×

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 Comes To Facebook

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the sharing-face-to-face dept.

Social Networks 359

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report I just read in Mashable, Pirate Bay is coming to Facebook. Writer Ben Parr says that The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to 'Share on Facebook.' Once posted to a profile, the Facebook member's friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided he or she already has a torrenting client installed. I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels. No doubt, if their song files were downloaded through this method, the record companies would sit back for awhile, derive profit from the promotional excitement generated for their dying industry, and then — armed with Facebook's data — sue the pants off all the hapless Facebook users who fell for it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

359 comments

Not Really (5, Insightful)

Chlorine Trifluoride (1517149) | about 5 years ago | (#27382241)

Nothing in the .torrent file itself is illegal. The **AA still needs to actually show that the person was illictly downloading the copyrighted material. If I downloaded every .torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.

Re:Not Really (4, Insightful)

coniferous (1058330) | about 5 years ago | (#27382305)

are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

You are an idiot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382337)

"I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or "

You one stupid mofo, nofo!

Oh, right, linux download. haha, you stupidier than I thought.

Re:Not Really (4, Interesting)

Chlorine Trifluoride (1517149) | about 5 years ago | (#27382419)

are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

I know that Sweden != US, but this is the crux of the TPB case. Even if this were the case, if all that they could prove was that you downloaded the .torrent, it would be Facebook that is in trouble.

Re:Not Really (1)

ssintercept (843305) | about 5 years ago | (#27382611)

...if all that they could prove was that you downloaded the .torrent, it would be Facebook that is in trouble.

that is a really good point. would facebook be culpable if users utilize this method?

Re:Not Really (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 5 years ago | (#27382455)

"Enabling" downloading of copyright material is a highly dubious, very unclear "legal" standard. As such, it doesn't exist in the form that you think it does (or that the RIAA think it does) and it isn't present in a great many legal systems. You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

Thus the legal standard that is required for proof of such actions needs to be substantially higher than "what the RIAA thinks is enabling". Additionally, jurisdictional boundaries greatly interfere here (the RIAA can be as interested in me as they like, but I don't live in America), as do other relevant laws (i.e. the "right" to free speech, fair use, etc.) and the requirement of hard evidence that not only do I have the copyright material in my possession without a licence grant, but also that my *intention* was to then breach copyright by distributing further etc.

Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

Also, the legality or otherwise of a torrent file in even a single country has not been legally locked down (roll on April for PirateBay) and thus it's almost 100% certain that any court case would set a precedent in the particular country that hosts it. Until then, the whole thing is just a legal grey area and thus someone could easily do the above mentioned archiving, with a good technical knowledge and an intention of not breaching copyright, and not be breaking ANY existing laws at all, espeically if they can provide good reason (such as the whole "a torrent isn't its contents" argument which SHOULD damn well be correct).

Don't let every legal threat you ever hear form a legal fact in your mind. 99% of things never go to court and 50% of those that do fail miserably. Otherwise, bank charges in the UK would be in the order of £5, not £50, Linux would be cleared or convicted of breaching several hundred patents, Microsoft would be dead in the water and I'd be able to eat peanuts without having to read "May contain nuts".

Re:Not Really (4, Interesting)

actionbastard (1206160) | about 5 years ago | (#27382683)

"'Enabling' downloading of copyright material is a highly dubious..."

If I post a piece of paper on a telephone pole with the addresses of all banks in the city in which it is posted and someone uses that information to rob one of the banks on that list, am I guilty of 'facilitating' said robbery?
If I leave a stack of CDs in a box by the sidewalk in front of my house with a sign that says' "Take one, leave one."; does that make me guilty of copyright infringement?

Re:Not Really (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382767)

Unfortunately not every analogy works quite that way. After all, if I leave a loaded gun in the street, and someone is killed as a result, I am indeed partially responsible.

I wouldn't put the posting of torrents as far into the 'dark' territory as that example, but probably not as far into the 'light' category as your bank address scenario either. There are shades of grey here.

Re:Not Really (5, Insightful)

isaac338 (705434) | about 5 years ago | (#27382903)

You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

Not to mention the most supreme enabler of them all - the artist who created the original copyrighted works. If those works hadn't been created, nobody would download copyrighted material!

