×

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!

Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links

CmdrTaco posted about 5 years ago | from the hyperlinks-are-bad-mmm-kay dept.

Social Networks 137

narramissic writes "Citing legal reasons, Facebook has ended its brief relationship with The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Bay added a 'Share on Facebook' button around two weeks ago to its site that allowed its users to post links to small information files on Facebook that are used to download audio, video, etc. via BitTorrent. Facebook is now blocking those 'bookmarklets' as well as any links from The Pirate Bay, said Peter Sunde, of The Pirate Bay. Sunde said he received an e-mail from Facebook justifying the action because of the legal proceedings against Sunde and three others. The men are awaiting return of a verdict on April 17 from a trial that concluded early last month in Stockholm. They are charged with helping to make available material under copyright."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

137 comments

CUUUUUUUNNNNTTT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27518835)

Facebook - more like Cuntbook

They haven't ended the relationship... (5, Funny)

gillbates (106458) | about 5 years ago | (#27518847)

They've just changed the status to "complicated".

Of course, we all know what comes next: In a few weeks, their status will go back to "In a relationship", and the day after prom will be suddenly changed to "single".

Here's a novel idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27518867)

Go to bittorrent

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (5, Insightful)

cellurl (906920) | about 5 years ago | (#27518923)

Thats like banning craigslist because its nasty.
I encourage people to put legitimate stuff on TPB.
I put good church sermons (occasionally) on TPB.
(I would provide a link, but TPB is blocked at work...)

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (4, Informative)

scientus (1357317) | about 5 years ago | (#27520359)

(I would provide a link, but TPB is blocked at work...)

try putting in your host file [wikipedia.org]

83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org

or setting you DNS server setting to 4.2.2.3

and then going to https://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (2, Funny)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 5 years ago | (#27520455)

Ah yes, but then the sysadmins, playing with their shiny new Deep Packet Inspection toys, might well pick you up and *wham* you get a nice little interview with Catbert.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (0)

scientus (1357317) | about 5 years ago | (#27520617)

not if you use the hosts file method. the ip address doesn't reverse resolve.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (3, Insightful)

mmclean (29486) | about 5 years ago | (#27520779)

And just how does a non-resolving reverse IP prevent detection by a Deep Packet inspection toy? I know networking isn't my IT areas of expertise, but maybe I'm missing something here ? Yeah, didn't think so. I award scientus one "you fail at teh inner tubes".

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (3, Informative)

scientus (1357317) | about 5 years ago | (#27522291)

its SSL, if you all all noticed the s, that means that almost all sniffing is averted.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (1)

scientus (1357317) | about 5 years ago | (#27520665)

also there is of course tunneling and the sort..... ...im mainly just pointing out that most "blocking" is nothing of the sort, the internet can't be blocked in the ways people attempt to block it.

Brilliant (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 5 years ago | (#27522345)

(I would provide a link, but TPB is blocked at work...)

try putting in your host file [wikipedia.org]

83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org

or setting you DNS server setting to 4.2.2.3

and then going to https://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]

Yeah, have him violate his workplace policy so he can get to the Pirate Bay.

He deserves whatever he gets if he actually listens to you.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (4, Funny)

Wild Bill TX (787533) | about 5 years ago | (#27520775)

I'm not sure I understand what place free content has on The Pirate Bay...

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (3, Interesting)

The End Of Days (1243248) | about 5 years ago | (#27521037)

Come on, get with the party line - it's not about copyright infringement, it's about openness and sharing. Sure, it's openly sharing copyrighted works, but that's not the important part.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27519277)

And countless people will comment on that or "like" it, flooding their mailboxes. Ah, 21st century.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27519651)

Not funny you lame nigger!

They can do that? (5, Insightful)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | about 5 years ago | (#27518861)

But they can't get rid of all the crap quizzes? I call shenanigans.

Re:They can do that? (5, Funny)

emocomputerjock (1099941) | about 5 years ago | (#27519229)

You can take the users out of myspace but you can't take the myspace out of the users.

