Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Pirate Bay On Track To Be Banned In the UK?

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the cue-rob-halford-stage-left dept.

Crime 309

redletterdave writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times about the fate of the Pirate Bay in the UK: "Swedish filesharing website The Pirate Bay may soon be blocked in the UK after a London judge ruled that the site breaches copyright laws on a large scale, and that both the platform and its users illegally share copyrighted material like movies and music. In addition to finding legal fault with The Pirate Bay and its users, the British Phonographic Industry also wants all British ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay in the UK."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (-1, Offtopic)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107059)

More for me.

Re:Good (5, Funny)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107303)

I don't think you understand how bittorrent works...

Why not Gamemaker? (0)

GamemakerSupreme (2575291) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107479)

Why doesn't ThePirateBay just use Gamemaker? Then no one could block them.

Can we just ban it? (3, Insightful)

ka9dgx (72702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107081)

Let's ban child phonography.... cut off their customer base, and drive the bastards out of business.

Re:Can we just ban it? (2)

sd4f (1891894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107099)

and drugs, don't forget to ban drugs, guns too.

Re:Can we just ban it? (2, Funny)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107133)

Wait a minute dude, what's wrong with drugs?

What's wrong with drugs? (4, Funny)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107165)

Watch This! [youtube.com]

Re:What's wrong with drugs? (0)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107299)

Dude, that video just makes me hungry...

Re:What's wrong with drugs? (1, Offtopic)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107315)

The crack spider is right. Building webs is for suckas.

Re:Can we just ban it? (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107117)

why shouldn't children be allowed to use Pitman shorthand?

if you were making some irrelevant statement about child pornography, on the other hand, 1. it's already banned 2. the Pirate Bay doesn't have any

Re:Can we just ban it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107179)

I think the idea is that if we stop getting kids hooked on having the latest phonographs, eventually the phonographic industry will wither and die.

Re:Can we just ban it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107377)

Child pornography should be legal, just as snuff films should be legal. Free speech is free speech. If the video is evidence of a crime, persecute the offenders in the video who perpetrated the crime. Video or pictures of crimes being committed should be legal, including child pornography. You're probably thinking that there will be more videos of 60-year-old-men diddling three-year-olds. This is unlikely to be the case, as this kind of pornography is incredibly rare because there really aren't that many sick fucks who will do that (I could be wrong).

You will, however, be able to see a 16-year-old girl willingly take video of herself masturbating. And two fourteen-year-olds having sex on video (and it was their idea). If the argument is that legalized video will spurn more coercion of children - coercion of children for sex with adults is already illegal (although the age of consent is too high, IMO).

The only reason child pornography is illegal is the puritanical mindset of the United States (I imagine some of Europe made it illegal to appease the U.S.). Child pornography was common in the '70s and nobody batted an eye. If you have video of a thirteen year old masturbating alone from 1975, don't you think that person (who would be 51 now) has either forgotten about it or it doesn't bother them and they don't mind others watching it? Yes, in extreme cases (child rape) the victims hate the video that exists of it, but that shouldn't make it illegal. Watching a video of a child being molested by an adult may be ethically and morally questionable or wrong, but it should not be crime that warrants the current outrageously extreme punishment (20-100 years in prison, sexual offender's watchlist for life, banned from the Internet for life).

Re:Can we just ban it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107485)

shh, bonch will hear you.

Re:Can we just ban it? (4, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107553)

The problem is that a local market (i.e., in the US) might create supply elsewhere (i.e., Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia). I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.

I do distinguish between pedophilia and attraction to teens. I don't think it's appropriate to treat pictures of naked teenagers in the same way as videos of toddlers being raped. In the case of the latter, I think even viewing/possessing them should be criminalized in very strong terms.

Re:Can we just ban it? (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107731)

I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.

Sorry, but if you can't catch them, then too bad. I'd rather not have it be illegal and resort to censorship merely because of our own failure to catch the actual criminals.

Re:Can we just ban it? (1, Offtopic)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107275)

Let's bad freedom too. I have information which indicates that only terrorists & rapists speak about 'freedom.'

They also, on occasion, speak about some fictitious 'Bill of Rights,' that supposedly limits what our 'Dear Leaders' in the Roman Senate can and cannot do to the peasantry. Terrorists, all of them: they should be found, and subjected to experiments (like the effects of prolonged frostbite, or the stuffing of human beings into very warm ovens), for the good of society.

What a bunch of weirdos, they don't seem to understand that anyone who has a badge and a gun is God's right-hand on earth. How do we know this? Because for the last two thousand years, the Almighty hasn't said a word against the countless genocides and massacres that were carried out by those acting in His name. Trust me, if he didn't like the fine job our CIA is doing, sowing hate among our allies, we'd know it. Instead, he appears on slices of toasted bread, giving us the thumbs up. USA! USA! USA!