Re:Not Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382913)

YOUR MOM enabled piracy by having you. :D

Re:Not Really (1)

Roskolnikov (68772) | about 5 years ago | (#27382569)

I am really surprised by this each and every time I hear it; if I provide a torrent to someone, I am not the violator, though the **IA argues that making available is a copyright infringement it is more a case of being an accessory to a copyright infringement; the funny part to me is that in trying to prove their case they pull files from said 'violator' and use that as proof; If they argue that they aren't violating the copyright because they are owner/agents the accessory charge is also null and void, if they argue they are, well, accessory is nearly always treated with less prejudice than the actual crime (excluding suicide, which is some cases means the only one punished is the one left living). If I have a legal copy of Pirates of the Caribbean that has been scratched to hell0 by my kids and I use a torrent to get a playable version, I could/would argue fair use, there really isn't a remedy other than re-purchase provided by the folks selling this garbage; if everyone hitting the torrent at the same time as I find that I have great bandwidth and pull from me, again the violation isn't mine; argue as they its not a violation its accessory potentially during or after the fact.

IANAL but I am pretty a lawyer might actually make a similar argument.

Re:Not Really (1)

v1 (525388) | about 5 years ago | (#27382625)

are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

I'm enabling them to download pirated content if I'm their cable provider. SueSueSue!

Oh wait, I'm enabling them to download pirated content if I'm their power company! SueSueSue!

And I'm enabling them to download pirated content by selling them a computer without rootkits preinstalled! SueSueSue!

Thankfully it doesn't work that way.

Re:Not Really (4, Interesting)

blhack (921171) | about 5 years ago | (#27382359)

If I downloaded every .torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.

That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be doing something that the court feels is illegal.
We need to come to grips with the fact that our court system doesn't work based on facts, it works based on feelings.

Yes, but downloading a .torrent file, you haven't done anything to contribute to the piracy of any copyrighted materials.

But the courts feel like you did, so you can be convicted for it.
Its sad, and I think it speaks to the way that geek-minds work...we're analytical.

We look at a box and when somebody asks us to describe it, we say things like "It is royal-blue, it is 14cm tall and a perfect cube."
Sadly, the judges would respond by
"Well...I think the box is kindof squarish, it looks like it was probably used as a doorstop for a few years".

Facts vs. Feelings. This is the problem behind nearly every major legal battle that geeks are fighting. The facts support us, people's emotions do not.

Re:Not Really (5, Insightful)

jhantin (252660) | about 5 years ago | (#27382739)

The crux of the difference between geek-think and law-think here is that typically the legal issues turn not on the assets themselves, but on their provenance -- which is not an intrinsic property of the assets, but rather a sort of implicit metadata that requires extra bookkeeping to track reliably.

The legality of a song-file depends on how you got it, not the fact that it's a song by a major label artist. Downloaded from a properly licensed online store? No problem. The same exact sequence of bits, downloaded from someplace shady? Problem.

Similarly, the legality of a stack of $100 notes likewise depends on how you got it. If you got it by, say, making and selling custom cabinetry, you're probably fine, but if you got it by unauthorized sale of controlled substances, and the law catches on, you'll have problems.

Wrong Wrong Wrong (-1, Troll)

bit trollent (824666) | about 5 years ago | (#27382361)

Are you fucking joking or is this the best you can come up with in time for first post?

You are wrong.

You are full of shit.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You have been modded up because slashdot moderators are wrong, full of shit, and have no idea what they are talking about.

Whenever you download a torrent, you must simultaneously upload it. This is required for .torrents to work.

That upload of copyrighted material is the fucking crime.

You fucking moron.

Your scheme of claiming that you were downloading materials for archival purposes or some other nonsense is total fucking bullshit. It is bound to fail, just like you.

I have an excuse ready to get out of any legal threats.

And no, I'm not posting it here.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (4, Informative)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#27382435)

I know your just trolling, but...

Whenever you download a torrent, you must simultaneously upload it.

No, downloading Metallica_St_Anger.torrent is the same as downloading Ponies_n_kittens_playing.jpg from a website.

If you send the downloaded torrent file to a torrent application and allow it to connect and download files, then you are downloading the (possibly) illegal content, and usually, but not always, uploading the same content to someone else. There are quite a few torrents that I've downloaded where the Upload is 0kb.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#27382495)

(Correction) Well actually it would be more like, copying the URL to the ponies & kittens image, and saving it to a text file.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (4, Funny)

ssintercept (843305) | about 5 years ago | (#27382801)

please post link to - Ponies_n_kittens_playing.jpg

thanks in advance.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (0, Redundant)

DimmO (1179765) | about 5 years ago | (#27382843)

Google images [google.com]
Your search - Ponies_n_kittens_playing - did not match any documents.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#27382863)

lol, yeah i tried too, and in the text search it just shows my comment. Yahoo, ExaLead, MSN is 0/0

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382895)

not even that, it would be like saving the google search result for ponies and kittens, a .torrent doesnt say where to get the file, it only says where to find a tracker that might be able to point you in the direction to find some file. The tracker does not ever see any part of the file.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382517)

So this genius argument continues with, I was just downloading the .torrent files, not the copyrighted material.

