This sounds like disinformation... i'd be very cautious of believing it outright without further detailed investigation of the sources.

Remember the Big Captalist Players (liars) will do all they can to undermine the credibility of the pirate bay volunteers during this trial.

I've checked the sources supplied with this article and they appear legitimate.
I'll be boycotting Pirate Bay till they explain this.

The Register is a long standing very well respected source of first class IT journalism and I expect them to have done their research thoroughly before pressing the publish button.

Please, do your own research into this conundrum and don't forget to show the girls and boys your workings out so they can see how you reached your 'disinformation' conclusion so quickly.

Use Mininova then!

The report using Pirate Bay contributes advertising money to a fascist more than justifies you reposting it here. I've posted information about both sites here in the past so I think I should point out a few things.
No one here has advocated Pirate Bay except in terms of it's technical resilience in the face of legal action. Copyright law avoidance and Pirate Bay are not the same thing.
The Register can be a fairly right-wing site itself, as witnessed even in that report, however informative it is.

A few specific points...

"But like the Futurists a hundred years ago - the original Freetards - they don't mind jumping into bed with neo-Nazis when it suits them....When you invite activists to do your reporting for you, you can be sure that if a fact has an unpleasant odour, it won't be reported - no matter how important it may be."

There were no neo-nazis in 1909 for the Futurists to jump into bed with, proto-nazis at worst, proto-fascists to be more accurate. This is a minor journalistic slip worth mentioning about an article which contains blanket criticism of activist journalism.

Freetard is an offensive right-wing term whatever you feel about copyright law simply because using the word 'retard' to refer to someone intellectually inferior is rightly discouraged. When I grew up the word 'spazz' was a regular insult that quite rightly has been discouraged to the point where it only condemns the person who employs it.

Many reports here from activists do indeed include balanced information that does not necessarily support their contention. This is good practice for many reasons, not least because we have to argue our views against people who do disagree, and so to portray an issue in a one-sided manner does no one any favours. A neutral point of view is not desirable, but omitting contradicary facts is damaging and most people here realise this. I find the Register a highly informative and important publication and it's reporters to be high quality, but I think it is more accurate to say 'When journalists are motivated through profit, you can be sure if a fact is contradicts a sensansionalist angle, that fact will be more likely to be discarded than if an activist is reporting'.

(Paris Hilton, because that's what El Reg excels at).

"Freetard is an offensive right-wing term"

No, mate, the word Freetard is an apolitical comedy "portmanteau" for accurately describing people who contribute nothing yet think everything created by others is due to them free of charge.

That's it, nothing else (unless you want it to mean something else to suit an agenda. Then it can mean whatever you want it to mean and you can use that 'meaning' to behave like a proper spa .. oh, wait ...)

"
No, mate, the word Freetard is an apolitical comedy "portmanteau" for accurately describing people who contribute nothing yet think everything created by others is due to them free of charge. That's it, nothing else (unless you want it to mean something else to suit an agenda. Then it can mean whatever you want it to mean and you can use that 'meaning' to behave like a proper spa .. oh, wait ...)
"
I think you may have just proven why that word is unacceptable better than I could've. It is certainly useful to The Reg's agenda, the majority of whose readers do benefit from copyright laws. It is also deliberately macho and demeaning, which isn't atypical of The Reg and it's audience.

I've written copyrighted software, designed copyrighted equipment for pay but I've never copyrighted anything. I think Buckminster Fuller showed the way on the copyright issue, but I realise that is arguable and you would be just the person to argue it. That's not what we are currently talking about now, we are talking about whether the word 'Freetard' is acceptable so let's cut to the quick.

Do you consider it acceptable for someone who opposes you in rational argument to call you mentally handicapped? Did you refrain from using the word 'spastic' because you genuinely understand how offensive and inappropriate it is or just because it is now deemed incorrect by most people?

"I've written copyrighted software, designed copyrighted equipment for pay but I've never copyrighted anything"

That's about as contradictory as it can get and you have a lot to learn about copyright, it's automatically assigned to the creator upon creation, whether you like it or not.

"Did you refrain from using the word 'spastic' because you genuinely understand how offensive and inappropriate it is or just because it is now deemed incorrect by most people?"

