Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Is 10 Years Old: 'We Really Didn't Think We'd Make It This Far'
An anonymous reader writes "The Pirate Bay, arguably the most resilient file sharing website, was first founded on August 9, 2003, although it didn't launch until September 15, 2003. Nevertheless, the group considers the former date to be its start, so today The Pirate Bay is 10 years old. From their blog: 'We really didn't think we'd make it this far. Not because of cops, mafiaa or corrupt politicians. But because we thought that we'd eventually be to old for this shit. But hey, running this ship makes us feel young.'"
Information wants to be free, but there are those who want to keep it bottled up.
An those that do want to keep it bottled, have more money than you an I.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Do you really think the NSA gives half a shit more about content owners than it does about us? They play a completely different game in a completely different league.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Demand keeps it in existence.
Really, I don't agree with copyright infringement in all cases, but why should I have to pay for cable AND HBO just to watch Game of Thrones?
Piracy only exists because the content providers are being idiots, when you get right down to it. Give people what they want, when they want it, for a fair price and without any gimmicks, and you'll find the vast majority will gladly pay to consume.
If this were true they would have sent Seal Team Six after me instead of Bin Laden.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Enough false scarcity. If you can't make money you want, it's time to change your business model. The barons and their whore politicians they buy their fake scarcity from are far worse for society than pirates. It's not like these people aren't still making money hand over fist. If they weren't, piracy would've killed it off a long time ago.
10 years plundering the cyber seas, drink hearty ye scurvy dogs!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I know, I shouldn't feed the troll. But since trolls are tireless, we must be also tireless in trying to talk sense.
It isn't stealing. When I steal, you don't have what I took from you.
The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
The justifications aren't tortured. At this point, the justifications of the copyright cartel are pretty tortured, though.
The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work. The copyright cartel makes sure of that. Musicians don't get their royalties, and film crews are constantly the victims of bizarro accounting rules where no matter what happens, the film always "lost money."
And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
What do you call the opposite of a tinfoil hatter? Someone who in the face of overwhelming evidence still believes the lies of the slave driver? A Stockholmer? This is you. Welcome to your new label.
fifth sigma, inc.
Has there ever been a case where putting a word in all capital letters made the argument more persuasive?
Why does that sentence always make the writer sound crazy? Seriously, if you hear someone say, "My logic is based on reality," you're almost always hearing someone who does not have much of a grasp on either.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Are you sure ? I would say "we" wildly out number them even at $1 each we add up to much more.
Sure, if you consider the entire thing to be a big "them vs. us" contest with the whole world. Once you realize it's more complicated than that, even to the point of accepting it's more of "them vs. us vs. don't care", and realize "don't care" is one hell of a lot bigger than either "them" or "us"...
Most of human art was produced before copyright existed, and the artists managed to get their meals just fine. Copyright was a positive force, for a while, when copying was expensive and when it was a limited privilege. That is not the case anymore. Currently copyright prevents far more art from coming to be than it incentives it. It is time to abolish it once and for all.
Your argument would be fine and logical IF the copyright holders actually paid the content producers what it's worth to keep them producing. The middlemen, the production companies and distributors, tend to grab the copyrights, and try to pass off 'work for hire' contracts on the actual content creators to pay them a set fee to create, thus keeping all the profits for themselves.
Read what Joe Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5, has to say about 'Hollywood accounting'. It's easily Googleable, but one of the things he's been quoted on is that B5 has *yet* to 'show a profit' according to Warner Brothers, and the way the contract was written, they could have a fire on a set in the Congo next week and the replacement costs would be charged to B5's profits. So don't give me that 'the artist gets ripped off by piracy' routine. The artists are already getting ripped off by their distributors.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It isn't stealing. When I steal, you don't have what I took from you.
Boring nitpicking. Stealing is just a shorthand way of saying you are taking something for free against the wishes of the rightful owner who has put a price on it.
The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
Copyrights are not unlimited in any major country that I know of. Can you specify contract are you talking about that makes it ok for you to break the law if, in your opinion, the duration of copyright is too long?
The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work.
There is nothing stopping any artist to sell their art by themselves and keep ALL the money. The reason they sign up with labels (to take music as an example) is because making 5% of the millions of dollars is better than 100% of zero dollars . The share of the profits that they get reflects the reality that it is not the quality of music that sells it but marketing that the label provides.
And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
Absolutely agree with that one. Assuming you are consistent in believing that such corrupt politicians should have much less power in areas other than copyright (such as taxation/welfare, industry regulation, healthcare etc etc) then we are in perfect agreement on this one.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Have you actually studied economics? Do you understand supply and demand? And, more importantly, do you understand the fallacy of excluded middle?
Nobody is saying that "everyone should stop paying for all forms of art, and download it all for free." Nor is anyone (sane) predicting that all purchases of digital art will cease should copyright law change or copyright enforcement cease. If you believe either of these two things, then you are failing to grasp the basics of human behavior.
1) People *like* going to concerts. Even if they could download a video of a concert later, they are willing to pay a fee to go see the concert in person. *artists make money this way.*
2) People *like* going to movie theaters. Same deal.