Re:Can we just ban it? (5, Funny)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107319)

You may be interested to hear that the UK, among other places, is not in America.

Re:Can we just ban it? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107375)

You may be interested to hear that the UK, among other places, is not in America.

You might start by informing GP that "UK" stands for things other than "University of Kentucky".

Re:Can we just ban it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107889)

And yet, contrary to the US, the UK already has a broad Internet censorship platform in place right now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Filtering

Re:Can we just ban it? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107781)

Let's ban child phonography.... cut off their customer base, and drive the bastards out of business.

Too right. I can't take any more of those godawful boy bands.

Re:Can we just ban it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107811)

Oh, child pornography doesn't follow the same rules as other media.

You see, if you pirate other media you harm the content creator but if you pirate child pornography you support the content creator.
At least that is what I have been told.

It's kind of scary (3, Insightful)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107087)

that the UK is exerting this kind of power over their local internet lines and providers.

Re:It's kind of scary (2, Insightful)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107353)

Goose, golden eggs, killing of said goose to get the gold inside, followed by the realization that there is no gold inside.

Two other thoughts:

1.) It's rare to see a government so openly declaring economic warfare on its own populace.
2.) I'm surprised that the Financial District, which employs and contributes over 10% of the population and taxes, respectively, hasn't ordered a hit on the people behind this. In order to make good (profitable) trades, fast & accurate information is required (every millisecond counts, and you are competing with people in other countries); in so far as this will be putting up a few new walls between them and the rest of the world, it's not a 'good' law, I would assume, from their vantage point. With the amount of influence they have in the UK, they should easily be able to stop this problem (before it snowballs).

I will take super-economic sabotage for $500.

Re:It's kind of scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107591)

that the UK is exerting this kind of power over their local internet lines and providers.

How so? I don't download so it has no affect on me personally. A tiny percentage of the actual internet sites deal with downloading. They take on an inflated footprint because of bandwidth usage but honestly do they represent 0.01% of the actual sites on the internet. Sure they affect you adversely but the average surfer won't notice unless they are specifically after downloading copyrighted material. Just trying to put it into perspective.

No Web Site for You (1)

Nicknamename (2572429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107089)

British Judge says "You are my bitch."

Who the hell elected you, dickweed?

Re:No Web Site for You (2)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107143)

Nobody, they only do the democracy thing for show.

Re:No Web Site for You (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107385)

True. Here in the US, you realize quickly that democracy has never graced the halls of the elected or appointed officials.

Democracy is a powerful lie, which lets people think they have power, right up until the point where they actually need to use it. Then they realize that they have no power, the laws were written by career bureaucrats who have no interest in whether or not they should be making laws, let alone good ones, for the simple reason that they themselves will never be affected by them. We had a judge, up here in Lancaster, PA, who was dismissing her own summons for various traffic violations: she just logged into the system, and altered the records. These are the very judges, mind you, who do not allow you a jury (sorry, it's just misdemeanor!) when you got to fight them, and who lovingly (he said sarcastically) click their tongues and berate you over the 'danger to society' your reckless driving could have caused, while the trooper (who arranged the date for his day off (time and a half, right guys?) and on the day you need to be elsewhere) smiles his knowing smile (he's a professional witness, your word against his...sure it's a racket, but fuck you).

I've realize why they have the Bible in the courtroom -> because by the time you get there, only God can save you.

Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (5, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107097)

Global information exchange The Internet may soon be blocked in the UK after a London judge ruled that the system breaches copyright laws on a large scale, and that the platform's routers and end users illegally share copyrighted material like movies and music. In addition to finding legal fault with The Internet and its users, the British Phonographic Industry also wants all British ISPs to block access to The Internet in the UK.

Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107189)

"Common primate species Homo Sapiens may soon be blocked in the UK after a London judge ruled that the species breaches copyright laws on a large scale, and that both the individual and its groups illegally share copyrighted material like movies and music. In addition to finding legal fault with Homo Sapiens and its individuals, the British Phonographic Industry also wants all British ISPs to block access to Homo Sapiens in the UK."

Fixed that for you.

Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (4, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107305)

I'm pretty sure I heard a bird singing a copyrighted song. They should ban those too.

Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107325)

Good, this world is best suited for us Persons of Quality, down the rabble! The hoi palloi have been far too uppity of late, it's high time to put them back in their place, I say! (Except the telephone sanitizers, they do a yeoman's job, what ho!)

Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107719)

Even some of us who have never downloaded anything illegal have to sanitize our own telephones. Fortunately though, as a general rule, our shit don't stank.

Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (1, Redundant)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107313)

On behalf of the rest of the world, we'll miss you guys.

Websites like The Register & the BBC have provided valuable information about the UK, its culture, its way of life, and at times, a better understanding of your country. Still, if your leaders are intent on cutting off their country's arm at the wrist, and cannot be persuaded against such an action, the rest of the world shall get together every September 4th, and host a UK day, during which we will look through the internet archives, and relive the experience of .uk websites.

Good-bye, and fair wishes to you all.

Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107715)

You joke - I have met a Scottish MP who has argued for turning off the internet for years(family friend so I'm not going to name him). His current mission is to ban Facebook for inciting riots. He genuinely believes that websites should have no user generated content - unless everything is pre-moderated before been shown to the public. To enforce this he wants to licence websites - no licence - no access through the firewall he intends to build.

Do not be surprised if you start to hear more support of this idea.

Explosive 'gasm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107103)

Into the tailpipe...

Here comes Tor! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107137)

Honestly, we need a "Streisand Effect" term for what happens when legislation merely prompts sites to use the encrypted areas of the internet.

Re:Here comes Tor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107489)

...and then we need a term for governments that force large swaths of its citizenry into the underground, creating a black market.

They did the same thing with drugs. Next, we'll be sneaking around trying to score balloons of fresh air off each other.

It's what always happens when a government serves interests other than its peoples'. It criminalizes them, demonstrating the extent to which it doesn't actually serve their interests.

How about "Piledriver Effect" (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107625)

Honestly, we need a "Streisand Effect" term for what happens when legislation merely prompts sites to use the encrypted areas of the internet.

Because it just drives people deeper underground.

On second thought, maybe "Jamiroquai Effect" might sound hipper.

Re:Here comes Tor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107679)

Gopher Effect.

From Wikipedia:

Gophers, because of their burrowing, can disrupt human plans like commercial agriculture, garden plots, some landscaping, and some underground cables.

...Gophers create a large community of tunnels with large mounds of dirt and rocks at their entrances, frequently referred to as gopher towns.

...A gopher town can easily spread to take over large sections of prairie or mountain meadow and may have a population in the thousands.

Best of luck. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107175)

Whack-a-mole.

"The more your tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

agree (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107199)

I really agree that the pirate bay banned, thank you from palhacababi [palhacababi.com]

Re:agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107297)

They may get TPB but there's over 9000 left...

Reverse "think of the children" (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107251)

Is this a case of reverse "think of the children" argument ... !!

We have a case where a London judge is siding with the whole British Phonographic Industry.

Well well ... what do you know, them London judges wanting to support the commercial exploitation of young women (and men and trained pets depending on what floats your boat) I think they should all be behind the same bars :P

1984 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107255)

1984. Thank you.

Old news, Pirate Bay. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107261)

Tribler is the future of these things, and isn't really blockable.

The problem with the suit of armor - invented (yes, partly) as a response to the broadsword - is that it spurred the development of the rapier and epee.

Defense... offense... meet developers.

Re:Old news, Pirate Bay. (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107873)

I think you skipped some steps.

Heavy swords led people to develop chainmail, and plate armor.
Crossbows led them to develop even stronger plate.
Guns punched holes in plate armor, so people stopped wearing it.
Since no one was wearing heavy armor, swords got smaller, lighter, more agile.

So, guns spurred the development of rapiers more directly than heavy armor (though one can't deny heavy armor's place in the evolution of defense).

Like a ratchet (5, Insightful)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107277)

You know what's funny about the prevailing systems of government in this era? They're all about writing new laws, making new things illegal, regulating more and more of their citizen's lives and centralizing more and more power in the hands of a VERY few.

It never goes the other way. Ever.

How often do over reaching laws get repealed? How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"?
How often have you seen governments de-centralize things in order to make them more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve?

How often does government shrink or even stop growing at exponential rates? How often have they become less involved when it was needed?

In fact, most governments call decreases in projected increases as "cuts".

If next year something happens that causes the government to no longer need (by their justification) to control the internet, you think they will cede control?

If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

FrozenFood (2515360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107401)

dont say that too loudly, you may end up in gitmo

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107597)

No. It's when the People don't assert their rights, that they become oppressed by their government. Not when they do.

Now please retire that very suspect bit of fearmongering rationale. It doesn't enable others to perceive you as being a good citizen or a credible human being.

OT: I would like to introduce... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107407)

"Cap and Fade"

As a practical matter, you can't just stop the cogs of government in their track now. What would all those bureaucrats do for a living? Going cold turkey is too much, now.