No, mate, I purposely didn't use it as an example of how some people can't wait to get themselves bent out of shape and to demonstrate that most people who behave like that have no sense of anything other than how offended they can get and how wrong everyone else is, all the time on every subject.

I pointed out that the word freetard wasn't political and you were the one who introduced the word spastic.

Sort yourself out (belms)

I see a few mentions of The Register being "right wing" or having an agenda. It's worth noting that 90% of the usage of the word "freetard" is done in articles written by Andrew Orlowski and he just throws it around as a pejorative to get attention.

Notably, he is the only author on the site who doesn't allow comments to be posted after his articles. Feel free to email him though as he will probably respond - admittedly not to any points that you make, but more so that he can smugly point out how naive you are for failing to share his viewpoint.

"That's about as contradictory as it can get and you have a lot to learn about copyright, it's automatically assigned to the creator upon creation, whether you like it or not."
The companies I worked for own the copyrights I am responsible for. That was contractual and typical fyi. I apologise for being more experienced than you are in this field and have no desire to further expose your lack of knowledge, just your lack of morality.

(Everything else I have created is not only free for reproduction but fully free to be improved upon. That is sensible in my view. Let's have a polite debate about this somewhere else, sometime, once you've have a chance to read up on the subject. )

"I pointed out that the word freetard wasn't political and you were the one who introduced the word spastic."

Spastic = retard = freetard. I guess demeaning the disadvantaged isn't strictly political, it is more of a moral matter.

"I see a few mentions of The Register being "right wing" or having an agenda"

I mean their readers and writers seem generally more right wing than people here and that is reflected in the site. People in work tend to be more right-wing than people in the dole-queue. The Reg is obviously not fascist, just often more militaristic since that is how a lot of techies pay their mortgage. I wouldn't call that an agenda and I would consider posting a story there or passing a story onto their journalists if it was more appropriate. In fact I just did on an unrelated subject.

The general opposition to 'software theft' there is completely understandable but conversely lots of people on IM have had to resort to shoplifting in the past simply to survive.

I would use the phrase 'horses for courses' but some people here see horse races as immoral. I think the last line of that article is directly critical of activist journalists, and unfairly so.

Is there an avenue of law of which more bollocks is spouted on the Net than copyright???

Under Bern/WIPO treaties enshrined in the UK laws, copyright is naturally asserted by the author at the creation of the intellectual property.

Within the legal framework copyright cannot be opted in or out of, but rather various licences applied.

No one creates a copyright free work in the UK, but rather issues a broadbrush license allowing various things to happen to their work without the need for an explicit licence.

Otherwise, a user could not know whether the material was legally free to "abuse".

Plenty of easy to understand info on this on the Net.

Legally, you are wrong. There is such a thing as hate speech and society currently recognises that.

Philosphically I completely understand Lenny Bruce saying 'Are there any niggers in the audience tonight?' in attempt to defuse the power of the insult.

Morally though, unless you personally have a applicable condition then it demeans only yourself to use that as a deliberate insult.

Language is littered with such words, 'that is so lame' etc, but it takes a really unintelligent person to defend a deliberate insult.

Look at the usage of 'freetard', 'spastic' or whatever. You are using them to demean someone you disagree with by negative association with a disadvantaged minority that is completely irrelevant. ie "You are so stupid you are like a (whatever)". By doing this you are not attacking the argument directly but smearing an unrelated group. Any decent person can see this is at best a nasty, childish and inaccurate admission of ignorance regardless of laws or 'political correctness'.

Lighten up ffs.

Have a good weekend !

(You know, you just broke copyright unless that is your real name, and are now hiding hypocritically under the protection IM provides you at their risk).

In the real world though every designer who works for someone else works under a contract that cedes copyright to the employer, sometimes with explicit extra compensation but mostly not. That is why Bratz dolls were sued successfully, because the designer designed them on Mattel corporation paid time.

If you have a good idea at work, hold that thought until you get home.

My real name is Percival Mason as seen on TV...

But since this is a performance art piece, it qualifies as Fair Use under Bern...

I suggest you go read Bern & WIPO before commenting further, since nothing you said actually contradicted anything I said. In fact, it whizzed off on a tangent and landed in the long grass.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody