Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Responds To Raid
An anonymous reader writes The Pirate Bay's crew have remained awfully quiet on the recent raid in public, but today Mr 10100100000 breaks the silence in order to get a message out to the world. In a nutshell, he says that they couldn't care less, are going to remain on hiatus, and a comeback is possible. In recent days mirrors of The Pirate Bay appeared online and many of these have now started to add new content as well. According to TPB this is a positive development, but people should be wary of scams. Mr 10100100000 says that they would open source the engine of the site, if the code "wouldn't be so s****y". In any case, they recommend people keeping the Kopimi spirit alive, as TPB is much more than some hardware stored in a dusty datacenter.
I appreciate the reasons for the war on piracy, but TPB was more than a pirate nexus: it was a great place to links to downloads via bittorrent that everyone could get to.
The internet needs to return to its wild west days of open file storage. True, lots of people are going to pirate, but that's technologically inevitable. The anti-piracy people are destroying necessary stuff along with what they fear.
Futurist Traditionalism
Putting it that way kinda makes them sound less like romantic swashbucklers and more like thieves, doesn't it?
Koans and fables for the software engineer
Working hard since 2003 to preserve your right to consume media without the annoyance of paying.
Working hard to enable people to download movies and music that will work on their streaming and mobile devices after they've paid for the original DRM encumbered media that forces them to watch adverts and FCC warnings every time they use the media.
There, fixed that for you.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Working hard since 2003 to preserve your right to consume media without the annoyance of paying.
Intellectual property was created for the benefit of society. There have been numerous studies showing that IP has massively overreached and it no longer does that. Those who have benefited have resorted to rent seeking behavior by ever expanding its scope. They can legally bribe elected officials by using campaign finance contributions. In effect they get to write the laws. So how about they pay back all the money they took beyond what reasonable IP would look like. Seven years copyright protection is enough for most movies and music. And 14 years for almost everything else.
And how about we expand fair use back to what it was and should be so that students can get greater access to copyrighted works? How about we also repeal the Copyright Term Extension Act.
It really is the case that the movie and music industries are trying to steal from everyone else. But because they have politicians in their pocket books you don't call it theft. Piratebay was merely evening an unfair playing field.
"Intellectual property is neither"
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
And if you pay you're the one getting the annoyance.
http://img.labnol.org/di/pirat...
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The problem is the Pirate Bay is both, and you have to take the bad with the good. I just kinda wish they'd chosen another name besides "The Pirate Bay", as it makes the site look like it was deliberately set up for piracy rather than general file sharing. (And it might well have been set up primarily for that purpose, but no need to be so obvious about it.)
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
If you don't understand either the definition of theft or what Pirate Bay actually does, sure.
Slashdot is run by people who live in the United States of America, where you can show people getting shot or worst on live TV, but you can't say "shit" or show a nipple.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Regardless of the licensing, a lot of the content on the site is useful because its just unavailable otherwise.
I wonder this about Youtube. What if it was just shutdown? At this point you can laugh but it has historical value. Beyond the cat videos there are documentaries, content from laserdisc, obscure commercials, very useful user howtos and reviews etc. This list goes on and on. If all you search for on youtube is funny videos then you are missing out on a treasure trove of content that spans many decades.
At some point I think the site will have to become a public archive. Which it kind of already is, it just needs the legal status so that some greedy corporation can't just turn off the switch. Now if only we could cut down on the crap that is a result of everyone trying to monetize youtube. But I guess that's wishful thinking because without that Google might just shut down Youtube outright.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Technically, that isn't theft. You've entered a private venue without permission (a ticket), so you'd be trespassing, but no theft has taken place.
and if the content creator wants to shun an entire region of their content rather than get paid, there is nothing stopping someone from downloading the content, that is not offered legally to them in other ways.
Content owners could have got paid if they didnt do that
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
while legally you might be correct, but logically, its simply wrong.
If I can get something I want, and no one is offering it up to me at a nominal fee, I find nothing wrong with taking a free copy of said item. legally it might be wrong, morally, fuck them for not letting me access something I would gladly pay for if they would let me.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Mickey Mouse says "LOL" at limited time.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
This leads to the biggest problem with Copyright today: The length. When copyright was a 14 year term followed by an optional, one-time 14 year renewal, it was a sane trade-off. You get a monopoly on this book you wrote and in exchange, the public gets full access to do whatever they want with it in 14 or 28 years. If you grew up loving a story, you could write a new story using that character when you got older.
Nowadays, though, copyright length is too long. If my younger son (age 7) reads something published today that he likes, he'd need to wait around 95 years (depending on the situation and assuming no more extensions of copyright - which is a big assumption) before it landed in the public domain. Since it is unlikely that my 7 year old will live to 102, his children or grandchildren might benefit from that work going into the public domain.