Well that might work if you weren't actually downloading the copyrighted material.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | about 5 years ago | (#27382851)

the (possibly) illegal content

I'm still having trouble with the idea that an arbitrary string of ones and zeroes could be "illegal".

If I generate a sequence of random numbers, write it to disk, and it happens to be, say, a copyrighted song when fed into an audio player, am I breaking the law? Who gets to determine if it's the same as the song?

Besides, any song can have an infinite number of representations. If I write an audio decoder that takes a Win32 dll and plays it as audio, am I breaking the law if one of the system files in my licensed copy of Vista can be played as a copyrighted song? Is Microsoft?

How about the same with Linux? If it's both covered by the GPL and some random music company, which one takes precedence?

What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number>normal numbers [wikipedia.org]? Are they partially copyrighted? If not, how am I breaking the law if I download portions of them? If I download "Champernowne's number, digits 6752138974562389465 to 6752938972565379465 in base 256.mp3", am I breaking the law if it's actually playable?

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | about 5 years ago | (#27382475)

The parent was talking about downloading the .torrent file, not actually using it with a bittorrent client. There's a difference.

OTOH, I agree with another poster on this thread that no matter how you view it, although the .torrent file itself does not violate copyright, you could still get into legal hot water.

I have an excuse ready to get out of any legal threats.

And no, I'm not posting it here.

99% of the excuses that Slashdotters have come up with for legal threats probably won't work at all. I sincerely hope you're one of the edge cases. In any respect, if I were you, I would run your excuse past a lawyer before attempting to use it.

Re:Wrong Wrong Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382477)

I don't think "downloading all the torrent files for archival purposes" means what you think it means.

Re:Not Really (3, Insightful)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | about 5 years ago | (#27382417)

Perhaps. But could **AA ask for a better "lead?" Take a look at some of the (blatantly illegal) things that the **AA and its cronies have done. They probably wouldn't shy away from using Facebook as a method to choose who to target with any new blatantly illegal schemes they come up with and think they can get away with.

Regardless, making it public knowledge that you pirate/support piracy is probably a stupid idea if you ever plan on having a job.

Re:Not Really (3, Informative)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 5 years ago | (#27382429)

I wouldnt quite agree, as the .torrent files are checksums derived from either DVDrips or screencaps, which are both derivative works.

Go read up on what lawyers talk about the The Colour of the Bits [sooke.bc.ca]. It's rather interesting, but also states indirectly that one cannot know this type of colour easily.

I wonder what NewYorkCoultryLawyer would say about this..

Re:Not Really (5, Informative)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 5 years ago | (#27382631)

I wonder what NewYorkCountryLawyer would say about this..

NewYorkCountryLawyer? He ain't sayin' nuttin'.

Re:Not Really (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382813)

He ain't sayin' nuttin'.

So he is saying something?

Re:Not Really (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 5 years ago | (#27382821)

Cant say I blame you.. Copyright's been turned disgusting and in need of a good cleaning.

BTW, sorry for mis-spelling your nickname ^_^

Re:Not Really (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#27382661)

If they were perfect checksums, yes, you might have a point. But there are potentially many, many, many different things that can have the exact same checksum but be totally different. For that to be true then the same people have the copyright of any of those things which doesn't make sense.

Re:Not Really (1)

g2devi (898503) | about 5 years ago | (#27382667)

IANAL, but this seems bogus.

Under your definition, the ISBN, number of pages in the book, number of spelling mistakes in the book, and even the letters used in the book, are all derivative works and are therefore is copyright. If that's then, every book out there is a copyright violation since all books other there use letters which are derivative works. Quoting an ISBN would also be a copyright violation, as would be a description of the book.

Fortunately there is such as thing as fair use (or fair dealing) which insures that such nonsense is not taken care of.

Re:Not Really (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 5 years ago | (#27382787)

Yeah, it seems bogus if you use your analogy.

But, the hashes used in the .torrent file are directly computed from frame data. This isnt a summary. This isnt a ISBN or UPC label.

