British Pirate Party Asked To Pull Pirate Bay Proxy

judgecorp writes "The British Pirate Party has been asked by the music business organisation BPI to pull the plug on the Pirate Bay proxy it has been running. The Pirate Party provides a way round the court-ordered ban on ISPs providing connections to the file-sharing site, The Pirate Bay. So far the Pirate Party says the proxy is a 'legitimate route' to the site, but the BPI says the Pirate Bay is 'not above the law.'"

Comments

clearly they're not above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

only the bpi and the riaa are

Re:clearly they're not above the law

[Anonymous Coward]

and the BPP too, apparently.

Re:clearly they're not above the law

[erroneus]

You get what you pay for in this world most of the time... unless you are buying from the RIAA (BPI and others)

Re:clearly they're not above the law

[Luckyo]

No, not above the law. Just buying the law to do their bidding. It's far worse then just being above the law.

Response on Behalf of UK Pirate Party:

[CanHasDIY]

Dear BPI:

We refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram.

Good day.

Re:Response on Behalf of UK Pirate Party:

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself (context: Arkell v. Pressdram)

Re:Response on Behalf of UK Pirate Party:

[fsterman]

Shortcut,

Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."

Re:Response on Behalf of UK Pirate Party:

[BSAtHome]

So the penalty sum will be in the trillions.

At least, if the math is right on the curse:piracy ratio. My mouth on itself must then be worth more than a couple of beeellion clamps per day. Fuck Yay!

Re:Response on Behalf of UK Pirate Party:

[Anonymous Coward]

I said good day, sir!

Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot wait for everyone here to come out and defend stealing. Oh sorry, it is infringement, like that makes it somehow acceptable. Just wait.

Re:Just wait

[ThatsMyNick]

While I dont defend infringement, I sure do support TPB. It is a valid service for people willing to share files. Taking it down is absolutely pointless.

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

There is such a thing as too much power and money, and the entertainment industry is full of it. But don't worry, oh defender of the 1%, they are not going to give you one cent of it. No, you won't even be allowed to lick their jewish feet, goy.

Re:Just wait

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I cannot wait for everyone here to come out and defend stealing. Oh sorry, it is infringement

Actually, that depends on local jurisdiction.

Re:Just wait

[0racle]

That argument would hold more water when talking about TPB if TPB actually hosted links to non-pirated material.

Megaupload and the various services like that store, and share if they wish, whatever its users put up on it, but TPB always was just for the exchange of pirate material.

Re:Just wait

[ThatsMyNick]

I have found plenty of legitimate torrents on TPB. A fellow musician even uses it to distribute his work (his model is to depend on donations and live performances). I am not sure why you find it different from Megaupload. Both are used to mass distribute files (well, the most common use atleast)

Re:Just wait

[mcgrew]

Interesting, could you elaborate? In what jurisdiction is copyright infringement called "theft"? And is there a jurisdiction where theft is called "murder"?

Oh, and if you MUST feed the trolls, please don't quote them. He's at -1 for a reason, you know.

Re:Just wait

[SuricouRaven]

The 'absolutly pointless' holds though. If that mirror goes down, ten more await. If TPB closes down forever, the exodus of users shall fuel the rise of those already waiting in the wings. There is no way to enforce copyright on the internet as it is, and I would rather see the entire entertainment industry destroyed than sacrifice the freedom and equality the internet provides to all.

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

Name 3 distinct products, created by different people, that are indexed on the pirate bay and that are not also provided through other avenues which are considerably less infested with infringing content, and which are not, themselves, little more than an alleged "proof of concept" that TPB has legitimate use.

Note that I'm not disputing usefulness of torrents... here, but it's my observation that legitimate torrents that are actually on TPB are (generally) also legitimately hosted elsewhere anyways, and could often easily be found at such locations via a google search, so TPB isn't actually serving any useful purpose in that regard.

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to know what jurisdiction would actually hold that position. To the best of my understanding, the Berne Convention signatories hold that it's called Infringement because the act is distinctly different from, if I were to say, hypothetically speaking, put a gun to your head and robbed you of everything you had on your person. They're both taking something that isn't mine, but in the case of Infringement, all you're doing is taking away in the case of Infringement, directly, is the control of the production and/or distribution of a protected work. Notions of "lost" revenue don't equate to theft- because you're NEVER guaranteed revenue from said control, only that you have said control. So, they're completely differing actions, in theory AND in practice. That's WHY the action called Infringement was and has always been called so in pretty much all jurisdictions.

