×

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 Founders Go Legit With BayFiles

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-with-90%-less-stuff dept.

Piracy 151

An anonymous reader writes "The founders of The Pirate Bay, possibly the best-known BitTorrent tracking service in existence, are going legit with a new file-sharing site which they claim will adhere to all copyright rules and takedown requests. BayFiles, as the new service is named, isn't BitTorrent powered. Instead, the site borrows its method of operation from the likes of Megaupload and RapidShare: a user selects a file and uploads it to the site via their web browser, after which it becomes available for anyone to download, assuming they have the link."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

151 comments

So same thing really (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253044)

Just that instead of torrents they use filesharing. I wonder why. Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

Re:So same thing really (1)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253158)

Just that instead of torrents they use filesharing.

I suppose you mean "direct downloading".

Re:So same thing really (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253222)

Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

How about, you know, TPB?

Re:So same thing really (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253316)

Never used it for my uploads. Is it as simple as uploading the file and getting a link to share with your buddies?

For a start you'd probably have to seed it, so not really the same thing.

Re:So same thing really (2)

lm2s (2432822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253272)

Just that instead of torrents they use filesharing. I wonder why. Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

Why? Because with BayFiles they will make money off the files being shared. Simple. But of course that is not their true intent. Truly they just believe there is the need of, yet, another file sharing service, because the hundreds that exist just aren't good enough :)

Re:So same thing really (2)

fbjon (692006) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253306)

I'd say most of those hundreds really aren't good enough.

Re:So same thing really (2)

spazdor (902907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255814)

Cosigned. If I have to twiddle thumbs at another jinkety-ass homescript "countdown before I'll give you your download link" page I'm going to gore myself to death with a Jolt can.

Re:So same thing really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253564)

because the hundreds that exist just aren't good enough :)

That's why there's already a waiting time and you can't use download managers?

Re:So same thing really (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253444)

There's nothing stopping you from using The Pirate Bay to host torrents of your own files if you want.

Re:So same thing really (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254496)

This is a step further though.

1) Upload a pirated file to BayFiles and tell everyone you can.
2) It gets downloaded and a torrent posted to TPB.
3) Take-down notice is issued to Bayfiles and they immediately remove the content.
4) It lives on as long as people are interested enough to seed.

Plus, TPB has done due diligence by immediately and without question removing all infringing content from their sites.

Re:So same thing really (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253886)

Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

There are several torrent sites that actively prevent copyright infringing torrents, but allow you to upload your own files or those where sharing is permitted by the copyright holder. Google for "legal bittorrent sites"

April 1st? (0)

choongiri (840652) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253050)

> The Pirate Bay Founders Go Legit

Bwahahahahahaha

Re:April 1st? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253128)

yeah, that's an incredibly misleading tagline. it's not like they're taking down the pirate bay, they're just adding a new service. big deal.

Re:April 1st? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253184)

How more legit does it get:

"you agree that we may apply that policy to your account or subscription in our sole judgment based upon a suspicion on our part or a notification we receive regardless of proof of infringement. "

The TOS document doesn't appear to have been written by a native English speaker, so the MAFIAA is off the hook, but it's clearly inspired by them

Re:April 1st? (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254710)

My favorite part is describing PirateBay as "possibly the best-known BitTorrent tracking service in existence." It's the best-known piracy site.

Re:April 1st? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255488)

It's the best-known piracy site.

No, I'm pretty sure that's the Coast of Somalia.

By the way, their description is wrong too, TPB doesn't run a tracker anymore.

Hey, worked for Napster (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253064)

Anyone remember back when Napster only dealt with pirated files?

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (1)

SebZero (1051264) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253170)

Who? ;-)

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254220)

NapSter i think was a site dedicated to sharing your siesta experiences with other people like twitter.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253176)

Nap... whatnow?

Face it, no filesharing service survives "going legit".

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (5, Funny)

isorox (205688) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253372)

Nap... whatnow?

Face it, no filesharing service survives "going legit".

Napster was that company founded by Justin Timberlake

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (1)

crispylinetta (1639533) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255224)

Some people (well one person) would argue that Napster was that company that Justin Timberlake STOLE from Seth Green.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (1)

d.the.duck (2100600) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254824)

Because it's not "filesharing" then.... it's filepaying (like Napster) or "(some)filesharing" where you can only share "some" things.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253182)

Anyone remember Napster after they went legit? Me neither.