These checksums serve only 1 purpose: and that is to properly put back together any number of files to their starting point. Hence, a mathematically transformed derivative work. And if there wasnt the movie file, those checksums would mean diddly squat, because those checksum numbers represent a cryptographic transformation of the source material.

until.. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 years ago | (#27382567)

Until the laws are changed to make downloading a torrent 'intent' to commit.

Then with that they have grounds for either a search warrant, or just grounds to sue outright.

Re:Not Really (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 5 years ago | (#27382597)

That's true (well, depending on your location it may or may not be, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it is). But adding every one of those legal .torrent files to a BitTorrent client would result in a monolithic amount of copyright infringement. Finding who downloaded the torrent file is potentially very easy; associating that information with an IP address in the P2P swarm is equally easy. You do the math.

Why is facebook allowing this? (5, Interesting)

coniferous (1058330) | about 5 years ago | (#27382247)

Seriously. If I was in charge of facebook and even got wind of an app like this it would be blocked SO fast.

I'm not against pirating, just against the drama that goes with it. I really don't want the RIAA on my ass; I'm sure facebook doesn't either.

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382267)

Eh, I've got nothing to lose really - if the RIAA ever get "on" my ass, it'll be time to get the ol' automatic and start shooting some lawyers.

Trick is to act all nice, try to arrange a settlement meeting _outside_ a courtroom (where there is typically armed security), then go postal on them. Six dead lawyers!

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 5 years ago | (#27382347)

It's rather difficult (and expensive) to buy an automatic rifle in the US. Unless you're an illegal mexican immigrant. Then you just need to show up at a gun show and you can buy automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc and take them back to mexico.

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

johnsonav (1098915) | about 5 years ago | (#27382427)

"Automatic" can also refer to a semi-automatic handgun. I believe that's what he was referring to.

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 5 years ago | (#27382453)

It's rather difficult (and expensive) to buy an automatic rifle in the US. Unless you're an illegal mexican immigrant. Then you just need to show up at a gun show and you can buy automatic rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc and take them back to mexico.

If I'm already breaking the law couldn't I add lieing to my list of offenses and claim to be an illegal mexican immigrant?

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

tubapro12 (896596) | about 5 years ago | (#27382751)

Its not really that difficult in the right places, even if you're not an illegal immigrant.

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382817)

"[..]then go postal on them. Six dead lawyers!"

lately they only come in packs of three (the recession and the layoffs in the record companies due to "piracy" you know!) And the "Hi my name is Matthew Oppenheimer on behalf of the plaintiffs."-guy does not count as lawyer! At least not if it fits them.
Then he is "the only guy in the record companies with settlement authority" or "a principal of the record companies" (all of them at once!).

But once Harvard Charlie wants to depose this guy, he magically transfers back into being "just a lawyer".
So if he comes with this pack of three and you waste him too, you will probably just be charged with illegal littering on the streets given what kind of excrement "Mad J." is!

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

SkankinMonkey (528381) | about 5 years ago | (#27382559)

This isn't an app, it's just sharing (posting) a link which any user can do without installing apps. You can add your own comment to it, a thumbnail, etc. It's a 'mini-digg'

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

coniferous (1058330) | about 5 years ago | (#27382617)

Oh Ok, Yeah. That makes sense. Are there any laws that protect Facebook from illegal content that a user might post?

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#27382687)

Yes, the DMCA actually has something beneficial to the world (a shocker, yes I know), it is the safe harbor provisions that basically lets FB say that they can't control what users post (though they do have to respond to takedown requests). But similarly, this is nothing but a link to a link that may contain copyrighted materials. I highly doubt that it is illegal to link to a link that may contain copyright infringing materials, it just doesn't make any sense if it is because that would be like saying that by linking to a redirect page to www.google.com I would be responsible if Google had any illegal content when I was simply linking to another page that contained no offending materials.

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 5 years ago | (#27382761)

Are there any laws that protect Facebook from illegal content that a user might post?

I don't think it's Facebook that would get sued. As a general rule the RIAA prefers to pick on the people who have no ability to fight back, which in this case would be the Facebook customers. Also Facebook would likely have a DMCA defense, which would not be available to the customers themselves.

Re:Why is facebook allowing this? (1)

tubapro12 (896596) | about 5 years ago | (#27382765)

From my understanding of how the "Share this on Facebook" links work, wouldn't Facebook be able to block the referrer to impede these Share links from working?