Trying to name Infringement as Theft is really an act analogous to trying to say shit smells sweet- it's not really so and saying it as such doesn't make it so. Ever.

Re:Just wait

[Grumbleduke]

It just so happens that yesterday The Pirate Bay launched a separate site dedicated to promoting and distributing (legally) the works of some 10,000+ artists. Stuff which has already been on TPB for a while.

Sadly I haven't been able to check this out as I'm in the UK and this new site is blocked by my ISP.

Re:Just wait

[erroneus]

What difference does it make if it's ALSO distributed through other means? Bit Torrent is a way to share. It provides leechers with a way to give back and also a way to download things much faster than singular providers/hosts can.

No one will convince you of anything contrary to your beliefs. That's just fine. Reality will go on without you.

Things are changing. The events of today are eerily similar to those that precede major changes. But with the existence of political movements in support of change, it might well result in changes without blood being spilled. But the [ab]use of police force against little girls with "Pooh" laptops will eventually trigger some things I hope I'm not there to watch.

Re:Just wait

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I'd love to know what jurisdiction would actually hold that position.

It seems that my phrasing was unfortunate. What I meant is that in certain jurisdictions, downloading certain materials without explicit license from their authors is neither a theft nor an infringement of anything. I wasn't referring to the (non)equivalence of both.

Re:Just wait

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Interesting, could you elaborate? In what jurisdiction is copyright infringement called "theft"? And is there a jurisdiction where theft is called "murder"?

See below.

Oh, and if you MUST feed the trolls, please don't quote them. He's at -1 for a reason, you know.

He wasn't at -1 when I posted it.

Re:Just wait

[Shagg]

Megaupload and the various services like that store, and share if they wish, whatever its users put up on it

That's exactly what TPB does (except they don't store the material). There are torrents for LOTS of different things on TPB, some of which is copyright infringement.

Re:Just wait

[drkstr1]

Here's the dirty little secret Big Media doesn't want you to know; Big Media does not care one bit about pirates or piracy.

Almost every independent study shows the direct results of piracy (EG. the "lost sale") is negligible to the bottom line, and have sometimes even shown to improve revenues for lesser known artists. Big Media did not get to the position they are in by being stupid. What really scares Big Media is a free and open internet.

What most people fail to realize is that the profitability of the media empire has nothing to do with media sales. When mainstream media is owned by 5 conglomerates, they get to decide what's popular and what's not, what issues are talked about in the news, what is and what is not "popular opinion," and they even get to decide who we may choose as our president. This is not some tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy, you can go to school for this, and learn from the masters of marketing how to sway public opinion. Big Media is not afraid of lost media sales from piracy, they are afraid that if alternative distribution channels of media exist, they will lose their control over popular opinion, and thus the source of their power.

To this affront on our freedoms, there can only be one response: Death to Big Media!

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

I explicitly said that I wasn't disputing the legitimate usefulness of torrents. Nice of you to read what I wrote.

There are thousands of legitimate torrents out there, but almost all of these are seeded by their publishers, and there are often direct links to the torrent file hosted on a website that obviously belongs to said publisher.

I *was*, however, disputing the legitimacy of TPB... since, as I said, it does not appear to serve any useful legitimate function.

Again, name 3 legitimate products you can get via TPB that aren't just as readily available (as a torrent, even) from far more reputable sources.

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

In Palestine it's ok if your Jewish to steal land

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

Here's something that isn't remotely secret. I didn't mention big media, nor do I give a crap what big media does or does not care about.

I do, however, care about the ongoing usefulness of copyright, and it's daft to think that epidemic levels of wanton infringement that can occur on copyright because of websites like TPB are not damaging to the value of copyright, as a whole.

