Anonymous - Operation Pirate Bay , page 1

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 10:43 AM

link

A major file-sharing site suffered an extended outage over the past two days. The Pirate Bay told file-sharing blog TorrentFreak a power failure caused the outage, one of the longest for the copyright-dodging music and movie network since a police shutdown in 2006. Still, the downtime coincided with a Swedish police raid on PRQ, a hosting service formerly used by the Pirate Bay, according to ComputerWorld.

The Pirate Bay boasts millions of daily users, so its outage quickly made the site's name one of the most-searched terms on Google. According to Torrent Freak, the Pirate Bay needed to replace a piece of hardware on location. Understandably, as a legally questionable operation, the site tends not to outsource such maintenance to unfamiliar workers.

Link

Anonymous has taken it upon themselves to speak out against Sweden due to the recent Pirate Bay outage that many of us are aware about. Whether or not these are empty threats, only time will decide. Anonymous seems to make a whole lot of empty threats, but they have also done some things that I consider to be worthy of applause.

Here is their message:

Greetings SWEDEN!

We are ANONYMOUS:

We have seen that you have been done a raid on the pirate bay and other torrents sites!

The raid on PRQ disabled many of our torrent sites. We see this as a crime against freedom to information
and there for we have disabled some of swedish governments or affiliate sites in protest against this raid.

Swedish Government; you know our capabilities and what we want! The choice is yours.

I know they like fighting internet censorship which I totally agree with the fight they are fighting, but I wish they would spend more time exposing corrupt politicians

Let's wait and see if they have any tricks hidden up their sleeves.

edit on 3-10-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

minkmouse

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:25 AM

link

I'm all for the fight against censorship on the internet but doesn't pirate Bay essentially operate to further the theft of other peoples property i.e. music, videos and software?

EvilSadamClone

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:32 AM

link

reply to post by minkmouse

File sharing is not true piracy. These are people sharing their own copies of a product, that's all it is.

The companies can't claim money on it so they have to make stuff up and make it seem like a bad thing so they can force consumers to buy their product and get richer.

And to top it off, most of that money is not going to the artists, it's going to the lawyers and the people who own the rights to the works.

edit on 3-10-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

Corruption Exposed

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM

link

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

I have always felt the same way as you do when it comes to digital copies that people are sharing. Part of me understands why the music, movie, and other industries would complain because at the end of the day it cuts into their profits, but I can careless about the evil corporations.

I do support the struggling artists though, and most people who have a favorite artist that they truly respect for whatever reason are willing to go to ITunes or the local music shop to pick up a CD.

It's a slippery slope but these site shut downs always lead to more and more censorship which is not the proper direction to head towards.

edit on 3-10-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)

Monger

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:47 AM

link

Information is not property. There are valid arguments to be made about internet piracy, about how it's money out of the artists pockets, and from others in the entertainment industry... but Hollywood directors, producers, actors and the like seem to be doing just fine for themselves. Multi-million dollar homes, hundred thousand dollar cars.

It's awfully difficult for the average Joe to feel bad about the relatively miniscule amount of revenue lost to internet piracy.

Frankly, a genuinely huge number of people regularly pirate information, in the form of books, movies, etcetera. Myself included. If I download a book, I'll buy a physical copy to show my support for the publishing industry. Same for films. If it isn't terrible, I might go out and buy it.

Monger

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 11:47 AM

link

Double post.

edit on 3-10-2012 by Monger because: (no reason given)

tothetenthpower

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:00 PM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

The gatekeeper model is dead.

Now my argument only applies to digital media here. Movies, Games & Music.

This argument also applies to large name, large label, large production etc..

The little guy deserves his money and you should always purchase your independant, indie media at full price.

They don't have the resources these other shmucks do.

Now, onto the crux of the matter.

You can't tell me, that by downloading a movie for free, that I cost that company a significant ammount of money. Not when that particular movie made a BILLION dollars at the box office.

That's just BOX OFFICE ticket sales.

That's not millions more you'll make in DVD purchases, merchandise, special events. Sponsorships with other companies ( like pepsi) or product placement from the actual filming of the movie.

The same goes for the music industry. You sold 100 Thousand copies of your CD. That's a lot of cash for a label, not the artist. The artist is already agreed to be paid a certain ammount for their work. They ( as far as I understand) make their money on tours, merchandise, digital media sales ( Itunes) and of course, the label gets a cut of every blank CD sold.

Now there' s a difference between downloading something for your enjoyment and downloading something for your financial gain. Selling pirated stuff is wrong. Using pirated software to do things like make a career ( ie photoshop) is also wrong.

This is an unpopular opinion. I know that. I fully, 100% support the free sharing of information. I do not support the theft of intellectual property for financial gain.

~Tenth

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 10/3/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

Sparky63

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 12:31 PM

link

If I am willing to pay for a movie, book or music I will do so. But the stuff I may or may not have downloaded from torrent sites are media I would never have paid for anyway, so no one is out any money, I figure I am doing the artist a favor by even showing an interest if his product.
I have a hard time putting a value on code made up of zeros and ones.
On a side note I paid $15,000 for software that I use on a daily basis for my work, so I am not against paying for something that has real value to me. I tend to lean toward Anonymous on this issue.

minkmouse

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:07 PM

link

I think it's funny how we can justify to ourselves how theft is not theft given the right circumstances or viewpoint supporting the idea that corporations are evil. I also don't quite see the argument that piracy is just the sharing of ones own files because that's not whats happening! People are not generally sharing files they purchased but rather passing along property they got for free so it's a win win situation for the file sharer. If you pay fifteen thousand bucks for a suite of production software, I think it unlikely you would upload it for the world to share for free! I mean really North America would only need one person to purchase Photoshop then simply put it online as their own personal file and Adobe lays off a couple of thousand people. God help us if this mentality moves beyond the digital realm

Sparky63

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:18 PM

link

reply to post by minkmouse

Once I shell out $15,000 for a product I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it at all.

popcornmafia

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:21 PM

link

Lets hope this goes according to plan..

I still have some worries that this is some sort of cia op.

Anyone can be anonymous, so if this is true and straight forward
then good for them lets hope they do something constructive
and good for the net wide.

Monger

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:27 PM

link

reply to post by minkmouse

I respect an individual's private property. That's something I hold sacred. But so-called 'intellectual property' is, at the end of the day, ones and zeroes. I find that I don't mind downloading and sharing said ones and zeroes. It is information, after all, and we live in the Age of Information.

Maybe some might brand me a thief for downloading some faceless megacorp's private collection of ones and zeroes, but I'd have some difficult putting into words how little that bothers me.

SaneThinking

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 01:41 PM

link

Free Kim Dot Com to do his business un-abbaited, let Music Box or what ever it was to get the go ahead put 90% of revenue back in the pocket of the artist. Screw the RIAA and those who do nothing but take so much and let this whole boondockle fade into the past with the rest of the archaic structure we currently live under...

SaneThinking

minkmouse

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:08 PM

link

reply to post by Monger

So if some hacker removed all the "zeros and ones" from your bank account , you'd be OK with that? The stuff in your wallet is your own private property but the stuff residing in the faceless megabank is just "zeros and ones" ?

dayve

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:09 PM

link

Originally posted by minkmouse
I'm all for the fight against censorship on the internet but doesn't pirate Bay essentially operate to further the theft of other peoples property i.e. music, videos and software?

Yep, and i for one am thankful for that.... On another note, who really gives a s*** what anonymous has to say....

Monger

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:42 PM

link

reply to post by minkmouse

I'd be angry as hell, and I have, in fact, had something similar happen to me.

But your argument is ridiculous, and let me tell you why. The price of admission to see the latest Hollywood crap fest is, what, 7 bucks? How can you possibly compare one to the other, it's absurd. Being so dramatic really cheapens your argument.

minkmouse

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:54 PM

link

Originally posted by Monger
reply to post by minkmouse

I'd be angry as hell, and I have, in fact, had something similar happen to me.

But your argument is ridiculous, and let me tell you why. The price of admission to see the latest Hollywood crap fest is, what, 7 bucks? How can you possibly compare one to the other, it's absurd. Being so dramatic really cheapens your argument.

Not quite sure I understand the 7 bucks to get into the theater bit but so be it. I was really just trying to say that just because information is zeros and ones and not necessarily tangible doesn't mean that it can't be someones property. This was essentially what I thought you were driving at, perhaps I misunderstood?

Monger

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 04:46 PM

link

reply to post by minkmouse

Are you being obtuse, or are we genuinely misunderstanding one another? A hacker draining somebody's bank account is a fairly serious crime. It effects that person's life in a real, tangible way.

I sort of get your analogy on the ones and zeroes, but I was really just referring to computer files, not to an individual's bank statement. It's simply unfair to compare downloading the latest Hollywood blockbuster or hit TV show, with having ones life savings stolen from them.

minkmouse

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM

link

reply to post by Monger

You said way back there that "Information is not property" Now if I spend five years of my life and resources researching and compiling information on a certain topic and put together a book that I offer for sale to the public, I would see the profits of said book as my compensation for having undertaken the task. In this example I am not releasing the book on line but in hardcover only. I see the information in that book as my property. Now if someone scans that book then places it online for free download by the masses, in your view it is now zeros and ones and free for the taking. If that's the view you have, I don't completely agree is all I'm saying. I wasn't taking the emotional side of having your bank account hacked as something to be included in the argument...I'm sure it exists and is something I wouldn't wish on anyone (except maybe the CEO of a large bank

) I guess the bottom line for me is just because something comes into the digital domain in the form of zeros and ones, that alone doesn't qualify it as belonging to the masses. Hope I explained it better this time around.

Monger

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 06:43 PM

link

reply to post by minkmouse

I do, I admit, download books. And then I read them. If the book is terrible - poorly written, boring, shallow - I delete the file and don't shed a single tear for the author who crapped out a terrible product.

If, on the other hand, a book I download has depth, is well written, is original and not contrived rubbish, with characters I can relate to and make me feel, then I go to the bookstore and buy the paperback copy, I loathe hardcover. Notable examples of books I've downloaded and then purchased are the Song of Ice and Fire series, Joe Abercrombie's recent trilogy, Jim Butcher's Dresden Files series and several others.