

[igb]

The vast majority of people who are likely to be affected by the legislation are doing their downloading on their parents' or their university's internet connection, or on a shared connection (probably in the landlord's name in rented accommodation) or using a 3G dongle, where the options are very limited. The number who are actually paying for their own connection with their own credit card, and therefore have the option to switch provider, is vanishingly small. Households increasingly have their broadband tied up with some subset of their phone or television, and the people who actually control the purchase have no incentive to switch to some sketchy ISP in order to enable their son's downloading. That's why the proposed legislation is both invidious (as it amounts to collective family punishment) and potentially effective (as it will cause homeowners to corral their young men).

Entry to the Lords by examination

[Dr_Barnowl]

I would favour entry to the Lords by exam. Or some other test of merit. I reckon it would work very well.

As to whether it would be accepted ... no, not with the anti-intellectual streak that runs through this country. It used to be that intellectual ability was lauded, but now we only celebrate... celebrity. Stephen Fry is probably the one exception but only because in the peoples eyes he is a celebrity first and an intellectual second.

Re:Entry to the Lords by examination

[dotwaffle]

Why should only those who can pass an exam get in? Why would you put a large barrier to entry in the way? What possible purpose would that serve?

Re:Entry to the Lords by examination

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure whether it would make a big difference either way, but I'd definitely be interested to know the average IQ of our politicians. Maybe it doesn't affect their decisions greatly but what an interesting concept.

3....2....1...classified as terrorists

[calmofthestorm]

Well that was fast...

Dryness aside, I want to live in a society where the government can get anyone's data (logs, cameras, etc), provided they follow due process and have a good reason, but not everyone's data. The cameras in the subway make me feel safe when they're wiped every week and no info gets out except if there's an incident. It's when it all gets linked together with face recognition software into a global surveillance network that I start to panic.

"Pirate" ISPs already exist

[shin0r]

I've been running a UK ISP for a couple of years now, aimed at very heavy users who want privacy and no restrictions. I don't know if my customers are pirates or not but as long as they conform to the AUP "don't do anything illegal or stupid" then they are more than welcome to use their connections for whatever purpose they choose.

Shameless plug: http://superawesomebroadband.com/

We don't like stuck-up sticky-beaks here

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't like stuck-up sticky-beaks here

My guess...

[Thinboy00]

70