Folks like Ron Paul will never get anywhere with there "we shouldn't do this and we shouldn't do that" rhetoric. While it it all well and good, we need more of a realistic Cap and Fade policy... just sunset the budget everything that isn't an enumerated, constitutional function - set the budget to zero percent change, this year, then 5% LESS each year (not inflation adjusted) until each such budget item is gone. Don't worry, anything that really needs to get done will still get done, since states can do what they want, you just cut out the middle man of an unnecessary central government.

This cuts both ways - big city people don't have to pay farm subsidies, "fly over county" folk don't have to pay for abortions, win win!

Decentralized, heterogeneous government is a good thing, just like decentralized computer networks are more responsive and fault tolerant. Think about it - if Switzerland can be a whole country with fewer people than Los Angeles county, what kind of sense does that make?

Seems to me that 3/4 of the States could get together and start laying down some Constitutional amendments to make things more clear... if they cared.

Re:Like a ratchet (2, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107421)

Ugh. You had me until Ron Paul. The guy is a nutcase.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107523)

So his argument makes sense, yet you're against Ron Paul despite reasoning you agree with. And then you smear him for supposed irrationality.

Seems legit.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107585)

The funny thing about Ron Paul is that for all his alleged libertarianism, he manages to always come up with some justification for siding with socal conservatives on their pet issues.

If it walks like a duck...

Ron Paul is a supporter of states' rights only when the states want to do something more conservative than the federal government. He's just another religious bigot with better PR.

Re:Like a ratchet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107681)

If Ron Paul actually stood for that stuff rather than being, as mentioned, a nutcase (who is also either a racist or a fool, depending on whether he has any connection to his own newsletter), you might have a point.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107703)

He's voted consistently for 30 years... it is pretty clear what he stands for. Go find some videos of him berating greenspan in congress, etc.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107551)

Ugh. You had me until Ron Paul. The guy is a nutcase.

He's not only the only one not entertaining politicians, he's the only one the media is outright trying to ignore whenever possible (ie: he isn't fucking up, he isn't selling out and except in cases like yours, people don't buy into the crap said about him) - one thing I know for sure, if the media is against it, it is a good thing.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107501)

It never goes the other way. Ever.

Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents).

Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...
But not the parliamentarians (senators, MP-es or whatever), they have absolutely no interest of "cleaning up" after themselves. Letting aside that a more complex legislation "justifies" their (and the lawyers') existence, how would they otherwise collect election donations (negotiated by the lobby groups) ? Analyzing what laws can be thrown out would be... unproductive time for them.

If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.

By this do you mean to say: the whole world outside the US of A is part of the problem?

Re:Like a ratchet (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107595)

Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents).

Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...

Strangely, not every country has a system of government that is identical to the USA. In the UK, there is not the same separation between executive branch and legislative branch, because the executive (civil service etc.) is ultimately controlled by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons. The equivalent of cabinet secretaries all either have a seat in the House of Commons or (rarely) the House of Lords. Civil servants under the purview of the ministers write most laws.

On the other hand, "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (written by someone well connected to a former Minister) suggests what little control the politicians have and how much the civil servants are able to exercise their own will.

Re:Like a ratchet (3, Interesting)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107627)

Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents). Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...

Strangely, not every country has a system of government that is identical to the USA. In the UK, there is not the same separation between executive branch and legislative branch, because the executive (civil service etc.) is ultimately controlled by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons.

Strangely, even if in the Commonwealth, not every country have their laws promoted exclusively by the Prime Minister/governing party. Especially when there's a hung Parliament.

On the other hand, "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (written by someone well connected to a former Minister) suggests what little control the politicians have and how much the civil servants are able to exercise their own will.

The very pieces of art that made me pay attention to the interests in politics. My guess: the US of A have the lobby groups as civil servants.

Re:Like a ratchet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107517)

The problem with "freedom" is that people like you use it wrong, and make incorrect choices. It's all there in black and white, and people still vote for racists like Santorum with a smile on their faces. Having proven that you can't be trusted with political power, others must step in and run things for you, the correct way. We're just lucky we have so many smart people who know better. You had your chance and you blew it. No sympathy here.

Re:Like a ratchet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107541)

Actually the US took that portion away from England and handed it back to the people. While that group of people was again limited at the time it was at least limited to people that were chosen by others that the affluential knew at the time. The affluential people of the time (here in the US at least) weren't the super sleazy/rich. They were farmers. While land owners and businessmen they were still well to do, but weren't like what Congressmen are today. Similarities could be drawn, but that is where it would end. The dealings of the founding of the US and the dealings of Congress now are totally different. Different reasons and totally different agendas.

Unfortunately those that have the abilities to actually run for office and win don't run. Those that have the knowledge to run many times don't have the finances. Those that do are already "in the group" as it were. Even in local politics it is almost unheard of to run a candidate without the local government knowing about it well in advance. Strings are pulled even at the local level. Its ridiculous. I'm sure it happened in the 1700s just as it does now, but at least it was a little more proper. Now things just devolve into bickering with less of it in the paper and more of it backroom gossip. We need younger more open minded folks to run and kick out these old farts who have a very narrow way of thinking Or will vote as a mob instead of their conscience. Even in local votes you'll see elected officials vote with a mob mentality in order to get something done. Oh and if you do vote your conscience and buck the status quo you are castrated during the next election ensuring that the status quo be kept.

We need a viable third party to actually do something in this country. If we maintain a two party system in this country it will surely maintain the chaos that has become our government. It will also lead to a more rapid decline of our government and society. What I cannot wrap my head around is how more liberal minded folks don't seem to understand this. While I think we need to have a more convservative approach to certain agendas I don't think a full blown conservative or liberal way is the best route to take. You cannot give out handouts and expect that to be sustainable. If you do think in this manner you must have failed basic finance and/or econ. Now...I don't agree with how bad the capitalist system has become either. We would be fools to believe that everything is fine and dandy in capitalist land. While it might be for the CEOs of those companies, the consumers that keep those businesses afloat are now the stool beneath the company which is straining under the weight of all of the oligopolies. We need more competition. We've tried both regulations and de-regulation. Neither has helped to a great degree. Ma-Bell is once again whole (more or less...ATT). There are only a handful of retailers for household items, effectively killing small business shops. Most of this is due to China undercutting just about 80-90% of the US made goods. This cannot be a good thing for our country long term. Sure we get cheap goods, but at what cost to our manufacturing of goods?

I would bet that we have less exports than we do imports. Or the number is very close or rapidly diminishing over time. Many bad things will come of this down the road if things don't change and I don't foresee them changing. In fact I see them getting worse in the next 20 years. The attacks on Christians in this country is absurd. Never has the minority in this country been able to make sweeping changes against one particular group in such a short amount of time in the entirety of this country. I'm aware of the women's movement and civil rights. Neither have had wide sweeping attacks like this against them in every single state. Sure Jim crow laws were created, but nothing was setup Constitutionally to keep them in place. Basically you have several groups on an out right war against Christians to basically bar them from practicing their religion at all. Regardless of your beliefs if you sit and look at ALL of the motions being carried out and law suits of the last 10 years you will see what I mean. It has been very systematic. From my point of view it's basically a "I don't want to hear these people any more how can we get them to stop?" Then taking that and stating "Ah hah, we'll make it illegal." Which in and of itself is totally against the Constitution as the right to practice your religion is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Re:Like a ratchet (5, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107607)

How often do over reaching laws get repealed? How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"? How often have you seen governments de-centralize things in order to make them more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve?

All of the above happens ALL THE TIME. Deregulation and privitization were big buzzwords a few years back. Deregulation of the electric utility in California led to blackouts and Enron fraud. Systematic deregulation of the banking and stock markets led to the recession we're currently in. It's funny, Alan Greenspan was a die-hard libertarian his entire life, then after several years of him writing the rules, everything crashed, and he denounced libertarianism, the philosophy he was so dedicated to, and yet people like yourself are still cheering it on, in spit of all reality.

You have to employ magical thinking to be a libertarian. Last election, Ron Paul was refused entry into the Fox presidential candidate debate. He went to make a scene, but they did not recant. When confronted by this obvious case where Fox's freedom allowed them to exclude him, a clear example where regulation is absolutely necessary, he just mumbles something about, Oh, maybe if they had even LESS REGULATION STILL, they might have made a better decision. You have to be absolutely irrational to buy into the hand-waving false promises of libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a cult. Don't drink the Coolaide.

Re:Like a ratchet (0)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107761)

You haven't educated yourself about libertarianism. What you are talking about is the half assed libertarianism called conservatism.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107763)

Libertarianism is a cult. Don't drink the Coolaide.

Much like left-right politics. And generalizations aren't cool.

Re:Like a ratchet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107643)

That is a simple reason why governments are overthrown. The simple cycle is: create laws that eventually overreach -> inequality increases -> both factors cause a revolution -> new iteration based on past mistakes. So, I am hoping America 2.0 will be better. The UK seems incapable of escaping an addiction to oppression, since they never are able to get rid of their wealthy elite... so they have a type of cancer that just causes them to shrink as they wither and die.

