Pirate Bay to Purchase Sealand?

paulraps writes "Notorious Swedish file-sharing website The Pirate Bay is planning to buy its own nation in an attempt to get around troublesome international copyright laws. The organization, the world's largest bit torrent tracker, has set its sights on Sealand, a former British naval platform in the North Sea that has been designated a 'micronation' and claims to be outside UK jurisdiction. With a target price of £500m it won't be cheap, but Pirate Bay says contributors will become honorary citizens."

Arrr!

[Rob T Firefly]

Pirates and the sea! Aye, this be a perfect match if ever there be one.

Re:Arrr!

[Ceriel Nosforit]

No, it's not even close.

Re:Arrr!

[oliverthered]

They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft. You been listening to too much **AA babble.

Re:

[TrappedByMyself]

They don't steal anything, copyright infringement isn't theft. You been listening to too much **AA babble.

Sure it is. Steal [reference.com]: 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

You can agree or disagree with the concept or the severity of the crime, but at least have the balls to call it what it is.

Re:

[tolan-b]

Not in the sense of theft of property though. That requires the victim to be deprived of their property.

Just because the word steal is used in that context doesn't make copyright infringement theft. Or do you refer to baseball players as thieves too?

Also, in this case the legal definition is the most relevant, and copyright infringement is not classified as theft (in the UK and the US, I can't speak for anywhere else). IANAL of course ;)

Re:

[geoffspear]

The OP used the word "steal" not "theft".

If I say a baseball player stole second base, and some Slashdot troll says "no he didn't, running from first base to second base isn't illegal under local larceny statutes", you'd pop in to defend him, wouldn't you?

Why even bother arguing about it?

[MarkByers]

Why do people even argue about whether or not it is OK to call "copyright infringement" "stealing"? Just call it the globally acceptable phrase "copyright infringement" and save us all the huge argument already!

Thanks!

(Something tells me that my calm and reason is not on this occasion going to be enough to single-handedly stop the flame-war...)

Re:Arrr!

[The_Wilschon]

You can agree or disagree with the concept or the severity of the crime, but at least have the balls to call it what it is.

I'm afraid not. Copyright infringement is not a crime. If it were a crime, then cases in courts involving copyright infringement would be in criminal courts. They are not. They are in civil courts. HUGE difference. MASSIVE difference. Worlds apart. It is not theft (legally). Theft is a crime. Copyright infringment is a civil offense. Get it straight. According to the cited definition of Steal, copyright infringement might be considered stealing. But take careful note: that cited definition nowhere says it is a crime.

You can take your own opinion about the moral implications of the act of copyright infringement, but at least have the brains to call it what it is.

Re:Arrr!

[TrappedByMyself]

Let's try this again....

I'm afraid not. Copyright infringement is not a crime. If it were a crime, then cases in courts involving copyright infringement would be in criminal courts. They are not.

From: here [usdoj.gov]
Under the Copyright Felony Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233 (1992), infringement of a copyrighted work may now constitute a felony under federal law

Re:

[Bert64]

So, providing you don't make any financial gain from it (selling cds etc), nor do you download more than $1,000 retail price worth of warez each 180 days, your not actually doing anything illegal anyway?
Downloading a few movies and games a month for personal use won't be covered under this definition.

Re:Arrr!

[pdboddy]

500 million pounds? That won't pay for many legal copies of anything... wasn't the RIAA charging 175,000 dollars per copyrighted song? Better to buy Sealand... As for not being able to make a living... I see Metallica is doing just fine, despite all those songs of theirs being available for free off P2P networks. I won't say piracy is stealing... but piracy doesn't mean people would have bought it otherwise. So, no sale or ... no sale. How does that affect your ability to make a living?

Standard 'Infringement != Theft' Note

[kahei]

Copyright infringement is not theft. The most obvious and conspicuous difference is that the former is civil and the latter criminal law. This has vast implications vis-a-vis the manner in which suit is brought, the possible penalties for the defendant, and the burden on the plaintiff. Another huge difference is that the latter involves denying the owner the use of an asset whereas the former involves unlawfully creating/distributing copies of a work. Copyright infringement and theft are not even closely related issues, and it's impossible to discuss them usefully without realizing that.

Now, these are obvious, relevant, basic facts about a topic which is important and much-discussed on Slashdot. And yet there a largish population (maybe 15% of those who express an interest) on Slashdot of people who just physically cannot learn them. Whence, then, this 'fool reserve'?

Originally I theorized that it relates to sunspot activity but later I came to feel that El Nino, peak oil, the war in Iraq, and the new 'gritty' James Bond may all play a role. And maybe chupacabra. Chupacabra's a pretty sinister beast... think about it, it's a monster named after a lollipop... what could possibly be spookier?

Re:

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>The most obvious and conspicuous difference is that the former is civil and the latter criminal law.

Both are both.

You can pursue a theft case through the civil system, where it's called "conversion".

Copyright violations can also be criminal in some circumstances.

Re:

[shark72]

"Copyright infringement is not theft. The most obvious and conspicuous difference is that the former is civil and the latter criminal law."

This is another popular Slashdot conversation:

Person A: copyright isn't criminal, it's civil!

