It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Digital Piracy Site Bidding For Own Island To Beat Copyright Laws

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   


The Pirate Bay, one of the world's most popular websites for the illegal downloading of films through filesharing, has said it wanted to buy its own island in a bid to avoid copyright laws.

"It's not only about Pirate Bay, it's more about having a nation with no copyright laws," one of those behind the site, who gave his name only as Peter, told AFP Friday.

The group said it would consider any territory in international waters to avoid copyright legislation.

For Pirate Bay it would be awesome to have no copyright law. All countries today are based on the old economy and old ideas and we want to do something new," he added.

On Friday the group established a website -- buysealand.com, as a discussion forum and to raise funds to buy Sealand, a former British naval platform and self-proclaimed principality six miles (10 kilometres) off the eastern coast of Britain.


SOURCE:
PhysOrg.com


I'd firstly like to say that the site's name is fitting considering
they are looking to buy an island.

I for one applaud this action, and hope they can go through
with there plans.

I do not support current copyright laws, as it is my opinion that if you
create something and put it out in public, you should do it
because you want to, not for profit.


Comments, Opinions?


EDIT:
Added Digital to thread title, and added current to my statement.

[edit on 1/12/2007 by iori_komei]




posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I thought that Sea Land specfically wasn't an autonomous nation, and that's why it was abandoned?



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I thought that Sea Land specfically wasn't an autonomous nation, and that's why it was abandoned?


Well when it was still inhabited by people who were looking for it
to be its own nation, no nation recognized it as such, you're correct.

It was abandoned for many reasons from what I understand though,
mainly a mixture of financial issues, and an apparent arson attack
on it.
I think it was probably loss of interest that lead to it being abandoned
as well though.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   

www.sealandgov.org...
Sealand was founded as a sovereign Principality in 1967 in international waters, six miles off the eastern shores of Britain

...

The location chosen was Roughs Tower, an island fortress created in World War II by Britain and subsequently abandoned to the jurisdiction of the High Seas. The independence of Sealand was upheld in a 1968 British court decision where the judge held that Roughs Tower stood in international waters and did not fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. This gave birth to Sealand's national motto of E Mare Libertas, or "From the Sea, Freedom".


Interesting, and it seems the current gov is in need of $ for rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by fire.

www.sealandgov.org...



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I do not support copyright laws, as it is my opinion that if you
create something and put it out in public, you should do it
because you want to, not for profit.

Comments, Opinions?


Yeah, I got some comments and opinions. Too bad I can't voice them all here, cause I'd rip you a new one.

Think about what you are saying man. If every musical artist, for example, had no protection from copyright law, I want you to tell me how they would get paid for any recording. I want you to tell me how major recording studios and record labels, who have millions or billions invested in the industry, would make ends meet. And please tell me how news agencies could sell their stories if any joe blow (hard) could come along and rip their story off. And that's just for starters. Copyright law is absolutely necessary to protect intellectual, and other, property.

I hope this new company, and their new island, sinks to the bottom of the sea. Fast.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
National territorial waters extend 100 miles. A island 6 miles out is still British controlled waters, there fore all land within the waters are under British rule as well?

But anyways, ya, I like Pirate Bay... I mean. .. Torrents are bad. Ya. That is what I really meant. Hope they succede.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Think about what you are saying man. If every musical artist, for example, had no protection from copyright law, I want you to tell me how they would get paid for any recording.


Well, in my opinion they should'nt be doing it for profit in the first place.
Though I do think that if a corporation or major Media/TV show wants
to use it, they should pay the artist.




And please tell me how news agencies could sell their stories if any joe blow (hard) could come along and rip their story off. And that's just for starters.


I don't mean that you could say something someone else created
is yours, that is not a good thing.


I generalised because this thread is meant to discuss the article,
not the every detail of my belief about copyright laws and such.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I do not support copyright laws, as it is my opinion that if you
create something and put it out in public, you should do it
because you want to, not for profit.


Not for profit? Wouldn't that be an ideal society, unfortunately it is not the reality we have inherited. This is a materialistic world, and we live in a monetary state. I normally volunteer roughly 10-15 hours a week of my life to random causes, for the most part, providing young children with extra curricular activities. I cherish every moment, but unfortunately I can not put food on the table with it.

Not every artist is in it for the money. I would suspect there is a silent majority that are in the "game" for their sheer love for music and entertaining. The monetary benefits that come with it, well they are certainly abundant, but if we removed all copyright laws the hard work of these individuals would be all for not.

Why do you post on ATS? I am sure it is because you love it, and enjoy it. You don't need any benefits or rewards, the time you spend here is reward enough. But let's say you spend an hour or two on a thread, and post something remarkable. Something that the masses are going to flock to and be like, "Damn, that was good!" But then someone else comes a long and stakes claim for it. How does that make you feel? Your work is just that, your work. You deserve the recognition and any benefits that come with it. Time is precious, our talents can be rare. Copyrights insure our safety when it comes to the use of our time.

If you find your Utopian society, give me a call. Because I would love to join you in it. But unfortunately, our reality is all we have. Asking individuals to donate rather large portions of their life to a cause with little to no support, is unfathomable.

We all can not be Mahatma's.


---

I understand this is slightly off the direct path this thread is attempting to follow, but the theme of the thread is copyright laws and a specific company trying to bypass those laws. Our thoughts and opinions on copyrights definitely pertain to the subject we have at hand.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by chissler]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Man I swear. Some of you never cease to amaze me. It's like just because we all know how to use computers, and can stay one step ahead of authorities and illegally download stuff like music, that we are all supposed to magically all be in it together. Everybody happily skirting the system, saving lotsa money, and laughing it up with bit torrents or kazaa's.

To the oblivious fool who knows nothing and doesn't care about what artists and other creative people really go through to bring those favorited products to market, not to mention the money that is spent on them, I sincerely hope they accidentally turn up the voluime and blow their ear drums out, rendering them totally deaf. Or worse.

And as to these questionably creative idiots with this company, with no copyright laws, it will be easy for someone to steal their idea and render it useless anyway!



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Looking a bit further it seems Sealand has No actual land mass whatsoever, it's nothing more than a platform which stands 60 feet above sea-level.

As for Pirate Bay acquiring it, I think they have to deal Not only with the Sole resident but HavenCo as well. HavenCo cut a deal with the "prince" (i.e. sole resident) to lease the platform for use as a web hosting service.


geography.about.com...
In 2000, Sealand came into the news because a company called HavenCo Ltd planned on operating a complex of Internet servers at Sealand, out of the reach of governmental control. HavenCo gave the Bates $250,000 and stock to lease Rough's Tower and the company has the option to purchase Sealand in the future.


Photos:
www.fruitsofthesea.demon.co.uk...

HavenCo:
www.havenco.com...

Good Luck, though I doubt we'll be seeing The Pirate Bay Platform anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Rockpuck: I don't think that 100 miles thing is correct.

For more detailed and per country info on territorial waters, check this wiki page:

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, The Pirate Bay is not a piracy site, its a torrent tracker.

You can't download copyrighted materials from a torrent tracker, you can only download .torrent files.

The article makes it seem like the identities of the people behind TPB is a secret, in the phrase 'who gave his name only as Peter'.

Their identities are well known and these guys are attacked in every legal and illegal way by the copyright mafia.

I agree that people who put out products should have legal protections, WHICH THEY DON'T HAVE NOW, record labels have legal protections, the artists don't, they get raped by record labels and milked for every penny they can.

Record labels lobying and policing groups like the RIAA are mafia groups that use every posible tactic, legal or illegal, to get their way, no matter if its within their rights or not.

The whole thing needs a redesign and rethinking from the ground up, which won't happen untill every one of these gangs has gone bankrupt or has been caught for the illegalities they themselves are involved in.

One of the main reasons record labels and such don't want to consider digital distribution networks for their products is because they own the printing and distribution companies their products are distributed trough now.

Eventhough digital distribution would mean cutting away a big hunk of time between creation and delivery, it would also cut away 4 or 5 steps in the distribution process that they now make massive profits from.

Thats the main reason why they fight the internet.

[edit on 12/1/07 by thematrix]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei


Well, in my opinion they should'nt be doing it for profit in the first place.
Though I do think that if a corporation or major Media/TV show wants
to use it, they should pay the artist.


This is just silly logic. Why do u believe u have the right to decide whether an artist (or anyone who's livelihood depends on copyright laws) should allowed to be paid for their job? How about if I said I don't believe u should be paid for ur job, and decided to help myself to ur pay cheque?

And the idea that "well, they shouldn't be paid for something they enjoy" line of thinking is also ridiculous. U think people should have their pay docked if at any point int he day they actually got some satisfaction form their work?

U are essentially disregarding the law simply because u don't agree with. Much like other forms of crime. It is the right, both morally and legally, of owners if intellectual copyrights to decide what they release into the public domain, and whether they charge for it or not.

"I do not support copyright laws, as it is my opinion that if you
create something and put it out in public, you should do it
because you want to, not for profit. "

Again, this makes no sense. How about i jack a car? After all, the designers and engineers created it, so the fruits of their labour should be free to all to take what they please, should be follow ur logic. These type of arguements often stem from little more than a resentment for somebody being paid for a "cushty" job, i.e. something they enjoy doing.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by john_bmth]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I want you to ask yourself this?? Would you go to work and volunteer your services everyday without being paid? That is exactly what you are asking artists to do. This is their livelyhood, the need to eat the same as everyone else. That is their job. Making music, drawing, painting, etc. The have the same right as anyone else to expect to be paid for the job they do, and because THEY CREATED IT, they should retain copyright to it. How would anyone like to create something and then have someone else market it and make money. It kills me when topics like this come up.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Yeah these artists are so affected by all of this thats been going on for ages now. It affects them so badly that instead of getting diamond studded platinum tire valves they are forced to get plain ole platinum for their Bugatti Veyrons.