Re:Like a ratchet (4, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107711)

since they never are able to get rid of their wealthy elite..

You evidently do not live in the UK (or maybe do not read beyond the headlines)

We have driven the legitimate wealthy overseas by excessive taxes. Only those who have an illegal income or effective tax scam remain, so we are governed by criminals.

Re:Like a ratchet (1)

helenliu (2578975) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107667)

sometimes the goverment does good work, sometimes not.

Re:Like a ratchet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107709)

"If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem."

...or you have at least a basic understanding of economics.

Oh, that stiff upper lip thing (1)

singlevalley (1368965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107295)

now we can see that it is no longer stiff

information sharing is a human right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107309)

a democratic government preventing sharing for to enforce intellectual monopoly edicts is no more legitimate than a totalitarian government preventing sharing to "negate threats to social instability"

we the people who aren't the plutocrats and oligarchs need a decentralized, anonymous means of communication that can't be turned off at the whim of any authority

freenet was a step in the right direction but its weakness is that it requires the current plutocrat internet infrastructure

we need a mesh network that is so cheap and easy to deploy that no "democratic" government couldn't attempt to stop it without abandoning any pretense of legitimacy

imagine an induction powered self contained wifi router that can fit in a power outlet box, or a wifi grenade consisting of a clear protective shell around an array of solar panels and transmission electronics - meant to throw on a roof

make these configurable to connect to existing hotspots and you can have the mesh piggyback on the existing internet for long distance communication, add an sd card and you have distributed storage capability

simply put neither governments, nor corporations can be trusted. the power they have over communications will always be abused and needs to be stripped from them

Information sharing is a natural right (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107577)

information sharing is a natural [wikipedia.org] right

FTFY.

Re:Information sharing is a natural right (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107793)

I've never come across these "natural" rights. Who created them? How do we know what is and is not a "natural right"? All I've seen is rights granted by law.

Re:Information sharing is a natural right (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107855)

I've never come across these "natural" rights. Who created them? How do we know what is and is not a "natural right"? All I've seen is rights granted by law.

Imagine a total ban on information sharing between any members of the human race: for how long you reckon the race is still going to exists?

Besides, I provided you with the citation on wikipedia: you are a sincerely curious, you can start your discovery journey from there... who knows, maybe we'll see a new philosophical genius being "born" in your person (even if it wouldn't be quite original idea, there was somebody else before to say "fiat justitia et pereat mundus").

Anarchy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107423)

Is this the MPAA
Is this the BSA
Is this RIAA
I thought it was the UK
Or just another country...

Idiotic Comments (0)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107469)

I'd post something substantial, but the idiotic pro-piracy comments in this thread makes me realize that a lot of humanity only cares about doing whatever is in their own short-term personal interest and will masquerade their greed as 'logic and reason'. I especially love the comments that intentionally conflate the Pirate Bay with the Internet. Humanity is doomed with this kind of twisted rationalization. No wonder the world is as screwed up as it is. Yet, commenters never seem to realize that they're using the same kind of twisted logic as greedy Wall Street Bankers and CEOs of record companies.

Re:Idiotic Comments (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107525)

Good boy! Now go and get your 30 silver dollars from RIAA.

Re:Idiotic Comments (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107529)

Because, of course, culture didn't exist prior to the development of copyright...

Re:Idiotic Comments (2)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107623)

Because, of course, culture didn't exist prior to the development of copyright...

Commercialized culture didn't. Great art was done almost exclusively by commission for wealthy patrons or religions. All those great Greek statues and buildings? Religious temples and art. All of the famous Byzantine and Medeival art? For churches. The explosion of the new masters in the Renaissance? Paid for by the Catholic Church and the Medici's and other rich Italian families. Great art paid for by the masses by popular demand? It didn't exist. If you made a good living, it's because you found a rich patron. Otherwise, you didn't eat unless you could really wow 'em on the street corner. Even then, most times, artists of all stripes were poor. Patronage made our best art happen.

Good luck getting that system to work now. There's a reason why the "free music" model bands have failed: all of the really talented acts want to, you know, get rich. The copyright system allows them (and authors and filmmakers and playrights, etc) to make a good living. Take copyright away, and the vast majority of the El Cheapo public wouldn't put forth a dime. Bye bye Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin. Bye bye, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, and Peter Jackson. Bye bye, Stephen King, Herman Wouk, Ernest Hemingway.

People want to make money. And the "give it for free and hope good things happen" model doesn't work. If you want to convince Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to pay promising new bands to make records that are available to the public gratis, go for it. I bet they laugh at you, though.

Re:Idiotic Comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107539)

but the idiotic pro-piracy comments in this thread

You are way ahead of me there. Many of the comments are so badly written that I can't figure out if they are pro or anti.