Re:They can do that? (5, Interesting)

thedonger (1317951) | about 5 years ago | (#27519507)

  • mySpace = profitable
  • facebook = wants to be profitable
  • therefore, facebook becomes mySpace-like

It is already happening. Look at how much more crap on which there is to click compared with prior to the most recent update.

Re:They can do that? (3, Interesting)

Malevolyn (776946) | about 5 years ago | (#27520473)

This works in more than one way:
  • Twitter = popular and trendy.
  • Facebook = wants to be more popular and trendy (and wants the liveblogging market).
  • Therefore, Facebook's new homepage is Twitter.

Re:They can do that? (1)

fprintf (82740) | about 5 years ago | (#27519633)

I use a GreaseMonkey script to remove all those freakin' quizzes. It was making Facebook unusable. Now I am back to where I can use it again, unfortunately something in the javascript is causing my browser to slow wayy down. Unfortunately Facebook doesn't work with Javascript disabled via noscript. (you also have to include both facebook.com and some fbscnt-something or another)

Re:They can do that? (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | about 5 years ago | (#27519701)

But they can't get rid of all the crap quizzes? I call shenanigans.

Indeed.

I also think it should be illegal to discriminate against people/organisations based on law suits that haven't yet concluded. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing, you know? Not that most courts' conclusions have any bearing on the ethical reality of a situation, of course.

Re:They can do that? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 5 years ago | (#27521535)

I also think it should be illegal to discriminate against people/organisations based on law suits that haven't yet concluded.

Well, if they haven't already, they are probably going to lose their Safe Harbor immunity under the Communications Decency Act.

Let's face it. There will always be companies willing to play the filtering game and pay the penalty for it. Soon enough, every post request made against facebook will be filtered for links and compared against a huge changing list of banned web sites. And if they have the extra processing power and the extra manpower to administrate such a list, while at the same time keeping the number of extra lawsuits down to a minimum, I say all the power to them.

Re:They can do that? (5, Informative)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about 5 years ago | (#27520197)

But they can't get rid of all the crap quizzes?

I call shenanigans.

The crap quizzes bring in advertisement dollars. There's a reason you can't filter those stupid things out.

Sounds fair (5, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about 5 years ago | (#27518893)

Our company blocks facebook. :-D

And what if they used tinyurl.com or any other that does the same?

Re:Sounds fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27518945)

tinyurl would just start blocking them then.

Re:Sounds fair (0)

scientus (1357317) | about 5 years ago | (#27520415)

try setting your dns to 4.2.2.3 and then going to https://facebook.com/ [facebook.com]

Re:Sounds fair (3, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 5 years ago | (#27520853)

If they have advanced "employee watching" technologies, it will get him into major trouble. In fact, in a real business network, he can't even change DNS or even install anything.

Re:Sounds fair (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27521239)

On the network I run, even if he COULD change his DNS, it wouldn't get past the firewall. Only our internal DNS server is allowed to get a DNS request out to the internet. In fact, user computers can't get much of anything out the firewall. Only the proxy can get out with HTTP, only the mail relay can use SMTP, etc.

The rise of redirect links (4, Insightful)

davidwr (791652) | about 5 years ago | (#27518969)

I predict a sudden increase in "redirect" links like TinyURL and the like and in "human-readable" links that can't be clicked on and can't be automatically scanned for but which humans have no trouble turning into a real link.

Re:The rise of redirect links (1)

keeegan (1526067) | about 5 years ago | (#27519071)

I predict a sudden increase in the clicking of buttons labeled "Pirate Search"

Re:The rise of redirect links (5, Funny)

tjonnyc999 (1423763) | about 5 years ago | (#27519509)

I predict a sudden increase in Slashdot predictions.

Re:The rise of redirect links (1, Redundant)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 5 years ago | (#27519545)

I predict a sudden increase in semi-witty recursive slashdot posts.

Re:The rise of redirect links (1)

scientus (1357317) | about 5 years ago | (#27520481)

POSTS syndrome

POSTS On SlashdoT Syndrome syndrome

POSTS On SlashdoT Syndrome On SlashdoT Syndrome syndrome

POS...