Incoming! (2, Funny)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | about 5 years ago | (#27382281)

I am waiting for the **IA to sue Facebook for "aiding piracy." That will be a fun one to watch.

Re:Incoming! (2, Insightful)

boarder8925 (714555) | about 5 years ago | (#27382445)

Then perhaps this is The Pirate Bay's way of getting the average joe to care about what the RIAA and MPAA have been doing?

Re:Incoming! (1)

palindrome (34830) | about 5 years ago | (#27382623)

I am waiting for the **IA to sue Facebook for "aiding piracy." That will be a fun one to watch.

This is exciting. I don't know who I want to lose most.

Re:Incoming! (1)

entgod (998805) | about 5 years ago | (#27382635)

I am waiting for the **IA to sue Facebook for "aiding assisting making available." That will be a fun one to watch.

fixed that for you :)

the **AA is still arround? (1)

crashelite (882844) | about 5 years ago | (#27382283)

they have been loosing money from their lawsuits last time i checked the ##'s

Re:the **AA is still arround? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382303)

(Yes, I know I suck at spelling. Feel free to correct my grammar and/or spelling. I don't care. I'm still not going to change.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:the **AA is still arround? (1)

crashelite (882844) | about 5 years ago | (#27382539)

what about the ( at the beginning

Re:the **AA is still arround? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382853)

Well, I assumed the trailing ) was cut off by the sig character limit. So, the leading ( would still be correct. The statement is simply incomplete, not incorrect.

Re:the **AA is still arround? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 years ago | (#27382679)

they have been loosing money from their lawsuits last time i checked the ##'s

Who is going to tell them to stop? Someone who is going to be immediately sued, that's who.

Record companies: "Listen RIAA, we've decided your services are no longer needed, and we're not going to be giving you any more money. Frankly, you've been disgusting idiots, have eroded any sympathy we might have had in fighting piracy, and have been failing to even win in courts."

RIAA: "Under the digital millenium act, the patriot act, patent law, fourteen federal codes, and twenty one UN resolutions, we are presenting you with 4000 lawsuits to continue paying us and furthermore we have a court order to go fuck yourself."

Record companies: "Are you serious? This is absurd!"

RIAA: "We'll see you in court. Courts, plural, sorry. In every state at least 14 times."

Re:the **AA is still arround? (4, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 5 years ago | (#27382689)

they have been losing money from their lawsuits last time i checked

Yes but is it possible you are giving them credit for something they do not actually possess? The ability to learn.

Hmm "Pirate Bay"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382287)

Yep, I'll click on that link while logged in with my real name. I'm sure nothing bad will come out of this.

Probably no risk (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | about 5 years ago | (#27382295)

I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels.

Knowing the Internet community at large, I think there is probably no risk of this happening. :p

Look for a swift response. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382299)

What the *AAs are losing through piracy, more than sales and such, is control. The buzz "center" is moving from the old media into the piratebay's top100. Essentially. Such a development will eventually kill off the content-for-money industry (though a content-with-sponsoring may rise to take it's place, you'll notice that the TV industry is much more laid back).

This is a step in that direction, so look for a quick and angry reprisal, legally warranted or not.

Re:Look for a swift response. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382881)

"The buzz "center" is moving from the old media into the piratebay's top100."

you are probably right with that. I have even seen the first press release where an unknown artist gave out a press release pointing out how they were in the high ranks of the "TPB top 100 music"-charts!

http://www.prlog.org/10171331-unsigned-band-breaks-into-top-20-most-shared-music-on-the-planet.html [prlog.org]

and

Pirate Bay Snapshot 18/1/09
http://www.gwonder.com/gwonder/snapshot/14th.jpg [gwonder.com]

Chances are (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | about 5 years ago | (#27382325)

The **AA will wait for facebook to generate that ever elusive revenue before it tries to sue them...

Re:Chances are (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 5 years ago | (#27382649)

The **AA will wait for facebook to generate that ever elusive revenue before it tries to sue them...

That would be their style. Set the trap. Sit back. Wait a bit. Smile. Let the promotional value run its course. Then spring it.

Nefarious? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | about 5 years ago | (#27382345)

I always thought that the facebook link was a sort of civil disobedience type deal at worst, or at best, a humorous poke at how every site on the planet has Digg this, facebook this, mixx it, etc attached to every page generated.

Idiot? (-1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | about 5 years ago | (#27382389)

I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels.

Are you an idiot? Of course this is what it will be used for. It's the primary reason Pirate Bay exists, ripping off artists so that leeches don't have to pay for their work.