Persons B..N: No, it's both.

Person A: I knew that! What I meant was that civil copyright infringement isn't criminal. I wasn't talking about criminal copyright infringement.

it's about a pointless discussion as the "it's not acceptable to use the term 'steal' when d

Re:Standard 'Infringement != Theft' Note

[Cederic]

I saw True Romance at the cinema. I own a copy on video. I own it on DVD. I own the directors cut unrated version on DVD. If I'm away from home and decide I want to watch it, and use a copy of the DVD I put onto my laptop hard disk, I put it to you that I am depriving nobody of their rightful income.

I am depriving them of income they'd like. But frankly they've been more than compensated by me for their effort and artistic output.

My thoughts may not match the law on this matter. I'd prefer to change the law.

Re:Standard 'Infringement != Theft' Note

[x2A]

You've bought it, which I (and most people) believe means you should be allowed to use it in that way, and laws in many places in the world also grant you that right (which DRM takes away). The purchase makes all the difference, despite what anyone (eg, RIAA) would try have you believe. It's called copyright, and the right are given to all parties. They have the right to share it only with people who pay for it, if that's what they wish, and people who purchase it have the right to use their purchase however they wish, as long as it doesn't inflict on the creators previously mentioned rights (ie, distribute to people who haven't paid the creator for it).

"Copyright infringment" takes the rights away from the creator, and DRM takes the rights away from the user. They are both theft, because they take away rights that the creator/user (respectively) is entitled to. It's not copying their rights. It's taking them.

Re:

[Jessta]

I know many musicians.
They make their rightful income by playing live music.
I find it obsured that someone could spend a few days in a studio and then make money without further work for their life time.

Re:

[AeroIllini]

That some of us still use the word steal, instead of your newspeak and backpatting wording, is your problem.

Holy hell, this argument is tiresome.

What we're talking about here is jargon. Different professions use words in very specific ways to mean very specific things, and many of these definitions are contrary to the common, accepted, non-jargon definition of the word.

To use another flamebait example:
The intelligent design nutjobs keep insisting that evolution is "just a theory", and most of us here on Sla

Re:Standard 'Infringement != Theft' Note

[soliptic]

you are still depriving someone of their rightful income

Rubbish. You are arguably/potentially depriving someone of their rightful income - since we do not and can never know whether <any/some/most/all> of the people who pirated the <software/music/movie/etc> would have bought it if pirate channels did not exist.

You can dismiss that admittedly subtle distinction as "mumbojumbo" or "newspeak" as well if you like. No skin off my nose; those of us who realise that the real world IS full of subtle distinctions can continue to have an appropriate nuanced debate, you can carry on boiling things down to oversimplified soundbites that sound better when chanted by a lynch mob ;-)

GP post is absolutely correct. The two things (theft of physical objects vs copyright infringement of non-physical content) are very different; they may very well both be wrong, but if so they are wrong in different ways, and a proper adult discussion on the subject will necessarily make this distinction and treat them accordingly.

Maybe you should try to create and make money of some content yourself?

FWIW, I'm heavily involved in music of many forms. I've sold my music via record labels; I've also sold stuff without labels, selling direct from artist to fans; I've produced music on commission. I've given away music as a form of promotion in order to earn money from live gigs; I've done live gigs for free in order to earn money from CD sales. I'm confident I've done most any permutation of "create content" and "make money" you can care to name.

Re:Arrr!

[famebait]

I don't know about you, but when somebody distributes something, which I worked hard to produce and sell, freely onto the Internet, I get really upset.

I'm sure you do. So would I. It is also illegal in most places, and ethically wring in the opinion of many. That still doesn't make it theft. Theft is a specific crime, and doesn't cover everything else that is wrong any more than "murder" or "speeding" does.

Re:Arrr!

[Yvanhoe]

"I will make this song, pay money to record it, pay money to make a disc out of my recording, pay money to distribute it, but as I will have X thousands people listening to my song, I will sell X thousand discs and be able to pay my fees and have a living." was a valid thinking but is not anymore. I would not call it stupidity because changing old thinking habits is a feat few people achieve but now this is it :
Stop thinking you can force someone to buy a physical support for information (this is hard for a lot of people)
Stop thinking you can get money for transmission of information (this is hard for most people I know)

The only solution I see is that people should be able to be paid at the production step, not at the distribution step.

Also I am getting tired of the "respect my artist lifestyle, I expect to get money when I distribute music" tirade because it is not an argument, I could easily tell "respect my computer scientist lifestyle, I expect to be able to share, upload and download informations without constraints" that is true and that is not an argument either.

Re:

[tuxguy]

Is it something you can buy? Did you get it for free, without approval of the people selling it, and not as a gift? Then it's stealing. Quite frankly, it's really appalling how all the pirates out there assume that what they do doesn't affect other people. I admit, I hate the RIAA and MPAA as much as any of you all, but I'm also a musician and I believe that it's blatant disrespect for what I do when people download songs.

Re:Arrr!

[gerardrj]

Did you actually remove anything from the "theft victim"? Nope. That's a key part of theft that isn't met with copyright infringement. You are not depriving the owner of the thing you are taking, hence it is not a theft. Just at taking a picture of your house isn't stealing your house.