Copyright isn't worth dick-all if society will not, as a whole, respect it. Content providers can and most definitely will find other means to protect their interests if or when copyright will not suffice, which include, but are certainly not limited to, self-censorship, technological protections that adversely affect legitimate customers, and higher prices. Regardless of what alternative is chosen, society as a whole suffers, because they will not be able to access as much cultural-enriching content as they might have otherwise... which is, in the end, the actual underlying purpose of copyright (not to guarantee a revenue stream, as some people, including many in big media, seem to believe).

Re:Just wait

[thegarbz]

That argument would hold more water when talking about TPB if TPB actually hosted links to non-pirated material.

I can tell you haven't been to the pirate bay in the last 6 months. Aside from hosting a whole lot of FOSS torrents TPB also is working with independent artists to help get their music out with their blessing.

But I can understand how you would miss it. No one looks at the biggest thing on the front page.

Re:Just wait

[drkstr1]

I know you didn't mention big media, but you were happily going after their red herring, like it has any relevance on the actual issues at hand, so I thought it was worth bringing up.

The fact that you seem to believe a "poorer selection" of art has a greater detriment to society than a lack of free will, really says a lot about the effectiveness of their campaign. Sad, really.

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there are some independent game companies that publish their game betas on Pirate Bay.

Re:Just wait

[Mashiki]

Don't worry. According to the politicians in the UK, even if that site is legal. You're probably a filthy pirate anyway.

Re:Just wait

[perceptual.cyclotron]

Those who would self-censor their innovations can keep them. Most meaningful innovations in history have had parallel 'discoveries' and the rest, it is not unreasonable to assume, only lack additional discoverers because the original gained widespread exposure sooner than the particular rediscovery time-horizon for that invention.

Copyright is only a useful mechanism in a capitalist system. This is ironic, because it's actually a very severe restriction on free market pressures (as with so much of the critical infrastructure of the capitalist system of government, they won't really let the invisible hand do all the work).

I fail to comprehend why people are so convinced that the betterment of society will result from incentivizing people to withhold information in order to extort privilege from others. A widely ignored fact about most people, is that we actually like to be useful and to contribute to society. It's an unfounded myth that progress would stall outside of a wage-system. People are productive when they're comfortable, and extra productive when they cooperate.

So you're right. Copyright isn't worth dick-all. But you could have stopped there...

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

You conclude that I've somehow bought into "their campaign", when in fact, I am siding with the consumer.

When I refer to the availability of cultural enriching content, at what point did I appear to you to suggest I was only talking about the, as you put it, "poorer selection" of art that the community mindlessly consumes only because it is spoon fed?

I dare say a great deal more than what you may currently be aware is impacted by the value of copyright... and the common man's ability to access is almost invariably negatively impacted when publishers decide that copyright cannot protect their interests (which has nothing to do with revenue streams or big media... neither of which are of interest to me).

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

hose who would self-censor their innovations can keep them.

You seem to think that the only ones who would self-censor are those with nothing of value to contribute to society. It is society's loss if people censor themselves... to discard it and say that somebody who would do that couldn't have possibly had anything of value to contribute anyways is nothing but a rationalization that might make you feel better, but it doesn't make it true.

Re:Just wait

[fustakrakich]

Name one good reason I should care about the 'legitimacy' of anything on the internet. If and when TPB offers up something I need, I will use the service. If it's convenient, then it is useful. I certainly hope that the pirate party does not back down. Unfortunately the official cable cutters will decide what is 'legitimate'. In a world where entire countries can get knocked offline, it shouldn't be too difficult to deal with TPB.

Re:Just wait

[grcumb]

Copyright isn't worth dick-all if society will not, as a whole, respect it.

I hope you realise you're advancing both sides of the argument when you state this...?

I'm a writer/photographer/software developer who also consults in IT policy. Copyright, copying and rights of use of creative works on the internet are not only part and parcel of my professional life, they're also things that affect me very directly. But even with my strong vested interest in copyright protections, I cannot deny the reality of the situation: People want to share, and doing so over digital media makes sharing easier than at any other point in human history.

Your statement above supports your argument only if you consider that there's some inherent, innate value in copyright; that the right of a creator to be rewarded is axiomatic. I would willingly support you if you were arguing for the inherent, innate right of creators to decide whether or not to share their work, but their ability to control how widely the work is shared, and with whom, are utterly dependent on the goodwill of society at large. If society sees no value in copyright as previously understood, then we creators are left with little choice. We can either accommodate ourselves to society's wishes (albeit perhaps arguing for change), or we can stand on the shore, foolishly aping Canute[*], and order the tide to withdraw.