I'm so tired of the naive facade people put on when talking about P2P. We all know exactly what it's used for. Stop pretending you don't know.

Re:Idiot? (5, Insightful)

muuh-gnu (894733) | about 5 years ago | (#27382545)

> ripping off artists so that leeches don't have to pay for their work.

Dude. Come. Fucking. On. We have 2009. Everybody and their dog has a computer, which is designed to copy stuff. Also we have broadband which is, again, designed to... move stuff around the world. So is what youre actually pointlessly advocating is that we collectively should... actually what? Abstain from using a common technology in order to make absurdly archaic 50's business models of "manufacturing and selling single copies" viable in day and age when everybody _can_ manufacture and distribute those copies themselves? Yawn.

If you and your fellow artists cannot bear the thought of your works becomming part of our culture and shared with other people, then stop producing and publishing them. If you cant manage to make money from the fact that people actually like your works and actively share them with their friends, go flip burgers, maybe thats where your real talent lies. However, wide-scale censorship, which is what you and your likes are proposing all the fucking time, wont work, so forget that idea really fast.

Re:Idiot? (-1, Flamebait)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | about 5 years ago | (#27382755)

Dude. Come. Fucking. On. It's 2009 and artists still have to make a living to continue to make art. You seem to think all the people out there illegally copying files are somehow noble and who would, if they knew how, listen to the song/movie/whatever and if they liked it, pay the perform(s) or if they didn't like it, delete it never view it again.

It ain't that way, junior mint, and your rationalizations aside, ain't never gonna be. You copy files that you 1) don't have permission to copy 2) have not paid, or 3) and are NOT exercising Fair Use you are:
  1. Committing a crime
  2. Stealing from the artist and those who have invested money in producing/distributing the thing you want to copy
  3. Removing incentive for the producers to renew the artist due to reduced sales

If you think differently, then you have the ethics of a common thief and I'd love to see you in jail wedded to Bubba the ass fucker.

Re:Idiot? (5, Insightful)

muuh-gnu (894733) | about 5 years ago | (#27382861)

> artists still have to make a living to continue to make art.

And its still their job to find out how to do that. Back in the 50s, they were able to sell copies of stuff, since copying was hard. In 2009, neither copying nor distribution is hard any more, so people make their copies themselves and distribute them. If the artist completely used to rely on selling copies to make a living, he now has to adapt. IF he refuses to, he'll have to go flip burgers.

> You seem to think all the people out there illegally copying files are somehow noble

Nope, never implied that.

> and if they liked it, pay the perform(s)
> or if they didn't like it, delete it never view it again.

Also never said that.

> 1) don't have permission to copy

We dont have to ask for a permission to exchange informaiton and share stuff. Everybody who thinks that, like you seem to, is mistaken.

> 2) have not paid

Since i do the copying and the distribution myself, i dont have to pay.

> 3) and are NOT exercising Fair Use

I am excercising Fair Use which _I_ defined.

> Committing a crime

I dont consider it to be a crime.

> Stealing from the artist and those who have invested money in producing/distributing
> the thing you want to copy

Copying stuff and sharing information with other people is not stealing, no matter how much youd like it to be.

> Removing incentive for the producers to renew the artist due to reduced sales

Their problem. (You know, you and they can still go flip burgers if you cant cope with the fact that we have 2009 and practically everybody learned how to use a networked computer.)

> If you think differently,

Which I do

> then you have the ethics of a common thief

But I have the luck that its not you laying out our ethics code.

> and I'd love to see you in jail wedded to Bubba the ass fucker.

Since you have to call for physical violence and violent anal rape of anybody who doesnt agree to your ageing ideology, you lose.

Re:Idiot? (4, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | about 5 years ago | (#27382565)

Are you an idiot? Of course this is what it will be used for. It's the primary reason Public Libraries exists, ripping off artists so that leeches don't have to pay for their work.

I'm so tired of the naive facade people put on when talking about Public Libraries. We all know exactly what it's used for. Stop pretending you don't know.

Re:Idiot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382717)

Are you an idiot? Many people using one thing vs. people making copies. Copying a book is a lot harder than copying and pasting a file and quality will usually be degraded (taking a picture or OCR failings). Plus you don't get to keep library books.

I'm so tired of the naive facade people put on when talking about file sharing. Face it, you want something for nothing.