The TPB founders can start their own ice cream stand, for all I care. As long as the original Pirate Bay is left intact with all its cost-free, educational goodness. I'll wait and see how things turn out before I buy one of their T-shirts.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254318)

I remember, from when the relaunched Napster legal-download site was closed down. Taking with it the DRM licence servers, and thus destroying the music collections of all those who had purchased music from the service. I remember, because that was when I felt the feeling of smug 'I told you this would happen' satisfaction.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (1)

brit74 (831798) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255200)

Napster (http://www.napster.com) shut down?

Re:Hey, worked for Napster (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255904)

Yeah, news to me, as well. I'm, *gasp*, even a subscriber. Android and iApp, browser-based interface... it has it's issues, but it's still going strong. And better than Spotify, IMO.

Adhere to takedown requests (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253132)

So, basically, if the copyright holder complains, the file will be removed. But, if Rapidshare et al. are any instance, it'll promptly be reuploaded under a different name. Encrypted and password locked so the RIAA won't know it's there unless they manually go out and search all the sites linking to it. Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced. Perfectly legally, of course.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253250)

I agree. If they want to go truly legit, files should be unencrypted and pre-screened by a human prior to the file being made available to the public. If they aren't doing that, then they really can't claim they are going legit. Not that I'm saying anybody wants a service like that, but it's really the only way to make sure things are "legit"

Viacom v. YouTube (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253336)

Even YouTube, Google's video sharing service, doesn't go to that length. It does what the law (17 USC 512) requires, namely taking down a file in response to a notice of claimed infringement, even if it appears to take longer than legally allowed to put files back after a counter-notice. A U.S. district court in New York affirmed the legitimacy of YouTube's processes last year.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253446)

Yeah, but youtube has a couple of limitations that make it different than a site such as this. First, all the files it hosts are videos. So that changes the type of content they have to deal with. Second, all the files uploaded to Youtube are not encrypted. This makes it possible for Youtube to see if the content is actually infringing. The way these file sharing sites usually work, is that encrypted rars are uploaded with non-descript file names. This way the authorities have no way to discover which files are pirated unless they scour the forums, looking for the passphrase. Thirdly, Youtube's content is completely searchable and discoverable by any user. This site on the other hand, the only way to find any content is to already have the link. Again making it really difficult for copyright holders to track down who is sharing their content. Since these sites have completely different service models, I would have to say that we should wait until it goes to court (if it ever does) before we decide just how legit it is. Just from an outside perspective, it seems like it will be just like any other rapidshare/megaupload/whatever site where 99.9% will be pirated content, and the rest will be homework assignments from people who forget their USB stick.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253540)

Second, all the files uploaded to Youtube are not encrypted. This makes it possible for Youtube to see if the content is actually infringing.

Does the holding in Viacom v. YouTube require a service provider to perform proactive policing analogous to Content ID in order to qualify for the safe harbor protection of section 512?

Thirdly, Youtube's content is completely searchable and discoverable by any user.

Not if a video's title and description are encrypted.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube (1)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254536)

You could probably come up with a way of encrypting the whole file and keeping it as video (static).

Post it to youtube, link in your whatever to the tool to decrypt it. Use a youtube downloader, etc.

Probably could even automate grabbing the 15 minute segments and restoring them into say, the length of a feature film, if you had some home video of that length. ;)

Re:Viacom v. YouTube (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255618)

You could put a QR Code in each frame ;) Use dd to read a block, pipe it to qrencode to create the frame, use ffmpeg to create the video from the frames.

Some fast calculations estimate 24 minutes of video at 25fps for each 100MB.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255328)

Even YouTube, Google's video sharing service, doesn't go to that length.

Youtube doesn't do human screening, but they go much further then just reacting to infringement claims, they actively scan and fingerprint all content and then automatically block it before the rights holder even notices it. They are also in contractual relationship with the publishers to allow certain things to be available on Youtube. Or in the case of Germany, not available, as a videos containing copyrighted music are blocked aggressively, due to failure to reach an agreement with the local music rights management organization.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253830)

You not only need a human but also a way to identify copyrighted material. Such a way doesn't exist. Copyright proponents have never bothered to give a way for honest people to go legit. There are no computer-exploitable catalog of copyrighted works, there is not even a coherent definition of what constitutes an infrigement or a copyrighted work.