Re:The rise of redirect links (1)

canix (1176421) | about 5 years ago | (#27519309)

I think you'll find that because most people are idiots, these links will be able to be spotted automatically. You can't make it too difficult for humans that fail the Turing test ....

Re:The rise of redirect links (1)

Whacky (1193205) | about 5 years ago | (#27519517)

Yup the link shorteners often help in disguising the source and even annoymysers helps too... I guess thats the option available for the TPB guys to implement it without being blocked by FB guys

/. is not surprised (1)

furby076 (1461805) | about 5 years ago | (#27518987)

Really when they posted the relationship story here on /. many people said "huh?" and "this can't last"...and it didn't. This is no surprise to us.

Re:/. is not surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27520279)

We are Slashdot. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

And the funny thing is... (5, Interesting)

dancingmad (128588) | about 5 years ago | (#27518997)

It's funny, because I am more trusting (I originally wrote trust, but there are no websites I trust implicitly) of the Pirate Bay not to screw around with my computer or be dicks, while I don't trust Facebook at all with my photos or private information.

Re:And the funny thing is... (2, Insightful)

slyn (1111419) | about 5 years ago | (#27520777)

That might have something to do with the fact that you don't give anything but your IP address to TPB, whereas you are giving Facebook your email address, your location, your interests (activities, tv, movies, books, music, games, sexual preference, religion, etc.), your friends, your relationships, your plans (events), your schools, your jobs, your birthday, and a plethora of pictures of yourself.

TPB has barely any information to "be dicks" with. Facebook on the other hand probably knows more about the real you than your parents do.

As far as I'm concerned, if you put your information on the web, you sacrifice your privacy, period. For me the benefits of having my cell number and email address in a place where any of my friends can see it, as well as a medium to easily communicate, share, and plan publicly outweighs the potential danger of Facebook using or selling my information.

Re:And the funny thing is... (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 5 years ago | (#27521125)

Then you had better avoid downloading any "keygens" from TPB.

Re:And the funny thing is... (3, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | about 5 years ago | (#27522497)

Then you had better avoid downloading any "keygens" from TPB.

You don't download any keygens from TPB. TPB just tells you where to look.

Pirate Bay meets Captain Obvious!!! (3, Funny)

gapagos (1264716) | about 5 years ago | (#27519115)

... I guess Captain Obvious is probably a corsair and doesn't like pirates. :-P

As if they didn't know (2, Interesting)

Len (89493) | about 5 years ago | (#27519341)

Sunde said he received an e-mail from Facebook justifying the action because of the legal proceedings against Sunde and three others.

The trial and the circus surrounding it was big news worldwide, but Zuckerberg & co. didn't notice? Really?

Re:As if they didn't know (2, Insightful)

mrbene (1380531) | about 5 years ago | (#27522279)

Not only did Facebook take two weeks to act, but when they did choose to act they acted with the presumption of guilt.

Bravo.

slashdot topics these days (0, Offtopic)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#27519397)

The articles I see on the front page are file sharing, file sharing, global warming, file sharing, file sharing... you get the idea. The pattern seems to be the norm these days.

Surely there must be something going on in the wide world that is both topical to Slashdot and not related to file sharing or global warming?

Re:slashdot topics these days (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27519575)

The articles I see on the front page are file sharing, file sharing, global warming, file sharing, file sharing... you get the idea. The pattern seems to be the norm these days.

Surely there must be something going on in the wide world that is both topical to Slashdot and not related to file sharing or global warming?

I don't know what you've done to your frontpage, but this is what I see right now (default frontpage as I'm not logged in). I see two filesharing and one global warming article, out of a total 15 articles.