Re:Idiot? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#27382627)

The pirate bay exists simply to share stuff, illegal or not. Show me something where the developers/maintainers of TPB have said they designed it with the main intent being to distribute illegal content. Just because 'illegal' content is prevalent doesn't imply it's initial intent.

Slashdot, has hordes of trolls, but it wasn't designed for trolling.

On another note, it doesn't mean that's what it will be used for on Facebook. Facebook currently doesn't have any way for people to share files directly, you can share links to images, links to video's, etc... you can even upload videos and images, but they get re-encoded/downgraded to low resolutions and high compression, so using TPB people could create a torrent of the stuff they want to share, and share it with all of their friends at the same time, or say an artist who has created a group, can share links to the torrents of their stuff.

Obviously sharing torrents URLS was already possible, but having a quick glance at the way it now does it, it allows for Icons/Images, and notes to be attached to the link as well, plus it's "easy", as easy as 2 button clicks, [Share on Facebook], and then [Submit]...

Re:Idiot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382665)

Just because 'illegal' content is prevalent doesn't imply it's initial intent.

Come on, it's called "the Pirate Bay". What do you think that means?

Slashdot, has hordes of trolls, but it wasn't designed for trolling.

You must be new here...

Re:Idiot? (0, Troll)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#27382807)

"The Pirate Bay"

Yes, but that depends on your definition... legal definition, its someone who partakes in piracy.

But, metaphorically it's just someone who takes shit for themselves, you could be a sand pirate, and travel the world scooping up sand on every beach you landed on, yeah, might be illegal on some of the beaches, at least in large quantities, but for the most part it's not.

I generally think of it as that, just piling a bunch of coins (files) into your little private chest (hard drive)... "The Pirate Bay" is simply a docking point where you start from... others may only consider it by the legal/dictionary definition, but it's capable of both legal and illegal methods, and shouldn't be banned strictly by name alone. Should "Death Valley" be banned, stuff dies there all the time, but stuff is also born too, maybe the name will inspire someone to kill people there, omg think of the children. what about places named "Happy Valley" (quite a few of those here in Canada)... banned for false advertising because it didn't make you happy?

Re:Idiot? (1, Insightful)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | about 5 years ago | (#27382809)

The pirate bay exists simply to share stuff, illegal or not. Show me something where the developers/maintainers of TPB have said they designed it with the main intent being to distribute illegal content. Just because 'illegal' content is prevalent doesn't imply it's initial intent.

This is a disingenuous argument. It doesn't matter what the creators or maintainers say or don't (ok, it matter legally, but ethically, it doens't). TPB is use *primarily* to distribute torrents, locators, to copyrighted material. Period. Copyrighted material is not a little bit of TPB torrents, or a small minority, or half. It's the main reason it exists. If there were someway to magically make illegal torrents go away, the TPB would cease to exist.

Denying that TPB is uses primarily for distributing locators to copyrighted material shows you are either painfully ignorant, blind, or are lying.

Re:Idiot? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 5 years ago | (#27382673)

Sort of. A lot of people use it to break copyright of an still-being-sold bit of work. I'll admit, I do indeed download copyrighted material to things impossible to buy anymore from the copyright holder. BeOS builds, a copy of Trilobytes 11th hour, Adobe Photoshop 4. Who am I ripping off here?

Re:Idiot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382885)

I'd say Palm, The Learning Company and Adobe.

Well you know what they say... (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 5 years ago | (#27382401)

at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels

If you're going to encourage people to screw someone over, screw over someone who can't defend themselves!

Re:Well you know what they say... (2, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 5 years ago | (#27382655)

If you're going to encourage people to screw someone over, screw over someone who can't defend themselves!

Precisely. That is the core belief of the RIAA's clone army.

Facebook funnies thread (5, Funny)

taucross (1330311) | about 5 years ago | (#27382407)

Fred has sent you a torrent. Download?

Send 20 more torrents to get a "FUCK THE RIAA" gift!

C'mon, gimme your best shot.

What gives? (4, Interesting)

krou (1027572) | about 5 years ago | (#27382409)

I don't get it. The Pirate Bay launches a cheap, unlogged VPN in order to provide a more private service, but now they're encouraging sharing via Facebook?

You'd think that Facebook is the last place they'd want to be, since it just seems to be the complete antithesis of what I understood the Pirate Bay to be about.

Re:What gives? (1)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | about 5 years ago | (#27382461)

Now that TPB is selling a service, it is probably prudent to evaluate their actions from a profit-motive perspective.