Most. perhaps only many, people who copy electronic media would not have purchased the item anyway, at lest that's the claim. I tend to think it true. In the day's of dial-up modems at 1200 baud, there was piracy. There were also music and movies on physical media.
Today we have broadband internet and digital music which allows almost instant copying over the Internet. Are music, video and software sales up or down over the last 10 years?
Yup. And by more than simply the growth rate of computers.

On a related tangent... software developers: please stop calling your demo software "shareware". If you put out crippled software and require payment to unlock it (time or feature restrictions), then that is a DEMO. Shareware is when you put out a full version of software and ask people to pay you voluntarily. Freeware is fully functional software with no payment strings attached at all.

Re:

[Mysticalfruit]

I'd like you to explain the difference between copyright infringement and piracy?

If I go out and buy an audio CD and then create 10 copies and give them to all my friends, what is that?

If I record a tv show off a free television channel, edit out the commericals and then create 10 copies and give them to my friends, what is that?

If I take an MP3 off the internet and then edit it and add my own lyrics and create a mash up version of the song, what is that?

If I setup a whole bunch of antennae and capture all

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

Did you actually remove anything from the "theft victim"? Nope.

Note: the following statements should in no way be interpreted as defense of or agreement with the RIAA and its tactics.

I'm not sure about other states, but where I grew up (Maine), theft of services is a crime, even though the victim didn't lose any physical property. I worked at an amusement park when I was in school, and anyone who came into the park or went on rides without paying to do so could be arrested for theft of services. Obvious

Re:

[vcalzone]

Anyone who hands their music to another company and sells them the rights to sell copies, publish and do whatever with it has already relinquished those rights. If maintaining your rights is more important to you than having people actually hear your music, then do what actual professional artists do and only sell one copy to a private owner or museum.

Re:Arrr!

[Haeleth]

Yes. Their rights over their creation.

Nonsense. They still have all the rights over their creation (that's why they can sue you!). Moreover, you still have no rights over their creation. Ergo, you cannot have stolen their rights, QED.

What you have done is infringed their rights. That's why this particular immoral act is called "copyright infringement", see?

And the fact that nothing is taken in the process of infringing the copyright-holder's rights is why this is different from theft, where property is actually taken. Copyright infringement is more akin to trespassing. (Are you going to argue that trespassing is also theft, because you are "stealing" someone's right to control who enters their land?)

Re:Arrr!

[x2A]

Yeah it's actually quite scary, from reading slashdot you'd be forgiven for thinking that the whole world is black-and-black (Linus says slashdot sees things in black and white, I'd go one step further)... when you get out there, you'll find there's white and everything inbetween.

I don't think that just because the court calls it "copyright infringement" means that it isn't stealing. You're taking ("displacing", "moving") something without permission, you're depriving someone of their right to control their creation, at least, and sometimes even their income. I really don't understand how people on here can think that's not stealing. And to say that people who DO think it's stealing are brainwashed by the RIAA/MPAA is absolutely absurd; most people here in England have never even heard of them, their kind of organisations aren't anywhere near as visible over here as there, and even AS YOUNG KIDS I remember hearing claims of "you stole my idea!!". Thus is the beauty and flexibility of our language, something that cannot exist within the legal system (which has to be an unambigious as possible), something slashdot (with some exceptions, I guess such as yourself) seems totally ignorant of.

Re:Arrr!

[FLEB]

As opposed to the people who immediately sidetrack, at the first possible opportunity, to the overcomplicating and oversoftening semantic argument of whether or not copyright infringement is "theft", completely distracting everyone from the more important question of whether it's "wrong" or "harmful".

Re:Arrr!

[PitaBred]

If you don't want your idea to get out, don't tell anyone about it. Otherwise, work for your money and put on a performance for people.

Re:Arrr!

[x2A]

No, but they have the right to control their creation, which includes, if they wish, only sharing it with people who pay them for it. And so, if you refuse to pay for the use of their creation, you are taking away their control of it, which means you are depriving them of their legally granted right.

Re:

[Bill Walker]

This 'right to copy' you speak of is not being taken away, it is being infringed upon. You would only steal it if you permanently took it away from the holder. For example, if you somehow conned them into signing the rights to you for free. By ignoring their right, you do not deprive them of it; otherwise, they would have no legal recourse.

So, in conclusion, we are infringing the copyrights of the RIAA, who has come close to stealing them from the recording artists.

Re:Arrr!

[OmnipotentEntity]

Going into Home Depot and putting a screwdriver in your bag and leaving is stealing. A screwdriver was manufactured. Materials and labor went into the process, ones that are no longer available after the product is purchased. You can't endlessly copy a single screwdriver at no cost.

On the other hand, you can copy music again and again and again, just like software, at no cost. Monetarily, that means if I copy my friend's CD, or grab it off of the net, the loss you incur because of that is zero. You don't profit off of it. But you don't lose anything either. Unlike if I steal a screwdriver, which costs money to be manufactured again.