3) Even when downloading content, most people will pay if the price is reasonable and the delivery mechanism is convenient. Amazon.com, for example, makes a fortune selling MP3's individually, even those same MP3's are trivially easy to download for free.
Most "pirates" would like to see a return to balance in copyright law. 20 year maximum is more than reasonable. And artists would get paid!
Such a world is economically viable. It is fair, and it works. Until the content cartels are willing to play by reasonable rules like these, people will continue to go around them by downloading, and will feel completely justified in doing so, whether you call them stupid or not.
Copyrights are not unlimited in any major country that I know of.
I think he is referring to the de facto unlimited nature of copyright in the United States, in that due to the lobbying power of the Walt Disney Company, the copyright term will never be less than the age of Mickey Mouse. As long as they stay in business, Disney will forever keep pushing congress to extend the term of copyrights in order to ensure that Mickey will never enter the public domain. Therefore, anything copyrighted after Mickey Mouse was copyrighted effectively has an unlimited copyright term.
Can you specify contract are you talking about that makes it ok for you to break the law if, in your opinion, the duration of copyright is too long?
If the law itself is unjust, the remedy must not come from within the law but from without. In other words, civil disobedience is the only way to affect change if the system itself is corrupt. Insisting on the use of an existing law to combat an unjust system of laws is equivocating.
20 year maximum is more than reasonable.
If copyright itself didn't infringe upon people's rights, then I might agree with that, but that is sadly not the case.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I should preface this with the fact that I buy lots of media (movies, tv shows, books, and video games). How exactly is pirating something I don't find worth paying for going to cause people to lose money? I used to buy plenty of music when I was younger, but these days I just don't find much that interests me and I primarily listen to my old music that I ripped to mp3's years ago. Since I don't find any reason to buy say the new Lonely Island cd (my life is of equal quality with it or without it), how are they losing anything if I chose to download it? I don't find it worth my money, thus if piracy is not an option I won't buy it and if piracy is an option and I choose to download it, they're still getting zero income from me.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I sent a letter to the BBC about a week ago asking them to set up a mechanism that I could donate for products of theirs that I enjoyed.
I explained that I don't use iTunes and I don't use BluRay, but I wanted a 1080p copy - and asked if there was a way I could donate money directly to them. The request was for the documentary "Africa" - which was the best doco i've ever seen. Go David Attenborough!!
Unfortunately, BBC didn't do me the courtesy of a response.
If I could cut out the middleman and pay the artist directly (well, in this case, BBC), I would. I'm sure others would do the same too.
Yes, I download - but I also pay/try to pay for what I think is good, but I will not pay 1c to any "intermediate" organizations that are bullies, liars, cheats or swindlers.
I've seen several of my books on TPB, and I still manage to make a living. Get over yourself.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"the internet sank the music business".
The title is not, however, "Piracy sank the music business".
There's a strong argument that in 1999 the music companies had effectively a monopoly (cartel) stranglehold on the industry. That leads to gouging and vast profits. The inernet broke that strangle hold and that is a good thing.
Now I can easily buy music a-la-cart from a variety of places and play it on any device. I can access obscure bands. I can stream internet radio. In every measurable way except record company profits, the music industry has improved since 1999.
The title should be:
The internet sunk the record label gouging.
There's actually a strong argument that piracy was the root cause, even thought there is now plenty of money to be made. Because what piracy offered was easy access to a better product. Money was made when the industry finally realised it was time to adapt or die and decided to offer a better product than the pirates for money.
They did.
You can now buy DRM free music files online from a huge, well curated and ordered catalogue, at a decent quality with cover art and all the right ID3 tags in place. That is a *better* product than simply downloading it of TPB and worth the money.
Or, you can stream all sorts of internet radio. That is another better product---it's a service which TPB is unlikely to ever offer.
Again, the only thing hurt has been the middle man cartel.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
For every writer or actor who signed a stupid contract I can show you one that was smarter and did incredibly well out of their success.
No, you can't. You can show a few examples of the latter. There are an almost infinite number of the former. There's a reason that Hollywood Accounting has so much published material about it.
How many people watch movies funded by Kickstarter
I have.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If it's society's job to ensure that someone can benefit from creative works, why is it handing the creators something which is utterly worthless? The right to control copying of an abundant product is worth nothing without the distribution network which is not owned by creators.
Oh, right, because copyright is intended to benefit the distributors and not the creators. The creators are merely a cheap excuse and as they are not particularly scarce and most cannot independently gain access to end consumers to a significant degree, they hold no bargaining power and thus have the choice of between getting screwed or getting nothing. Perfect. For the distributors.
If 'copyright' had actually been about incentives for producing creative works it would have been constructed to automatically hand creators a significant portions of the end user transaction. A guaranteed significant cut would actually be worth something and would actually let someone focus on creative works full time.
But it's not. And most 'creatives' would have a better chance of striking it rich by working selling fries with that and investing their proceeds in the lottery than by playing a game which is intentionally stacked against them every step of the way.