P.S. I'm not going to touch your statement that additional measures are necessary when 'copyright will not suffice', because you haven't even made the case for your interpretation of copyright yet.

------
[*] Canute meant his actions to be a cautionary tale, not a how-to.

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright isn't worth dick-all if society will not, as a whole, respect it.

Copyright isn't worth that much to society any more.
It had its purpose back when distribution was a problem but nowadays I can't go to the pub without stumbling over 10 wannabe artists that will play for peanuts (Actually they will play for free, the big problem they have is that people don't care enough to listen.) and there are probably a bunch posting on slashdot.
The music market is completely over-saturated but a few big companies have managed to stay alive by creating an artificial scarcity by controlling distribution methods.
What we need is to remove the laws that keep those companies alive so that the market can stabilize again. (If it ever will, perhaps the drive for people to create content is so large that the amount of content created as a hobby and distributed for free will cover the demand.)

Re:Just wait

[drkstr1]

The solution, then, is to get rid of the "publishers," not give them more power to exploit us, in the hopes it will satiate their appetite. It won't.

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

I was not so much suggesting that the right of a creator to be rewarded should be axiomatic, as you put it, as I am of the belief that it should be the right of a creator to, for a limited time, retain control over copies of his or her works, just as they did before the invention of the printing press by virtue of the fact that copying was hard.

I fully realize that it's a wholly artificial constraint, but it is, in my view, this level of control that is what offers most content providers to make their content.

If you disagree, then I trust that everything you've ever contributed to society is also in the public domain... after all, if the copyright, which is literally the "right to copy" (or more accurately, the right to control copies) were not important to you, then why would you want to utilize it?

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

The poster to whom I had originally responded claimed to not desire to defend infringement while defending TPB. It was to that mindset that the challenge was issued.

Re:Just wait

[grcumb]

... I am of the belief that it should be the right of a creator to, for a limited time, retain control over copies of his or her works....

Fair enough; I'm sympathetic to that. But the main thrust of my argument is that control is granted by society; it's not something that the creator can apply merely by fiat. So my objection is more utilitarian than principled.

Virtually everything I do (except for works for hire and some commissioned works[*]) is released under a Creative Commons license. (See my website's about page - the homepage link is at the top of this comment.) It's a compromise, and slightly awkward at that. Given that I'm inclined to argue the principle of a creator's right and to accept that the ability to assert that right is limited by society's willingness to allow it, I figure that this license is sufficient to assert my right of authorship, but not in a way that invites pushback from people who want to use my material.

------------
[*] It's noteworthy, by the way, that a lot of my journalism pieces are paid, but the publisher has no problem with me republishing on my own website under my own license. I voluntarily embargo the items until the print edition has been sold. So, in my experience, there are indeed ways to get paid and to share.

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

But the main thrust of my argument is that control is granted by society

Absolutely! And it is my contention is that if that control is *NOT* offered, then the content creator will not have any incentive to try to utilize it, resorting to their own mechanisms to control their content, such as through self-censorship, or the use of technological controls... both of which limit the audience that can really benefit from the work.

Re:Just wait

[russotto]

I do, however, care about the ongoing usefulness of copyright, and it's daft to think that epidemic levels of wanton infringement that can occur on copyright because of websites like TPB are not damaging to the value of copyright, as a whole.

You've got it backwards. TPB, or at least its widespread popularity, is a result of the value of copyright being damaged. That's why it's only one of the more recent in a succession of similar popular venues, extending back long past Napster. There are probably many reasons for this, but I suspect a major one is "The more you tighten your grip, the more that slips through your fingers". Jack Valenti probably didn't start it with his "Boston Strangler" remark about the VCR (and the ensuing lawsuit), but it certainly didn't help, nor did the RIAAs attempt to ban the MP3 player, nor the Girl Scout song crackdowns, nor the antics of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC in shaking down venue owners. When copyright's greatest advocates are cartoony villains, it's hard to keep up public respect for it.

Re:Just wait

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Interesting. Who?