And that, succinctly, is the reason why it's called copyright infringement, rather than stealing. Both are against the law, but the word stealing is more emotionally charged, so the *AA are pushing it. Just like they call musicians "artists." And then stab them in the back. If you're so pissed about people stealing from you, you should first examine them. As "fraud" and "predatory tactics" are closer to "stealing" than "copyright infringement." That or examine your navel and stop posting to /. mmmk?

Re:Arrr!

[Haeleth]

Parent: "Copyright infringement and theft are not the same thing."
You: "Quite frankly, it's really appalling how all the pirates out there assume that what they do doesn't affect other people."

Would you like to address the actual point, or do you enjoy flogging straw men too much to bother?

You: "I believe that it's blatant disrespect for what I do when people download songs."

I believe it's blatant disrespect for truth and accuracy when people twist language to pretend that two totally different things are the same. Yes, copyright infringement is illegal and immoral; no, it's not stealing. (For example, theft is always a criminal offence, while copyright infringement is usually a civil offence. BIG difference.)

If you find "copyright infringement" too much of a mouthful and want to use a short snappy word with emotional connotations, please just stick to "piracy", which has been being used to mean "copyright infringement" for hundreds of years.

By the way, I would also appreciate it if you did not conflate "download" with "download illegally". If I download a free song, I am not disrespecting musicians. If I download a song I have bought from the ITMS, I am not disrespecting musicians. Yet you have just said that I am, which is utterly nonsensical.

Re:Arrr!

[rolfwind]

Better yet, with that kind of money you can start PACs (Political Action Committees) all over the place and buy off, oops, I mean influence politicians until the laws are all in your favor or at least more neutral.

Also, with that kind of money, I'm sure you can buy an small island in a nice warm place and have the country who currently owns that small island recognize it as a sovereign country (a nice fat contribution to "ME fun" of the President/leader would secure that deal and take out the sting of losing a worthless chunk of land).

The problem with Sealand is that England can take it over anytime, it's sovereignty is recognized by no one country except by the owners. Buying it is a scam. You get nothing. And if worse comes to worse (in terms of laws), Piratebay will have to host servers in their country, who says England and the neighboring countries won't just cut the connection?

This idea is beyond stupid. Stick with the Pirate Party - the name is great with this generation. Get buzz on college campuses, go on the Daily Show and Colbert Report (am waiting to see if the parent companies would permit this, as well as Jon himself), and profit!

Re:Arrr!

[walt-sjc]

How true. A simple single torpedo from a sub on a "training mission" would mean the end of Sealand. Anonymous and deadly. In reality though, people would find out. It's not like Sealand will have "weapons of mass destruction", and no history to suggest it ever did or ever will (unlike Iraq.)

On the other hand, I think the consequences would be rather severe, as now all small countries who have done nothing wrong will feel that they are targeted. Remember: if your country doesn't have copyright laws, it's not wrong to copy stuff. Many many many things that are illegal in the US are legal elsewhere, and vice versa. Political pressure is not the same as military action.

The official reason when Sealand gets squished

[nickco3]

> It's not like Sealand will have "weapons of mass destruction"

No, they will accuse it of trafficking in kiddie porn.

Re:Arrr!

[LordEd]

It's not like Sealand will have oil, and no history to suggest it ever did or ever will (unlike Iraq.)

I corrected it for you.

Re:Arrr!

[Ulven]

Except the courts have stated that the British Government has no juristiction over Sealand.

Re:Arrr!

[geoffspear]

Actually, one local court in Essex stated that it didn't have maritime jurisdiction, and the owners of Sealand managed to convince a lot of people that this meant that all courts in the UK agree that they have no jurisdiction over Sealand.

Re:Arrr!

[eno2001]

OK. Let's put it another way for you monkeys to comprende. Capiche?

They buy Sealand and become a sovereign nation to avoid prosecution. The RIAA, MPAA and BSA all band together and officially buy the U.S. government and military/industrial complex. Bush becomes an RIAA, MPAA, BSA executive by default. He declares a pre-emptive strike on Sealand to both curry favor with his, now official, bosses AND to distract from the disaster that is Iraq. "Shock and Awe" is employed but on a smaller scale so that Sealand isn't totally destroyed. The liberals go into hand wringing mode for the downtrodden pirate land peoples. Areas of Sealand (no larger than two feet by two feet) are occupied by American forces, while the Pirate Bay folks hide in ventilation shafts with Osama. American troops are ravaged by spitball artillery attacks launched from various vents on the compound. The leader of the Pirate Bay goes on pirate radio to bring the troops over to their cause as a sort of "Tokyo Rose" with an attitude. This drags on for four years with casualties on both sides. Republicans despise the Pirate Bay people on principal. Liberals hold them up as modern day heroes, but since the media is all controlled by the RIAA, MPAA and BSA, they can't get the message out that easily and have to resort to holding up index cards at their local supermarket with "Free the Repressed Peoples of Pirate Bay" and "Bring the Troops Home". Yeah. I can see it now.

Re:Arrr!

[cptgrudge]

As long as we're entering the realm of fantasy, can I get a pony?

Re:

[raju1kabir]

The US doesn't control every ISP . I'm sure they will find a way.

Nope, the US just has to pass a law compelling backbone providers to null-route the Pirate Bay's netblocks and they're off the net. Every significant backbone provider, and certainly every one within reach of Roughs Tower, has enough presence in the US that they'll find it more important to follow that law than to stick up for the Pirate Bay.

