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.'"
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.
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.
Then let us pay for it, without paying for the other 99.99% of the shit we don't want.
anything more than 28 years old is out of copyright according to the original Constitution
The United States Constitution said, and still says, only
The original Copyright Act of 1790 was what granted a 14-year copyright with a 14-year extension if the author was still alive.
so I have a hard time understanding why it still has 70 years or so of restrictions.
Because the US Congress passed new laws and either 1) nobody's ever taken a case to the US Supreme Court to see whether 70 years counts as "limited" or 2) they did and the Supreme Court said "hey, it's not infinite, so it's still "limited"" or something such as that.
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.
Um, no. Copyright in the US is effectively eternal now. Currently, it's life of the artist plus something like 70 years, or practically forever if the copyright is held by a corporation.
The 'Birthday Song' believe it or not is still under copyright, and the copyright holders are vicious about litigating for singing that damned song in any place that a listening public might hear, including movies, TV shows, plays, and concerts.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
I get a lot of 'offshore content' from TPB. Stuff you just cannot get here in the States by any other means, legal or otherwise. I like a lot of Brit tv shows that aren't shown on PBS or BBCA. Likewise, I got hooked on some Australian TV shows as well as a couple South African shows. You just can't get them here in the States.
Canadian tv is available up by the border, but not down here in the desert. And my sat dish company won't sell me any Canadian content. The rat bastards.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.