Not trolling, genuinely curious.

Re:Just wait

[TheP4st]

The different links you see here are links to material that have been on TPB's landing page. Links to material that the artists themselves have put up for anyone to download. Non-pirated enough for you?

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright and also the fact that it usually results in (nearly) a single price, world-wide very, very strongly limits who can benefit as well.
Also take into account all those films who get lost forever because the physical copies degrade but nobody can make a re-release to finance digitalization because the copyright holders are not cooperative.
While long term might be different, I think you will be very hard pressed to argue convincingly that a complete loss of copyright would not massively increase the amount of works most people have access to at least for a short time.

Re:Just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a writer/photographer/software developer

This is grammar nazi, please pull to the side of the road.

That should have been written as "I'm a writer/photographer/{software developer}".

If it reads "I'm a writer/photographer/software developer", the permutations seem like "writer developer", "photographer developer" and "software developer".

Re:Just wait

[mark-t]

I think you will be very hard pressed to argue convincingly that a complete loss of copyright would not massively increase the amount of works most people have access to

I've already considered that hypothesis, and concluded it to be false. My reasoning is two-fold. First, it seems to me that if what you say it were true, then a much higher percentage of material that is already freely available would have been put immediately into public domain, rather than being copyrighted at all... which suggests to me that the right of copy control is desirable if to the free content maker. The hypothesis also does not stand up to historical precedent, because it's already been seen that when content makers start to feel that they cannot rely on copyright alone to protect their interests (which, as I maintained above, only requires that society simply respect it), they can and *DO* resort to alternative measures to retain that control.... measures that society has no part in, and which inherently *limit* their accessibility of the works, reducing the enrichment potential of society. Even worse, it can followed by the creation of additional laws to support those measures. It is, by my reckoning, an almost invariable certainty that the dissolution of copyright would lead to a very small percentage of the population having access to the body of newly published works, rather that increase it, as you suggest.

Re:Just wait

[slick7]

I cannot wait for everyone here to come out and defend stealing. Oh sorry, it is infringement

Actually, that depends on local jurisdiction.

Thou shalt not steal, the government doesn't like competition.

Re:Just wait

[drkstr1]

We now live in the information age. The old rationales of copyright no longer apply. It is trivial to reverse engineer this day and age. In fact, that's what all the hubub is about. We need a new way of doing things, for a new age. It's up to our generation to make that happen.

Re:Just wait

[AmiMoJo]

Check out The Promo Bay. Loads of artists on there, giving their work away. I would provide a link but my ISP blocked it. Yeah, the BPI is blocking access to legitimate artist's releases and promo web sites.

Re:Just wait

[perceptual.cyclotron]

I don't mean to suggest that they couldn't in principle contribute something – perhaps even something amazing that otherwise would take decades to arrive on the scene. But I do maintain that we don't need them, and that the net contribution of people with regressive ideas about sharing and cooperation is negative. So no, it's not a rationalization, it's a rational judgement. Society can function just fine without antisocial innovators – and it suffers more for accommodating them than it would for showing them the door.

Court order

[nospam007]

As they specifically state themselves, the court order is for ISPs and obviously the Pirate Party ain't one.

Re:Court order

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, if they're operating a proxy service, then how are they not?

Re:Court order

[Svartalf]

Which is why they're, odds on, going to state, "We refer you to the response given in Arkell v. Pressdram."

Re:Court order

[Grumbleduke]

My understanding is that the existing court orders are for specific ISPs (Sky, Virgin, BT etc.), rather than any ISP. Thus even if the Pirate Party is acting as an ISP it would need its own order (or to be brought into the existing ones).

[Disclaimer: I haven't seen the ThePirateBay orders yet - only the ones from the Newzbin2 block.]

Re:Court order

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're offering a proxy service, not internet service?

Re:Court order

[Spottywot]

That's why they've 'asked' them to take it down, their request has no legal basis.

Re:Court order

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, if they're operating a proxy service, then how are they not [an ISP]?

They are a Political Party, not an Information Service Provider (see the difference there?).

Further their platform specifically includes ensuring public access to a variety of information -including that hosted by TPB. Having received more than the minimum required portion of the vote, their mandate stands beyond the court's ability to regulate.

Re:Court order

[Grumbleduke]

Precisely. Although it may have bearing when it comes to litigation (complying with the pre-action practice direction and so on).

Rejoice, then!

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB DOES host links to non pirated material!

Despite which, even if it were, the links are not copyrighted nor copyrightable.

Re:Rejoice, then!

[jones_supa]

TPB DOES host links to non pirated material!

This has always been a bit stupid argument. If 50% of TPB files were non-pirated material then we could start talking. However if you have a pirate ship on the front page and the great majority of the stuff is pirated, it does not make a big difference if there is an odd Linux ISO there somewhere.

Despite which, even if it were, the links are not copyrighted nor copyrightable.

The site responsible for holding the torrent links (or, possibly more specifically, the tracker) should be considered as hosting the copyrighted material, because without the torrents no file sharing would be possible. It's not the same as a simple web link (which address you can type in manually, not needing the link), torrents are the way to directly tap to the warez.

Re:Rejoice, then!

[Anonymous Coward]

what about magnet links

Pointless

[magic maverick]

I visited Belgium recently. I wanted to go to the Pirate Bay, but it was blocked. I did a quick search for Pirate Bay mirrors and came up with a lot of hits. Including a script that is specifically for mirroring the site http://unblockedpiratebay.com/external/ which you can include on your own website.

So, basically, the whole thing is pointless. Block one site, and mirrors will spring up. (Same as what happened with Wikileaks.)

PS https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=pirate+bay+mirror.

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

So, basically, the whole thing is pointless. Block one site, and mirrors will spring up. (Same as what happened with Wikileaks.)

Moderate +1: No Shit Sherlock

Re:Pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just go to torrentz.eu :-)

they own the switch why are they asking

[planckscale]

They probably own one of the hops along the way, so just divert the traffic. Re-route all traffic through the mitm site and log everything, sue everyone. Give RIAA the 2 million+ hits every day and let them go to town. Sue everyone, make it all public and give them everything they're asking for. Then give all that money from the suits back to the artists, they will be so grateful. Throw a million of people in jail and bankrupt all the pirates. IP address = person/family. Sue the fuck out of each and every one that uses that IP and if they can't afford the fines throw them in jail. The end goals of RIAA + MPAA will make everything better again and the world will be just and fair. Order will be restored.

BitTorrent: The Internet's version of marijuana

[denis-The-menace]

Both are a means to an end but blamed for all the bad things(tm) in there respective environments.

This is because there are more profitable ways to achieve the same goals and men with deep pockets who want it this way have purchased laws to get richer at the cost of progress.

Fuck the MAFIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said...

theft of our natural rights

[bzipitidoo]

The only theft going on here is the theft of our natural rights to share, and our right to speech. Speech might cause unauthorized sharing to occur.

Sharing of knowledge is a huge social good. We got to the top of the animal kingdom not only through sheer intelligence, but also by harnessing our great intelligence through cooperation. Sharing of knowledge is a vital part of the cooperation that has enabled us to work together. Over the past few decades, these greedy fools have tried to make themselves the gatekeepers through which all sharing passes. They can't see or don't care that if they somehow succeeded, they would slow progress to nothing, and hurt themselves as well as the rest of us. All they see is money. They would deny us the methods we used to reach the top, and which we still very badly need to solve the problems we still face. All the money in the world does you no good if you need something that doesn't exist. Things like cures for AIDS and cancer, knowledge of an approaching meteor of a size that killed the dinosaurs and the means to avert it, tools to deal with climate change and ocean acidification, advances enabling us to colonize Mars, flying cars, and who knows what else. And most of all, establishing and maintaining a tradition of openness and honesty so that real crimes can't be hidden.

Fortunately for us all, they can't stop the sharing of knowledge. They can outlaw it, demonize it, viciously victimize a few unfortunates to try to terrorize us all, but not stop it. Sharing should be seen as an act of good and kindness like charitable donations, but even better, and far more common. Instead, these squatters on intellectual "properties" have suckered a lot of people into thinking of knowledge as deserving of the same ownership and handling as real, physical property. Getting people to use the very term, "property", and to make the association with "theft", was huge. It's sad how many people are thoroughly indoctrinated with the holiness of ownership, and get extremely moralistic over piracy, defending these villains and their propaganda. But the edifice is cracking. I find the successes of the Pirate Party most encouraging. No matter how this latest issue plays out, it will be good publicity. Keep it up, PP!