Wanna know Piracy? its when you pay for software, have a drive crash, write to the software company to get the installation password
thats changed constantly emailed to you, provide them with all the papers and then never hear back from them again. Thats piracy.

Wanna know more piracy? Buy a anti-virus software, get hit with a virus that this anti-virus software can't/won't remove, call up for help and get charged 35.00 more and they don't even help you. Thats piracy.

Operating Systems that has had security breaches for over 7 years that cause billions of dollars in financial loss should be piracy. But its not.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Yeah these artists are so affected by all of this thats been going on for ages now. It affects them so badly that instead of getting diamond studded platinum tire valves they are forced to get plain ole platinum for their Bugatti Veyrons.



U seem to equate all intellectual copyright to multi-million $$$ artists. Again, this is silly logic. U realy think that copyright ONLY applies to wealthy music artists? C'mon, ur a smart guy, don't be so... stupid, for use of a better word. I'm not resorting to petty name calling, I'm deadly serious: u'd have to be stupid to think the ONLY people who are affected by copyright infringement are multi-millionaire musicians.

Even if u wanted to believe that ONLY musicians are affected, u genuinely believe that the only music out there is the stuff made by multi-platinum artists? U think ALL musicians are rolling in money? For every massive artist, there's 1,000's who are making a modest living selling their music.

And even then... why is it ur right, regardless of their wealth, to decide whether they should be "allowed" to make money off their (insert creative job here)? As I said above, would it be fair for me to decide whether YOU should be paid for ur work? U may not agree with the idea of big name musicians making a killing from their music (especially given the amount of absolute #e that seems to be flying off the shelves these days), but its not for u to decide whether their music should be freely-available in the public domain or not. U can't take away someone's rights just because u dont think they deserve them.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by john_bmth]



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
What kind of a country/govt. - located in the sea - didn't think about reasonable fire suppression implementation.

They're in the friggin' sea!

I actually really, strongly, believe in what ThePirateBay is doing - and I hope they do find a way to buy (or create) such a place.

The fact is, if we allowed ourselves to be governed by a benevelont one world govt., switched to open source technologies, and did away with intellectual property - we'd experience a prosperity unknown in the history of mankind.

The sooner we give up this crude capitalistic mentality the better - because all capitalism has shown us is that the first ones to get the money fix the system in their favor.

There is no such thing as a "free" market in this world - and their never will be.

But people will always persue things they love, (whether there is money in it or not), and menial jobs can always be outsourced to technology.

(and there will always be people who love the challenge of creating the technology to free us from undue manual labor)

It's the next step in our social evolution - we musn't let the "modern day" luddites try to keep us from mankinds true future.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
It's the next step in our social evolution - we musn't let the "modern day" luddites try to keep us from mankinds true future.



There's 1 thing having great technological breakthroughs that are beneficial to mankind as a whole being open source, but some Joe using his craft to pay his mortgage is a different matter entirely...



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I do not support current copyright laws, as it is my opinion that if you
create something and put it out in public, you should do it
because you want to, not for profit.


Whoa, what a statement to make. What kind of world do you live in? I must say that it sounds pretty idyllic however in the real world, people deserve to make money from their works.

Not for profit? These people aren't charities for crying out loud. You should think about the individuals involved in these productions, and not treat them as part of some faceless corporation. It's mostly people like you and me who are trying to earn a crust who are affected by this sort of thing, yet you choose to view them as people who deserve absolutely nothing. Sucks to be honest.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
We should not support an organization that tears down copyright laws. You don't go over to the car lot, drive off with a car, without paying for it, and sell it for your own profit. It's called theft.

Copyrights also protect products from being distorted and destroyed by others. Let's say I have a written technology that cures Cancer once the material is applied. With no copyright, I can come in take the materials, twist it up, mangle it, and push a non-workable fake product to the public. Not to mention this will possibly ruin image of the creator of the original.

Troy



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
To the oblivious fool who knows nothing and doesn't care about what artists and other creative people really go through

That sounds like the RIAA itself. Of all the money the RIAA has gained from suing people, how much have the artists seen themselves? $0.00.

The RIAA only cares about lining its pockets through extortion. Artists apart from the ones at the very top (who are already multi millionaires many times over) dont see much money from CDs anyway, they make it through tours.

Good luck to the PB, they can beat the copyright mafia this way, the US may not recognise is as a nation but it doesn't matter. The UK or anyone else doesn't have the power to do anything with Sealand.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join