Technology: Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links
Science: Sunspot Activity Continues to Drop
Your Rights Online: Privacy In BitTorrent By Hiding In the Crowd
News: French Assembly Rejects Three Strikes Bill
IT: Conficker Downloads Payload
News: AP Harasses Own Member Over AP Youtube Videos
Your Rights Online: Microsoft Ordered To Pay $388 Million In Patent Case
Science: Cracking the Code of Bacterial Communication
Entertainment: South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein
Technology: Can Mobile Broadband Solve the UK Digital Divide?
News: Climate Engineering As US Policy?
Science: Chimpanzees Exchange Meat For Sex
News: Pentagon Cyber Defense Bill Comes To $100M For 6 Months
Games: Will Wright Leaves EA/Maxis For Stupid Fun Club
Hardware: Disassembling the US Nintendo DSi

Re:slashdot topics these days (0, Redundant)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#27520813)

Quoting you:

Technology: Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links - file sharing
Science: Sunspot Activity Continues to Drop - global warming
Your Rights Online: Privacy In BitTorrent By Hiding In the Crowd - file sharing
News: French Assembly Rejects Three Strikes Bill - file sharing

One of the older stories is about global warming, too.

Re:slashdot topics these days (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 years ago | (#27519823)

Surely there must be something going on in the wide world that is both topical to Slashdot and not related to file sharing or global warming?

Perhaps you should submit some of those stories, and perhaps visit the Firehose and vote up some of the kind of stories you want to see, and vote down some of the things you don't?

Re:slashdot topics these days (5, Funny)

DeskLazer (699263) | about 5 years ago | (#27519899)

it's because filesharing is LINKED to global warming! the more we do it, the more global warming, the more the terrorists win, the more we welcome our robotic overlords!

Re:slashdot topics these days (2, Funny)

master811 (874700) | about 5 years ago | (#27521379)

That's where you are wrong ;)
 
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/881/piracyglobalwarmingd.jpg

"Instead of driving to get CDs, buying pre-packaged software from megacorporations and wasting energy, you can help fight Global Warming by using P2P. Help save resources, fight pollution and save the environment. - It's what Jesus would do."

Re:slashdot topics these days (-1, Troll)

cliffski (65094) | about 5 years ago | (#27520497)

I love the way they have swallowed the digg/torrentfreak bullshit of calling it 'file sharing' rather than theft or piracy.
What next? is care jacking just 'car sharing'?

What a joke. this site is practically an off-shoot of torrentfrek now. Its laughable to read this at the bottom:

"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc. "

I thought the /. hippies thought copyright was teh evil?

Re:slashdot topics these days (2, Informative)

funkatron (912521) | about 5 years ago | (#27521035)

I love the way they have swallowed the digg/torrentfreak bullshit of calling it 'file sharing' rather than theft or piracy. What next? is care jacking just 'car sharing'?

The term filesharing covers sharing of any file, not just slightly dodgy files.

What a joke. this site is practically an off-shoot of torrentfrek now. Its laughable to read this at the bottom:

"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc. "

I thought the /. hippies thought copyright was teh evil?

Copyright might be teh evil but it is the kind of teh evil that could pay a lot of lawyers at slashdot's expense.

Re:slashdot topics these days (1)

ferrgle (945967) | about 5 years ago | (#27520505)

Oh well, at least Slashdot has stopped me from posting stories about System Administrator Appreciation Day [sysadminday.co.uk]

Try as I might, I can't get the latest exciting news about this awsome event as a story on /.

(I think most /.ers are happy about that!)

What about Google? (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about 5 years ago | (#27519399)

Let's compare:

Piratebay:

  * links to public domain content
  * links to legal "copyrighted content"
  * links to unauthorised "copyrighted content"
  * links to open source content
  * links to creative commons-licensed content

Google:

  * links to public domain content
  * links to legal "copyrighted content"
  * links to unauthorised "copyrighted content"
  * links to open source content
  * links to creative commons-licensed content

Yahoo:

  * links to public domain content
  * links to legal "copyrighted content"
  * links to unauthorised "copyrighted content"
  * links to open source content
  * links to creative commons-licensed content

So, facebook ought to ban both Google and Yahoo.