Re:theft of our natural rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for this post. While I read a lot of anti copyright stuff on Slashdot, it's not common to find a post which completely avoids the question of economics and strikes directly at the moral issue. I wish more would really think hard about what "intellectual property" means outside of what we are told by governments and media companies (what would it have meant to Archemedies for example) before giving "their" opinion on copyright or patents.

Captcha: algebra

What they need to do is

[elashish14]

move the TBP proxy offshore and then proxy the TBP proxy. If they are told to take that down, then move it offshore and proxy that. And if they are told to take that down..

Arrrgh!

[slick7]

The only logical response is...Yo Ho

What about the party linking to another proxy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, are they liable if they link to a proxy to The Pirate Bay?
You can always link to a link to a proxy to The Pirate Bay?
Or you can link to a link to a link to a proxy to The Pirate Bay?

What I'm trying to say is: when does the Pirate Party stop being liable for links?}

(captcha: defense)

Re:Hoarding Knowledge

[DanielRavenNest]

Hoarding knowledge is effectively brain damage for civilization. The goal should be to have all of it available to everyone, everywhere, instantly, at the lowest possible cost. I am talking about real knowledge, like science and engineering. If the entertainment business becomes collateral damage in freeing the world's knowledge, too bad, they can go whine with the former slave owners. Enslaving ideas to the control of one person is as wrong as enslaving people.

Re:Hoarding Knowledge

[mark-t]

Did I mention anything about the entertainment business?

Did I say anything that suggested that what I was talking about had even the slightest bit to do with money?

Of course the ultimately goal is cultural enrichment through the availability of a diverse arrangement of works. That's actually the purpose of copyright's existence! It's pretty obvious, however, that the desire to, at least for a limited time, exercise some control over who may make copies of a work, is a highly desirable one to content makers (indeed, that's how it works). If society is willing to respect that notion, then such providers can be encouraged to utilize it, and possibly be encouraged to provide more such content. This copy control is desirable even to content makers that *DO* make freely available works, since if they did not find the notion of copy control so appealing, they would simply release works into public domain rather than utilize copyright at all.

And again... this has absolutely nothing to do with money, or the entertainment business.

The media cartel are scum

[Anonymous Coward]

Extortion:
The Police Raided a 9-Year-Old to Confiscate Her Winnie the Pooh Laptop

Outrageously unfair fines:
$222,000 Music Piracy Fine Not Unconstitutional, Court Rules

Hypocrites:
The RIAA Pirated $9 Million Worth of TV Shows

4. Ripping off the artists.
Courtney Love does the math

Making sure shit floats:
How Payola Works Today... Or Why You Only Hear Major Label ...

The biggest pirates:
Canadian Music Industry Copyright Class Action Settled

Pushing the worst laws:
Rockmelt Blog | Why PIPA and SOPA are a Very Bad Idea â" And ...

So, pirate everything, boycott all of them, destroy the scumfucks.

The media cartel are scum

[MrL0G1C]

Extortion:
The Police Raided a 9-Year-Old to Confiscate Her Winnie the Pooh Laptop

Outrageously unfair fines:
$222,000 Music Piracy Fine Not Unconstitutional, Court Rules

Hypocrites:
The RIAA Pirated $9 Million Worth of TV Shows

Ripping off the artists:
Courtney Love does the math

Making sure shit floats:
How Payola Works Today... Or Why You Only Hear Major Label ...

The biggest pirates:
Canadian Music Industry Copyright Class Action Settled

Pushing the worst laws:
Rockmelt Blog | Why PIPA and SOPA are a Very Bad Idea Ã" And ...

So, pirate everything, boycott all of them, destroy the scumfucks.

Obligatory ass-kick

[Anonymous Coward]

[Disclaimer: I haven't seen the ThePirateBay orders yet - only the ones from the Newzbin2 block.]

That's not a *disclaimer*, damnit. That's a *disclosure*. LEARN the difference. I know it's hard. LEARN.