Cheap unlogged VPNs have been around for ages. TPB's service needs something to set itself apart -- like a brand name and viral advertising. Hence facebook links.

Or maybe it's just an early April Fools joke.

Re:What gives? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 5 years ago | (#27382525)

it just seems to be the complete antithesis of what I understood the Pirate Bay to be about.

And what, exactly, is TPB about aside from helping people screw over the people who created the works listed on their site?

Re:What gives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382601)

since when do they screw people. i could give you a gun doesn't mean your going to kill your self with it but if you do then lucky us.

Re:What gives? (3, Interesting)

Felix Da Rat (93827) | about 5 years ago | (#27382575)

Personally, I think they're worried about the court case.

Even if they win, the risk of law changes is pretty big. So I think they are going whole-hog while they can. The VPN? nice side business, and may allow them to keep going with their ideals. The Facebook thing? Spread the joy, make it easier for everyone to pillage while they can. Possibly even get the benefit of mixing Facebook (now a tracker) into the mess.

I hope the guys at PB win this one (and the next as well), because they are the boys on the front line for this fight. But I think they are really working every angle they can, while they can.

Re:What gives? (1)

socsoc (1116769) | about 5 years ago | (#27382907)

FB wouldn't a tracker in this instance, more like an index or directory, hell they're just links. TPB will still be the tracker.

Yea it was kind of interesting (1)

terbo (307578) | about 5 years ago | (#27382589)

I saw this a couple of days ago looking for a torrent
of a show I missed on discovery, and thought, kind of
interesting, everywhere else is adding bookmark this,
share that, so of course thepiratebay could become more
social ..

What is shared on TPB? A lot of content, its hard to
say that its mainly pirated, but of course HDTV shows
and any free software is probably indexed by it.

When I saw it I didn't think it'd be 'slashdot' worthy,
but it was peculiar, I'm sure that for pirates that use
facebook it is going to make sharing all the easier.

Block it? Thats utterly silly, I think it is a precedent,
maybe isohunt and mininova will add this feature, as they
seem to have larger communities that release their own
media through these portals.

Has anyone tried this? (1)

dsoltesz (563978) | about 5 years ago | (#27382677)

from TFA:

It works simply: The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to âoeShare on Facebookâ. Once posted to your profile, your Facebook friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided they already have a torrenting client installed.

wtf am I missing? So, I used the Ubuntu [thepiratebay.org] example given by TorrentFreak [torrentfreak.com] (linked in the mashable article) and hit their Share on Facebook button. It posted to my FB profile as expected, but when I hit the link in my profile, it didn't start the download, it took me to the Pirate Bay page for the Ubuntu torrent [thepiratebay.org]. I have mutorrent installed... Is it just me? Maybe I need to tweek something to make the magic happen? Am I waiting for another FB redesign to go active? Or is the article completely wrong about this behavior, and then who really gives a fuck because I could have shared this on FB already through the Share on FB button I already have on my browser toolbar? (iow, this ain't news: Pirate Bay adding a link to a web page, whoopdeefuckingdoo).

Re:Has anyone tried this? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | about 5 years ago | (#27382839)

For as awesome as NewYorkCountryLawyer is with technical/legal issues, I think he didn't do precisely what you did yourself. Its the same for me, it takes me to the torrent page instead of the .torrent download. All it is is a specially crafted URL that instructs facebook to ask for your login, (or sample your cookies/authenticated sessions) and post the link to your profile. Nothing more.

Re:Has anyone tried this? (2, Interesting)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | about 5 years ago | (#27382915)

For as awesome as NewYorkCountryLawyer is with technical/legal issues, I think he didn't do precisely what you did yourself. Its the same for me, it takes me to the torrent page instead of the .torrent download. All it is is a specially crafted URL that instructs facebook to ask for your login, (or sample your cookies/authenticated sessions) and post the link to your profile. Nothing more.

Thank you very much. Now we have a record of your visit. Now we can later claim that you are a copyright infringer, even though we have no evidence of your actually having infringed any copyrights, just as we did in our p2p file sharing cases.

Your cooperation is indeed appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

-Your grateful RIAA Overlords

Don (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27382857)

If they ever had a firm case against pirate bay they'd be hitting them long time ago.
Luckily , here in EU our laws don't get created by monopoly companies .
To actually sue someone here (and TPB is EU portal) you actually need some hard evidence or you'll just waste a ton of money and publishers know that.

If we were in the US where every JonDoe can sniff your privacy and give it to court as "evidence" we'd already be in civil war or something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...