As an aside: if you draw, photograph, type, speak & record, or write it, it's copyrighted automatically so "linking to copyrighted material" is a BS cop-out, not to mention an attempt at social engineering to get people to accept that sharing "copyrighted material" is bad. It's not. In fact many forms of copying is legal - AND COMPENSATED. Ever download an .mp3 and burn it to an audio CD disk? Years ago, did you ever record radio to an audiocassette? Do you ever store ANYTHING on DAT? If so, the RIAA has been compensated the price they agreed to for those works, because those media have levies associated with them.

Re:What about Google? (-1, Flamebait)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 5 years ago | (#27519597)

Right. Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there. All the artists, all the producers, all the everyone whose work is now available, are happy for someone else to be giving away the work they created and for which they are not being compensated for.

Just because some of the stuff on TPB might legally be able to be there doesn't justify them blatantly offering items which they know they have no right to be distributing. I'm sure if the owners had some software which they slaved over and other people were now offering for free, they'd be happy as clams to not get paid for their work.

Fire away assholes, my karma can take it.

Re:What about Google? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27519885)

Every file TPB has is a .torrent with no illegal content, yes.

Re:What about Google? (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 5 years ago | (#27520121)

Right. Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there.

US law is not international law, and even as an American I thank God for that because our patent and copyright laws (and our entire legal system in general for that matter) is now rooted in insanity, and completely ignores the guidelines the Constitution establishes for intellectual property laws. Intellectual property is public domain, but the creator is granted a temporary monopoly on that property as an incentive to create more intellectual property (sciences and useful arts) for the public good. It was never intended to provide an eternal gravy train from a shitty drawing of a mouse.

Re:What about Google? (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 5 years ago | (#27521119)

Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there.

Actually, every file TPB has is completely legal.

blatantly offering items which they know they have no right to be distributing

TPB doesn't distribute anything.

It sounds like you don't really know what TPB does.

Re:What about Google? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27521149)

No. TPB merely links to people blatantly making such content available without any compensation to the original artists, provides a neatly-sorted directory of same, encourages people to take said content without compensating the original copyright owners, directs people to tools by which they can do this, and doesn't provide any content of their own, ever. This is so clearly obviously horribly significantly different from just handing you the information that it makes it perfectly legal and moral.

Owing to a loophole in a law not designed for the internet age, we geeks will fight tooth and nail to assert that getting movies, music, and video games for free are a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT OF EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH (if not an outright responsibility), and besides somebody sometimes uploads something legal already offered on other trackers so the entire site is legal and you can't do anything about it blah blah Betamax international law WHAT I'M DOING IS PERFECTLY LEGAL DON'T TAKE MY FREE MOVIES FROM ME DOWN WITH THE MAN!!!!!!!!

Re:What about Google? (5, Insightful)

stuckinarut (891702) | about 5 years ago | (#27519717)

Years ago, did you ever record radio to an audiocassette? Do you ever store ANYTHING on DAT? If so, the RIAA has been compensated the price they agreed to for those works, because those media have levies associated with them.

Home Taping was apparently killing music back in the days of the vinyl LP 20 years ago. I distinctly remember the skull and cross bones tape logo. I'm not sure the RIAA has already been compensated except by the licence fee the broadcasters pay. Canada has a blank media tax aimed at compensating the RIAA for CDs burnt but I doubt they think it's sufficient.

Both these mechanisms for copying are limited by the ammount of blank media you can obtain and the time involved in creating copies with the media.

What scares the beejeebus out of the RIAA is that bits and bytes have an almost limitless supply for everyone aside from the almost negligble initial cost (approx £70 for 1 terrabyte == 1000's albums, way more than you can listen to in a whole years listening). The other thing is our fat internet connections can fill this limitless storage while we sleep with the products they used to be able to strictly control the supply of.

Once they wake up and realise the days of skimming a fat profit out the music industry by simply playing the middle man are over and get back to promoting artists and recouping costs by finding good acts that sell out big tours and flog merchandise that can't easily be replicated, say T-Shirts the better.

The genie is already out the bottle and isn't going back in however much they keep their corporate heads in the sand.

Re:What about Google? (-1, Troll)

gregthebunny (1502041) | about 5 years ago | (#27519993)

Until they stop selling albums with an "it is illegal to make copies of this disc" warning, I'm still going to assume that it is illegal to make copies of those discs.