There's only one way that an underground organisation can survive on the net in the long haul. And

Re:Arrr!

[Otto]

If I was to start calling my house a country that doesn't make it one.

You're correct. If you loaded up with guns and was able to fight off anybody who disagrees with you, *that* is what makes it a country.

Re:Arrr!

[Anonymous Coward]

France doesn't do that anymore and people still consider it a country.

Re:Arrr!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they already won two wars:

http://www.seanhastings.com/havenco/sealand/histor y.html [seanhastings.com]

Sealand Fights Off Invaders (Wins War)

In August of 1978, a number of Dutch men came to Sealand in the employ of a German businessman. They were there to discuss business dealings with Sealand. While Roy was away in Britain, these men kidnapped Prince Roy's son Michael, and took Sealand by force. Soon after, Roy recaptured the island with a group of his own men and held the attackers as prisoners of war.

During the time that he held the prisoners, the Governments of the Netherlands and Germany petitioned for their release. First they asked England to intervene in the matter, but the British government cited their earlier court decision as evidence that they made no claim to the territory of Sealand. Then, in an act of de facto recognition of Sealand's sovereignty, Germany sent a diplomat directly to Sealand to negotiate for the release of their citizen.

Roy first released the Dutch citizens, as the war was over, and the Geneva Convention requires the release of all prisoners. The German was held longer, as he had accepted a Sealand Passport, and therefore was guilty of treason. Prince Roy, who was grateful that the incident had not resulted in a loss of life, and did not want to bloody the reputation of Sealand, eventually released him as well.

Re:Arrr!

[focitrixilous P]

Maybe this is too obvious, but why not STEAL sealand? The Pirate Bay sounds like the perfect group to do so. If they are an independant state, UK law enforcement won't do a thing about it. I think the whole matter is hilarious to begin with, and being taken over by a group of Swedes trying to get in touch with their Viking roots would be the most amazing thing ever.

Would the current owners mount a physical defense, or would they just whine about it in International Courts? Just get a couple boats that can make the 8 mile trip, load up with tough acting college kids with guns and a couple people that know what they are doing, and just storm the platform. The media would eat it up and Pirate Bay gets an actual Pirate Bay.

I'd probably go myself this summer, who needs internships when a summer of swashbuckling adventure and romance aboard a stationary platform in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do but stand around looking intimidating to prevent someone else from doing the same thing. Way better than maybe getting a simple project and being the coffee boy.

Hmm . A bit slow thought.

[Anonymous Coward]

256kbit over point to point radio last time I checked.
I think they might need an upgrade to do file sharing.

Re:Hmm . A bit slow thought.

[joshetc]

They will need to upgrade a bit, not so much though as AFAIK they mainly only host the trackers. Seeders do all the actual sharing. Apparently telling a friend where to get ____ illegal material is just as illegal as actually giving it to them, hence the need for Seaworld.

Re:Hmm . A bit slow thought.

[operagost]

Seaworld? Are they going to use TCP/IP over dolphin carrier?

TCP/IP Over Dolphon

[maroberts]

Are they going to use TCP/IP over dolphin carrier?

TCP/IP over Aquatic Mammal carriers, as it is more officially known, is simply an modification of
RFC1149 [ietf.org] (A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers).

The above spec has been "embraced and extended" for Aquatic Mammal use; (much) larger packet sizes are supported, as well as a separate optional High Frequency Audio command channel, which is sometimes used for Relay transmission of packets, and the possibility of dynamic packet routing..

Re:

[spectrokid]

It is Bittorrent. They don't NEED filesharing. They just need to pass you a small list of computers where you can get the goodies. Heck, to save bandwith, they can host all their websites GIF's on a different server on the mainland.

Re:Hmm . A bit slow thought.

[CastrTroy]

Couldn't there just be a torrent with all the latest torrents on it? That way you wouldn't have to worry about the sites getting shut down, because nobody is hosting anything. Of course you would always need to distribute the torrent with the list of torrents, but I suspect that would be a lot easier than keeping the website up. Maybe have the torrent with the latest torrents as one of the files include in each torrent.

And the **aa would say..

[Caffeinebot]

If they do that, the terrorists would win!

Re:And the **aa would say..

[slidersv]

As long as **aa talks, terrorist have won.

Re:And the **aa would say..

[kalirion]

So if the **aa stops talking, terrorists will no longer have won? Would they lose retroactively?

waste

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Well, there's £500m down the drain...

Re:waste

[Provocateur]

I think it's worth it.

Just to be able to pose for a famous painting, from a lo-angle perspective, with the flag waving in the background against a bright blue sky, and each pirate facing in a different direction, chins up brimming with the confidence that this piece of land is now truly theirs, is always the first official act of the governing body of any new sovereign nation, smoldering ruin or not.

Do it for us, guys. Us.

Hmmm...

[psykl0n3]

WOuldn't this be even more dangerous though? Now, MPAA and RIAA would actually be lobbying for military action against the Sealand nation... Imagine that, sorry our servers are down due to an air strike... Please donate to purchase more airplanes and subs.

Account number?