Re:Idiotic Comments (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107549)

Are you saying humanity is doomed if we don't charge money for ideas?

Or are you saying humanity doomed if we don't censor the internet and imprison people charge money for ideas?

Or both?

Re:Idiotic Comments (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107561)

Whoops, meant to ask "Are you saying humanity doomed if we don't censor the internet and imprison people who don't pay royalties for spreading ideas?"

Re:Idiotic Comments (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107599)

Whoops, meant to ask "Are you saying humanity doomed if we don't censor the internet and imprison people who don't pay royalties for spreading ideas?"

Challenge: show me an idea on TPB, I promise I'll download and seed it.

On the other hand, if you'd replace "idea" with "information", I might be tempted to agree with you.

(hint: careful with those words, they tend to cut both ways).

Re:Idiotic Comments (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107649)

I don't disagree with you here...those words are interchangeable in my mind.

Also, purely non-loaded question that I'm asking out of genuine curiosity: Would you seed copyrighted works that are informational, like Carl Sagan's Cosmos?

Bah, typical copyright troll (3, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107775)

He doesn't post anything substantial because he can't. His own rant proofs copyright is not needed to ensure art survives. The post DesScorp below is also a snob, ignoring folk art, such as song and story telling which survived and thrived perfectly fine without patronage or copyright. The dutch "Smartlap" (tearjerker song) was a type of troubadour, those songs are still sung, they were not high art with patrons but simple performers making their living from live concerts.

Ah, but good living... of course, just because you sing a song, you and 5 generations of your kids (see yesterday story about perputual copyright) should be millionaires. Forget nurses doing stuff nobody else wants to do and saving human lives day in, day out for minimum wage. The true social injustice of our time is artists not being able to afford another Ferrari.

Technology has changed art and will continue to do so regardless of what some dinosaurs might desire. It isn't just recent stuff like the cassette tape but far older stuff like cheap musical instruments, printed sheet music, mechanical instruments. Even things like the movies going from silent to talkies. Once each movie theather had a pit for the band to play music to accompany the silent movie. Then, long before talkies were introduced, record players took over to save costs and put an artist out of work. Movies themselves killed Vaudeville.

Tech changed and the world adapted. Copyright was a result of tech changes so why shouldn't new tech changes not change copyright?

Trolls like brit74 are living under a bridge trying to pretend the world is unchanging and that laws which were once valid should remain valid indefinitely. He can't cope with a changing world, his kind would have kept slavery going just because that is the way things are.

Copyright is doomed in a world where digital media can be perfectly reproduced by anyone at trivial costs. It isn't even a case anymore about whether copyright is just or not. It ain't just either that 1% of the world lives with more money then they could ever possibly spent while millions starve.

The invention of the gun forever changed murder. Shooting someone is easy, far easier then choking them to death, feeling them struggle as you choke the life out of them. Shoot them and they just fall over and that is it. We haven't been able to outlaw the idea of the gun and even gun control has been impossible.

So what change do we have of putting digital copying back in the bag?

I have a proposal, every piece of recorded music must be taxed and the tax sent to live performers and instrument makers. And every printed music sheet needs a tax to compensate the monks who used to copy these works by hand. And the monks need to pay those who passed music on through teach and oral tradition. All the way back so the first caveman can live comfortable on his original art.

The content industry needs to adapt or it will go the way of other industries before that have been made obsolete or un-economical by the march of progress. If this means that commercial art dies... then so be it. Humanity will survive without and whatever comes in its place might even be greater. Or not but trying to stop the future is futile.

Uncomfortable truths (2)

wye43 (769759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107875)

Very insightful. This is natural. As part of their internal optimizer, most people want the most with the minimum amount of effort. If possible, everything for free. Now. I'm so tired of kids thinking they are somehow entitled to everything, for just being born.

But this is not something new, most people are shortsighted, and that include most of Slashdot's audience. Those few who actually take the effort to think a bit into the future will always be in advantage, and those who are used to receive everything for free will be paralyzed when they hit a real problem.

On the other hand, we have to keep in mind this is media, and media is not about cold, absolute and truthful information. Its about entertainment. People come here to be entertained, to have fun, not to listen to uncomfortable truths. Lies and misinformation are ok, fun must prevail at all costs.

These kind of comments will always be unpopular, thus modded down into oblivion, even if they are in fact insightful. This is where democracy fails. I'll join you in -1 hell. Fuck stupidity!

Yes good news (-1, Troll)

doremisoft (2545988) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107569)

I think it may be a good news for me. Mac tips:I'm very glad to share with you my info. The MTS Converter For Mac [mtsconverters.com] will help make your life more wonderful.