Piracy is just like shagging your sister: just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Re:What about Google? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27520401)

It's illegal to read this comment.

now what?

Re:What about Google? (1)

Ontheotherhand (796949) | about 5 years ago | (#27520485)

Well, Piracy is a criminal activity. Incest is too. and chances are, if your sister is not cooperative, it might also be rape.

The fact that you are conflating copyright infringement, and a printed instruction on a disc, at that, to the equivalent of the above offences, suggests you are an RIAA lawyer?

Re:What about Google? (1)

master811 (874700) | about 5 years ago | (#27521241)

WRONG, piracy (in the form of copyright infringement) is not strictly a criminal activity in most places (unless you profit from it), and ends up only being civil case, not criminal.

Re:What about Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27521345)

The fact that you are defending copyright infringement by taking issue with a joke stolen from hot shots suggests you are douchebag.

Re:What about Google? (3, Insightful)

Quato (132194) | about 5 years ago | (#27519987)

I bet Google and Yahoo would have the PR issues of The Pirate Bay if they put a big-ass pirate flag on their site, and the majority of their search engine content was designed to point you to illegal or grey-legal content.

You can't compare Yahoo and Google to The Pirate Bay. They are not even in the same ballpark. Yahoo and Google are trying to run a search engine, and it would be impossible to filter every link they encounter for the possibility of linking illegal content.

Simply, the Pirate Bay's focus is to provide links to large files. A good portion of those large files probably shouldn't be distributed without a license. Google and Yahoo by lack of exclusion to link to copyrighted content. The Pirate Bay was designed to link to copyrighted content, and does it by inclusion. As evidence... the big-ass pirate flag.

Re:What about Google? (-1, Troll)

cliffski (65094) | about 5 years ago | (#27520449)

how about we compare which of those three services will remove content that the copyright holder claims (and proves) breaches their copyright, and which do not.

Short answer:

The piratebay don't give a fuck, the others do.

Why cant people see this? Its posted again and again, and the pro-piracy kids just don't want to hear it.

Re:What about Google? (2, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about 5 years ago | (#27520755)

TPB is not based in the US. US law does not apply. The laws which apply are the laws in the country it resides, just as Russian law drives allofmp3/mp3sparks, not US law.

It may not be legal for us to set up such a service in the US and encourage posting of links to torrents of "pirated" content, but TPB is not in the US.

When it is legal there, why SHOULD they be concerned about the "what if we were operating in the USA" scenario?

Re:What about Google? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 5 years ago | (#27520675)

Yes, and a postal worker and a drug mule is doing the same - delivering packages.

I think the weakest point in your comparison is that google pretty much indexes everything it comes across. The Pirate Bay got icons with "Trusted" or "VIP", they got moderators that remove viruses/spam/fake torrents/whatever and there's quite clearly certain criteria people are being reviewed against. They also manually create indexes for tv shows that clearly are being shared without consent from the copyright holder. The replies they've given to threatning letters is more of the same, it's not copyright infringing until a court says so.

Imagine if a drug mule used the same defense: "I did not know it was drugs, no DEA agent ever told me it was drugs so I continued to assume it was a legal package no matter what."

I think they might still get away with it because the standard of accessory is pretty high, and there's no real laws against creating an arena for copyright infringement or anything like that. But pretending at TPB is a random selection of torrents is optimistic at best. And that's not covering the tracker, which is like a middleman that never does anything directly illegal himself but puts everyone in touch with everyone else. Fortunately for them, Sweden don't have as many conspiracy charges as the US does.

Re:What about Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27522805)

You do realize that google too has trusted, VIP servers, moderators that remove viruses/spam/fake pages/whatever, and a fairly clear bit of criteria being reviewed against. And in other countries, even whole topics are moderated against.

There is much less of a distinction than one might realize. Rather, one often works with governments for the government's agendas, and one does not.

Re:What about Google? (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | about 5 years ago | (#27521053)

Ever download an .mp3 and burn it to an audio CD disk? ... If so, the RIAA has been compensated the price they agreed to for those works, because those media have levies associated with them.