[XSforMe]

Please donate to purchase more airplanes and subs.
You mean we actually get to fire live ammo on the MPAA/RIAA lawyers? Can you repost the account number accepting these donations?

Re:Screw the account number...

[TheNinjaroach]

That part's easy - just leave.

Theres a problems with this.

[AltGrendel]

As pointed out in the previous Sealand article, you have to connect to someone. So you get your fiber run out to.... who? England? France? India? Look what the Russians are doing with their oil.

Pirate Bay would get cut off in a heart beat.

Re:

[Ubergrendle]

That's the sucky thing about the WTO... it's essentially a giant prefered trading block -- its NOT about free trade, its about "Trade under our rules". Russia is now rewriting their copyright laws so they can join as members.

I think the reason why Sealand has failed as a datahaven, is not just the availability of ISP but the costs involved to maintain it.

Re:

[omeg]

Not really. It's not like Sealand will actually ever be a recognized country. It's essentially England, and nobody's going to boycot them.

Re:

[Thansal]

Well, unless England is going to "boycot" (aka shut down their connections) them. After all, that is a tad easier then sending in the Navy again(Ah, HA! Seland should hire the Rastafarian Navy outta Zion!).

Ok, so I love the idea (both of a Data haeven, and of TPB starting it up), however it is a joke. 500m pounds is more then they could possibly raise, and even if they COULD, they would easily be shut down.

Re:Theres a problems with this.

[Alchemar]

You don't have to have the gear located inside your country. You find a friendly third world country (ie they will accept you bribe) to set up an embasy. The embasy is now considered your soil under your laws. I don't think there is anything in international law that says you can't have an embasy that is larger than your native country. Now you can just make a deal to tie into the main fiber for the country your embasy resides in. Tell them you need a direct connections for reasons of national security.

Think of the extended benifits. Under the guideline set by the US, no one should have problems with you kidnapping the head of the RIAA and using waterboarding techniques to extract information about how they are planning to shutdown your network, thus causing the complete economic colapse of your country as well as threatening (ie terrorizing) all your honorary citizens.

Re:Theres a problems with this.

[AlphaLop]

Wow, What a great plan. That only leaves one question... Do you work for the government or the Mafia? Either way I think you have the right mindset..... And I like the way you think :)

Re:Theres a problems with this.

[will_die]

One little problem...
The country where you put your embassy has to recognize you as a nation

re: recognition as a nation

[King_TJ]

I think this raises a rather interesting, larger question. What is the requirement to become a recognized, independent nation nowdays? Historically, it required bloodshed and force - but wouldn't you think that today's supposedly "more civilized" 1st. world countries could handle something like this with some diplomacy instead?

I mean, realistically, I think most people consider Sealand a joke, mainly because it doesn't even exist on any natural soil. It's just a man-made structure (initially built and pa

Re:Theres a problems with this.

[kripkenstein]

As pointed out in the previous Sealand article, you have to connect to someone. So you get your fiber run out to.... who? England? France? India? Look what the Russians are doing with their oil.

Pirate Bay would get cut off in a heart beat.

Cutting some cables might not fix the problem, though, since there are other options (satellite communications; connecting through a proxy, say a ship in international waters; etc.). So, if this went through, most likely the young nation would quickly be 'liberated'.

(But we all know it won't succeed, it's just a publicity stunt by TPB, and an amusing one at that; they do know their PR, those people)

500 Million ??

[CmdrGravy]

At that price surely it would be cheaper to build your own platform and if they truly are pirates it would be much cheaper to buy a pirate ship and take it by force.

Re:500 Million ??

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sealand claims some sort of special status, and has indeed seen off a couple of half-hearted attempts to get rid of it.

However, let's be serious for a minute. The UK does not recognise the independence of Sealand, which is entirely contained within UK national waters under international law. Seeing off the navy is a cute joke, but if anyone who "bought" the "nation" started seriously impeding UK interests, for example by flagrantly violating UK law, then the "nation" could cease to exist rather abruptly. More realistically, the government would probably just ship a few police officers over there, arrest everyone, and throw them in jail. You'd hear their cries of "You have no jurisdiction!" all the way to the police helicopter, of course. :-)

What rights Would Citizens have?

[akaris1]

I can't wait to sign my john hancock! The one thing I want in the bill of rights is the right to do the dew and eat peanut butter cups

problem...

[Lord_Slepnir]

The only problem I see right now is that right now the Pirate Bay is operating inside a real country. If they move to sealand, what's to stop the MPAA/RIAA from buying an old Russian Bomber / Diesel Sub / whatever and just destroying the whole platform? Or hiring someone to plant C-4 on the base of hte structure and blowing it up? Further, Sealand only exists because the British have decided it's more trouble than it's worth to just invade it. What if the Brits get pressured into eliminating this grave threat to the international recording industry?

Re:

[Aim Here]

"What's to stop the MPAA/RIAA from buying an old Russian Bomber / Diesel Sub / whatever and just destroying the whole platform? Or hiring someone to plant C-4 on the base of hte structure and blowing it up?"

Errr, the same thing stopping them doing that sort of thing with the current pirate bay servers. Terrorism and murder is pretty much illegal everywhere.