People still use the pirate bay?! (0)

Windows Breaker G4 (939734) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107661)

I mean really?

tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107673)

- We don't store illegal materials here.

- Illegally share copyrighted material.
Illegally share copyrighted material.
I'm not hearing you.
Illegally share copyrighted material.
I'm not hearing you.
Illegally share copyrighted material.

Repeat until what you want is done.

I'm uncertain how Piratebay infringes copyright (1)

maroberts (15852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107727)

Maybe someone can educate me as to what Piratebay does that Google doesn't.

Whilst PirateBay obviously deliberately encourages a view that it is an organisation that skirts close to the law, as far as I am aware it does nothing that any other search engine doesn't. i.e. it simply returns a list of locations where the searched for content can be found.

Re:I'm uncertain how Piratebay infringes copyright (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107869)

Exists, apparently, for the sole purpose of assisting copyright infringement, and sends mocking replies to anyone who complains.

It's more what Google does that The Pirate Bay doesn't. Has a substantial portion of links to legitimate content, and takes down links to obviously pirated content when requested.

Re:I'm uncertain how Piratebay infringes copyright (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107897)

It's more what Google does that The Pirate Bay doesn't. Has a substantial portion of links to legitimate content, and takes down links to obviously pirated content when requested.

The problem with forcing them to do this is that once your website becomes sufficiently large enough, manually responding to take down requests becomes nearly impossible. This forces you to rely on far less-than-perfect automated systems that cause collateral damage. That or give copyright holders the power to take things down themselves, but again, I wouldn't trust that solution at all, either.

Good luck with that (0)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107737)

I live in the Netherlands and use a provider which was recently forced to block Pirate Bay too.
Now Firefox takes atleast 2 seconds longer to start up due to Tor. :(

The users of the platform eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107743)

Let's get M$ Windows banned in the UK, i recall a study awhile back (empty promises empty comments no link i'm awesome!) that had some huge percentage of windows installs having been pirated or pirating software of some form =)

Really? (5, Insightful)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107799)

The Swedish authorities already raided The Pirate Bay and found nothing, zip, zitch, zero infringing files on their servers. So how can it breach any copyright laws?

Sure, it facilitates file sharing and those files shared may be copyrighted... but it plays no larger role than for instance roads do in various other crimes. I mean, a road is used to facilitate almost all crimes, either as the crime scene itself or as a means of getting there or escaping afterwards. Sure, roads have legitimate uses but given that almost all crimes involve them, they do play an instrumental role.

So... if roads are not put on trial for their involvement in all those other crimes (they're just passive means, but they're there), why persecute The Pirate Bay for copyright infringement as they're also just passive means. The Pirate Bay is simply a portal, nothing more. There's no content, no hashes, no trackers. All content resides elsewhere. They have no access to hashes of the complete files shared and also have no reference hashes to verify against in order to eliminate copyrighted content, so in essence they want to ban the principle of file sharing just because you may be sharing something copyrighted.

The conclusion for the courts: Censorship for no other purpose than to quench the concept of file sharing. Possibly infringing files are not transferred through The Pirate Bay in any way and yet it must be banned?

One big file-sharing ISP that won't be turned... (3, Interesting)

acey72 (716552) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107809)

Janet, the Joint Academic Network, that connects all the UK universities, colleges, schools etc. has a strict policy against content-filtering - partly because it's against the ethos of an academic network and partly because they're bright enough to realise that it wouldn't work:

there is no centrally imposed filtering of web, e-mail or other content provided by the network; indeed, such filtering would be ineffective as the network provides many possible routes to bypass any solution implemented at a single point.

http://www.ja.net/documents/publications/factsheets/072-janet-and-internet-filtering.pdf [ja.net]

Bearing in-mind that most academic institutions use Janet for their student's Internet access, and most file-sharers are in the 18-25 age group, and something like 45% of 18-25 year olds go to university...

A simple comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107829)

If someone posts links or phrases with references to books in a public library (the position in a shelf) or the addresses of his friends having a dvd legally buyed is he infringing copyright?

Just for kicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39107863)

"The British Phonographic Industry also wants all British ISPs to block access to The Internet in the UK." I mean, common, this is fighting just for kicks. Why on earth would you download porn when you can get it for free in sites such as youporn, redtube, etc? This shows how ignorant on the whole internet matter these people really are....fucktards.

Have they learned nothing? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39107891)

Even if they do manage to get the pirate bay blacklisted in the uk, here comes memateyscaven.org. Even that's unnessesery everyone will just go to demonoid or one of the many others sites serving the exact same content.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?