This whole system was supposed to encourage authors to produce more works, but if I (at age 39) publish something today, how does it encourage me to make more works when my work is still under copyright and I'm 125 (or would have been had I still been alive)? Is an Isaac Asimov story published in 1950 really encouraging Isaac to write more because it remains copyrighted until 2045? (I can see it now. Zombie Asimov rises from the grave and, after a light brains snack, locates some typewriters and begins work on five new novels.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
other shoe: the 'content' owners think that they should get a forever return on the sale/rental of the content.
the duration started out reasonable but they decided to BREAK THE COVENANT and since they feel they can break rules at-will and pay to have custom laws made for them, I concluded they are acting in bad faith and any contract where the other party is in bad faith is nullified.
NULLIFIED.
so, they get what they wanted. a content 'war'. one that they can't possibly win.
fuck, THEY started it. they escalated it. we're just trying to give them a bit of their own medicine. maybe next time they'll respect the rule of law and not mickeymouse around with the protected duration (see what I did there?)
to have a law respected, both sides have to respect it. since that doesn't happen, well, we have what we have today.
aka "what goes around, comes around'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You make it sound like you have a fundamental right to content someone else produces. You don't.
Yes I do.
It's called culture. Humans have been producing it for thousands of years. Claiming it is some sort of property that can be owned is a legal fiction created only in the last few hundred. The vast majority of consumers of culture throughout history and pre-history did not pay for their consumption. If authors got paid at all, they got paid once, by their patron, and forever after the cost of spreading the media was the marginal cost of duplication, and the cost of consumption was zero.
Actually, you do. Once something has been released to the public, no matter how, it becomes part of the public domain. Copyright is a limited privilege that is granted to the creator during which time they are exclusively allowed to distribute content in order to make money off of said content. This was created to further the creation of more works for the public.
I believe that denying the content creators financial gain by circumventing copyright is wrong. However, if content creators continue to extend copyright or use DRM to make sure that their content can not ever return to the public domain, they are stealing from the public. Having the public return the favor is to be expected.
This vicious cycle can be solved, but neither side seems to care enough to fix it.
Given the acoustics and volumes that bands play I would rather listen outside. If you don't wear earplugs you WILL have hearing damage. Either way earplugs or not its gonna sound muffled.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Actually, two of our major futebol stadiums sit next to residential areas, and people make a chunk of profit renting them or allowing people on their verandas on major games. Last time I checked, no action was taken against them
Disney wouldn't be where it was today if the notion of public domain didn't exist - almost their entire early output was based on public domain texts. Using Disney as an argument for stronger copyright is fraught with issues as now they are a dominant player when it comes to stricter copyright, but wouldn't be in that position if lax attitudes towards copyright had not existed in the past.
The main people who would benefit from restricted copyright would be you and me, because unless an artist has the blessing of Disney or over $4bn, they will not stand a chance in hell of being able to publish works based on that universe, and we will never get to enjoy their art. Just imagine how much awesome work has already been missed because some judge told them they can't make it? Why do you prefer the bean-counters to the brush-wielders?
Do you seriously think that a significant portion of Pirate Bay downloads are people who have purchased the content, and are just downloading a copy to get an unencumbered version? Honestly?
Yes. I myself and quite a few people I know download stuff that they either bought or could watch via free/subscription TV if they could be bothered to buy and program a DVR. It's easier just to use torrents though, as most DVRs don't let you stream to other televisions and make you manually skip adverts. It's just too much hassle, torrents are so much easier.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Also, remember that we, the copiers, are the ones with the fundamental right. If you sing a song, I have an unalienable free speech right to sing the same song. Just because you sung it first doesn't give you the right to use force (your own or through government) to shut me up. I have a right to use my copy machine to copy the book you wrote, the movie you produced, the song you recorded (so long as I did not commit theft of actual property or trespass to obtain the source material).
So we as a society can encourage you to create, though, we will permit you a limited monopoly on reproduction so you can make a profit. This is a voluntary curtailment of my natural rights to free speech and use of my physical property. But only so long as the terms are agreeable and the enforcement is reasonable. I need to get something for what I'm giving up. But once you go power-mad and demand 90+ years of monopoly instead of 14, start spying on people, hacking their computers, blocking access to websites, criminalizing use and modification of property I own, throwing people in jail, so you can make billions on pop garbage then no. Fuck it. Not worth it. Let's go back to the natural rights. I'll keep my right to copy and you can keep your right to suck it. If you can't make a profit, boo-fucking-hoo. I don't need Action Blockbuster #324123 or Teen Pop Idol 14 badly enough to let you do those things to me.
If you want to be reasonable, we can talk. But if you're get too big on yourself and forget who actually has the natural rights here, and that we are doing you a favor by curtailing those rights, for which you should be eternally grateful, then like you said. Contract breached. Null and void. Fuck 'em.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.