Re:problem...

[Tx]

Errr, the same thing stopping them doing that sort of thing with the current pirate bay servers. Terrorism and murder is pretty much illegal everywhere.

That didn't stop French Intelligence from blowing up a Greenpeace ship [wikipedia.org], now did it? And I'm pretty sure that French Intelligence are pussies compared to the **AA.

Re:problem...

[Registered Coward v2]

The only problem I see right now is that right now the Pirate Bay is operating inside a real country. If they move to sealand, what's to stop the MPAA/RIAA from buying an old Russian Bomber / Diesel Sub / whatever and just destroying the whole platform? Or hiring someone to plant C-4 on the base of hte structure and blowing it up? Further, Sealand only exists because the British have decided it's more trouble than it's worth to just invade it. What if the Brits get pressured into eliminating this grave threat to the international recording industry?

One thing any island nation that is not self sufficient needs to remember is that a blockade can strangle them without a shot being fired. In Sealand's case, all it would take is to cutoff their internet connection to the outside world and their data center is down. If it is a hardwired line the terminating point can kill it; if it is satellite the satellite company can no doubt be pressured into dropping them.

If they really piss people off step two is cutting all sea and air traffic; plus countries could issue arrest warrants for the owners and wait until they left and simply grab them once they are within reach - who wants to spend their entire life on a floating platform simply to pirate movies and songs?

Finally, if they raised the money they'd have the clout to negotiate licenses with many, if not all of the copyright holders - or simply buy whole catalogs. If they could pull off enough donations they'd have people begging to partner with them. then again, your MPAA/RIAA diesel boat scenario is more probable then them raising the cash.

Re:problem...

[drgonzo59]

who wants to spend their entire life on a floating platform simply to pirate movies and songs?

You must be new here...

dumb idea.

[TheLink]

Safer using a fraction of that amount to spread the site across the nordic countries + netherlands or some eastern european country.

1) I bet some data centers are bigger than Sealand.
2) Easier to cut Sealand off from the rest of the internet.

Re:

[TheLink]

Wherever man :p. Main point is there are many other countries around the world where you can put your stuff on and it won't cost you 500 million UKP (almost 1 billion USD).

With 9 digit UKP you might be able to buy the Gov/Ruler of a country that's already a recognized member of the UN. Or buy laws you want.

Antigua has a GDP of USD 750 million.
Monaco has a GDP of USD 870 million.
Andorra has a GDP of about USD 2 billion and is bordered by France and Spain.
Liechtenstein has a GDP of about USD 2 billion and is

The National Anthem of Sealand

[Van Cutter Romney]

We download, we copy, we share and loot
No more DRM me hearties, yo ho
We file swap and upload and don't give a hoot
No more MPAA me hearties, yo ho

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me

Citizenship?!?

[PetrusMagnusII]

Dude, forget the whole bittorrent part, I'd donate just so I can get citizenship. That'd be a sweet novelty item, a Sealand Passport! Just as long as they don't have laws against dual citizenship that is ;)

500 million for that? Why not launch a satellite?

[vadim_t]

With that price, couldn't they do something better with the money?

For that amount of cash they could probably launch a satellite. Now that's an idea -- how about trackers in the sky people can connect to by pointing an antenna to it? Since you'd have to aim at the satellite, it'd be very unlikely that somebody could snoop on the communication, and the precise location of the users could be unknown.

At least, unlike with Sealand, anybody with the right equipment could connect to it, without having to rely on other countries not cutting the connection to it.

Re:

[vadim_t]

The idea of Sealand is that it's supposed to be its own country (which is not assured). If you buy an island that's definitely going to still belong to some other country.

The satellites you'd use to link it to the internet would be owned by somebody else and could be convinced to take the connection down.

Also, an island is geographically fixed, so once all the practical ways to connect to it are taken down (satellite, links from neighbouring places), it's pretty much over.

IMO, the advantage of having a sate

Re:500 million for that? Why not launch a satellit

[nasor]

The problem is that there aren't any islands that aren't already claimed by a country. You might be able to buy property rights to an island, but no country would ever sell you sovereignty. Sealand, on the other hand, has an arguable claim to sovereignty.

Isn't this a book?

[gravesb]

This reminds me of the plot to Cryptonomican, by Neal Stephenson. If this really is a micronation, and the pirate file sharing thing works out, I wonder if they will expand to hosting other files for money in return for a promise of absolute privacy, i.e., no court orders to turn files over. I think they would make up the money spent buying the 'country' rather quickly. Of course, their servers would be a target for the NSA and every equivalent hunting for files from terrorist and criminal organizations.

Neal Stephenson's current thinking

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

He's looked at the state of storage devices and now suspects the idea of a data haven is obsolete. Which is better: a single bombable server farm (and look up how good "penetrating munitions" are), or a zillion loose-knit eccentrics hiding tiny nerdsticks [pqimemory.com] under drywall joint compound, in plain sight, or hidden in bales of marijuana?

Bad Idea...

[joto]

That would be a waste of money. As much as I support piratebay, they are much more secure within Sweden than they ever will be at Sealand.

First, Sealand is not a real country, it is a part of Britain. The fact that some people who are good at manipulating media claims otherwise, doesn't make it so.