There is no levy on blank CD media intended for data storage, which everyone knows works fine for audio. I've never even heard of someone who buys the levied audio CD media, and I'm an audio engineer.

Re:What about Google? (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 5 years ago | (#27522517)

Remember the short lived release of standalone cd-recorders intended for music purposes? I guess they intended for those to be the tape decks replacement. Anyway, they would reject any CD-R without certain data markings on the inner rings of the disc. All music CD-Rs had these and were kept separate from the data CD-Rs. These music CD-Rs were more expensive by virtue of the RIAA tax on them, yet had no appreciable advantage over regular data CD-Rs except for working in the standalone recorders that no one bought.

Facebook + random courts - decision (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27519433)

So Facebook recognizes the courts of Europe? What about Iranian judges? What if they contradict each other? Notice I referred only to activity before a judge. I can't say that Facebook recognizes random legal decisions because the case is still under way. There is no conviction which Facebook is using as a basis for their action. Who got a traffic ticket this morning? Has Facebook blocked you because you're involved with an officer of the court?

Re:Facebook + random courts - decision (2, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | about 5 years ago | (#27522679)

So Facebook recognizes the courts of Europe?

There are about 50 countries in Europe.

27 of them belong to the European Union.

Facebook seem to have offices in Ireland, the UK, France and Germany. Since they're all EU countries, Facebook should (presumably) recognise EU courts (IANAL).

mod 3owN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#27519587)

Dim. If *BSND is BECOME AN UNWANTED

uh (1)

Lueseiseki (1189513) | about 5 years ago | (#27519621)

So? Wasn't this going to invariably happen anyway? There's no way Facebook was going to let this kind of publicity continue.

Draw the line? (3, Insightful)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | about 5 years ago | (#27519981)

Granted, Facebook is owned (I assume) by some company, group of companies, individual or group of individuals, and as owner of Facebook it/he/she/they can decide what rules apply to material posted on Facebook. For the rest of us, we are left with two mutually exclusive choices: live by the rules, or leave Facebook.

However, I wonder how far they are willing to take this. If providing a link to a link to (possibly) 'illegal'(*) material is against FB rules, is a link to a link to a link OK? Or what about a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link?

For rest assured, no matter where FB draws the line, it can be gotten around. And _will_ be gotten around!

And what about posting links to Google search result pages, with searches like "mp3 Madonna filetype:torrent"? If they are to treat all equally, even a link like that should be blocked.





* I write 'illegal', knowing full well that it is most likely not the material itself that is illegal, but making it accessible to others without the copyright owner's permission.

Re:Draw the line? (2, Informative)

DJGrahamJ (589019) | about 5 years ago | (#27520677)

It's already gotten around. Just replace the domain name in the URL with 83.140.176.200 or use something like tinyurl.

Shitface-Book (5, Interesting)

flibuste (523578) | about 5 years ago | (#27521381)

Facebook has a serious censorship problem:

They happily keep violent/nazi/negationists sites up and running, but will censor a breast-feeding site or a site from people who have YET to be proven guilty of any wrongdoing (let's remind everyone that being on trial doesn't make you guilty).

Seriously, people using Facebook should consider why they're doing this. It's funny to see how M$ gets easily bashed each time they move a finger, but Facebook gets away with pretty much everything.

I must be missing something (3, Insightful)

Presto Vivace (882157) | about 5 years ago | (#27521429)

But Pirate Bay seems to take the view that because something is technically possible it is acceptable, or at least no one can stop us. I just don't have much sympathy for that point of view. I watched their agit-prop Steal this Film [stealthisfilm.com] and it seems to me that Pirate Bay is unable to distinguish between Free Speech and Free Beer.

Verdict isn't even out yet (1)

danheretic (689990) | about 5 years ago | (#27522453)

Sunde said he received an e-mail from Facebook justifying the action because of the legal proceedings against Sunde and three others. The men are awaiting return of a verdict on April 17 from a trial that concluded early last month in Stockholm.

Don't you just love guilt by accusation?

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...