Secondly, even if Sealand was a real country, it's not a country any other country needs to maintain relations with. If they find out that they dislike you, they will be perfectly happy to shut down your Internet connection. That the server remains out of their reach is not important. More important is the fact that unless you agree to be e.g. British, you will not have the protection of e.g. British law against service providers who decide to shut you down.

Finally, it's a waste of money. If you really believe Sealand is a country, and that owning it will somehow help you avoiding legalities when hosting torrents, then you should just do the same as the current owner did: occupy it. At this time, there is only one person on Sealand (a security guard). I'm sure the cost of renting a small ship or a helicopter and sufficient crews to fight him will be well below the prize the current "owners" ask for.

500m?

[Flamefly]

former British naval platform in the North Sea that has been designated a 'micronation' and claims to be outside UK jurisdiction.

The United States, and Germany have found it has no legal status, and that it is part of the United Kingdom, a country who has never given up ownership of the platform.

Surprisingly I'm not a multi-millionare, so I've not looked into it, but I'm betting you could by a tiny island somewhere in the world for a lot less money, and ideally be able to then begin legally moving it to it's own sovereignty. With the added benefit that a single bomb/torpedo wouldn't entirely destroy your country.

Buying/building your own island

[benhocking]

If you're interested, here's how [wikihow.com] you can buy your own island.

And if that's not grandiose enough, you could always just build [theemiratesnetwork.com].

Why Bother?

[TheRaven64]

Sealand is now within the British territorial waters (since they were expanded a few years back), and the 'nation' is not recognised by the UK. There are two ways in which you can become an independent nation:

1. Claim it, and back up the claim with a strong enough economy or military that the international community decides that it's in their best interests to play along.
2. Get a strong nation to recognise your claim, and put pressure on other nations to do the same.

Sealand failed the first one; they have no military, and almost no economy, and they haven't tried the second.

Being a citizen of somewhere like Vatican City, which is internationally recognised, might be useful. Being a citizen of Sealand isn't; even if they did issue you a passport (the current administration doesn't), you can't use it anywhere. Similarly, infringing UK law on Sealand isn't a good idea. When Sealand caught fire last year, they called out the British fire brigade. I suspect the police have at least as long a reach, and the claim that you are not guilty because you committed the crimes in a nation that is not recognised by the UK government would not hold up in a British court any more than declaring your house to be its own jurisdiction would.

A better bet might be Luxembourg. According to the CIA factbook, the population is just under half a million. The number of registered Slashdot users is about a million. Unlike Sealand, Luxembourg is already recognised as a nation. Monaco, with only 32K people might be an even better bet. Failing that, I suspect that there are a number of third-world countries that would sell a segment of themselves and recognise its independent status in exchange for a few million dollars...

They'll never get enough money

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

At current exchange rates, they would need very close to 1 billion dollars to buy Sealand at a price of a little more than 500 million pounds. That would mean that 1 million people would need to donate 1000 dollars each to get the money. I'm not sure they could raise enough cash if all they needed was 1 million to buy it.
 

I Thought They Were Legal Already ?

[CodeArtisan]

If what they claim is true, i.e. that they aren't doing anything illegal now, why do they need to escape to anywhere ?

A better idea

[smartin]

With that kind of money they can problably buy an old cruise liner or cargo ship and then have a mobile platform that truely lives outside of territorial waters. Sure connectivity is a problem but it is a lot easier to pull up anchor when your host cuts you off and move to a more friendly access point. With a cruiseliner they could actually allow thier citizens to come and visit.

In other news...

[haggie]

the MPAA and RIAA have announced that they have jointly purchased the USS Iowa with plans to full refurbish the decommissioned battleship to full fighting capability...

Re:

[martijnd]

So how do you intend to get money out of leachers?

I though the whole point of the Pirate Bay was that they got everything for free?

Next RIAA tactic -- sue all honary citizens of Sealand.

Re:Perfect!

[Rob T Firefly]

I want to watch that movie! Anyone have a .torrent?

Re:Perfect!

[Lazerf4rt]

Ironically enough, there is one! It's called Steal This Film [wikipedia.org]. Here's a torrent [thepiratebay.org]. Maybe this new stuff about Sealand will be in Part 2.

Re:hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't be buying just a platform. Sealand has a complex history; it was in international waters when built in WW2, and still was when its owner/leader declared it an independent nation. Since then international maritime laws have changed, and if a similar platform was built today it would be a part of the nation closest to it. There was actually a confrontation between Sealand and the Royal Navy in the 70s, IIRC, a standoff which ended with the withdrawal of the RN, supposedly cementing Sealand's place as a sovereign nation. So, that's what The Pirate Bay would be buying: not just an offshore platform, but a true data haven, a sort of modern-day Tortuga, a port from which to set sail on the high seas of the internet with blatant disregard for copyright law.

Re:

[CmdrGravy]

And even if they do get the money who is going to trust a bunch of pirates with £500 Million. With that money in the bank buying a rusting steel coffin in the middle of nowhere is not going to look like a very good option compared to building yourself a well defended palace on some tropical island somewhere and living like a Pirate King for the rest of your life.