Going legit has been made as impossible as going legal.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255650)

There is, Youtube has one. It's far from complete, but any copyright owner can add their works, as far as I know.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254728)

I think physical mail companies are legit even if they don't open all mail to make sure that the mail doesn't contain any copyrighted material. If you tell them that some particular mail actually contains a bomb, they'll deal with it, but otherwise they don't screen the mail you send. I don't think there is a difference in that principle when sending digital goods.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254932)

So I guess banks aren't legit because when you open up a safety deposit box, they don't have someone from the bank watching your every move and tallying everything you put in the box. Because, who knows, maybe you put some pirated software in there?

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253296)

less chance of downloaders being traced

yes/no

Will Bayfiles pass information about uploaders on to third parties?
If we are legally obliged to turn over information about the origin of a file, we will fulfill that obligation. The legal circumstancees will be evaluated individually in each case. Without a legal basis, no information will be given to third parties.

Of course, they'll point out that they adhere to the DMCA and that anybody complaining should really just go through its steps (which, as you point out, is what offers a lot of protection for 'pirates', despite the flak it gets for abuse). And if the uploader was in some random internet café, then that information won't be of any use either.

Also from your list you forgot the easier monetization. This seems to be set up like many other such services, with premium accounts for those wanting immediate / faster downloads, etc.

Honestly, most people over here (NL) are either stuck in the world of Shareaza and the like, or have moved on to 'news' servers (where for $10/month the 'news' is the latest album/movie/game/application/ebook releases).

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255334)

DMCA? Who cares, that's a US law and last time I checked the guys that founded TPB were Swedes and a Finn. I'm pretty sure they weren't dumb enough to host it in the US. Let's try it again, US law applies on US soil not everywhere.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253960)

Actually, if the RIAA wants to make file sharing as painful as possible then they couldn't have done any better than to encourage the use of site like rapidshare... these pay to play sites are a serious pain in my ass and whenever I see a link to one I run away is if it were the plague. Painful, useless, and annoying. Bit torrent will never die, bastards!

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255550)

It's called JDownloader, it simulates all activities required to download a file, and prompts you for capthcas. Just enqueue, and forget about waiting for 45 seconds.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255024)

Legit = Legal, No law mandates human inspection.
And quit giving them damn Ideas OK.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255544)

Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced.

You forgot the best part: BayFiles cost you $5 a month or else you get a nasty 30 second wait and have to enter a CAPTCA before you can download a file. It's a perfectly way to make lots of money from copyright violation while staying outside of the reach of the law. So it's not so much that they are going legit, it's just that they are using a different (and rather successful) loophole.

Totally Legit, Easily Abused (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253144)

Here's what I got from the article. It's registered in South America from Hong Kong company. Once you upload a file, you get a link but there is no way to search across uploaded files. So basically you can share that link out with only your close friends and no one else could possibly know about it and there was no mention of Bayfiles inspecting or fingerprinting these files actively -- only when issued a DMCA from a copyright holder.

I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.

Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.

How is the RIAA (or anybody else) supposed to find files on here that violate their copyright? Sure, you can't post your link in a forum that will be found via Google but for close knit meshes of sharers, this is a dream come true (just like Usenet or even the Dropbox accounts my friends share).

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253322)

nice exec summary :)

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253326)

You could say the same for any upload site; the problem is when links to copywritten content are shared publicly. Of course then it makes it possible to find and send in a DMCA takedown request.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

d4fseeker (1896770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253334)

In other words: you just described how sites like RapidShare, MegaUpload, and the like have been doing it for years now ;)

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253356)

How is the RIAA (or anybody else) supposed to find files on here that violate their copyright?

The same way they find files shared on LANs and sneakernets in college dorms: Moles. Lots of moles.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (2)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253906)

OK, I'm picturing Keanu Reeves saying "Moles. Lots of Moles." and then all these shelves full of blind burrowing rodents come flying past. You did that - hope you're happy now.

...I'm the mole. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254276)

That or Tom Cruise voice-acting a furry Ethan Hunt in a funny-animal version of Mission: Impossible.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253362)

Depending on how you name the file, other people could access what you upload by searching on google. If it's available to anyone then you could potentially find it. Especially if the person shares the link on another site.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255912)

Or some third party could start some sort of site that indexes the files that are uploaded...you could call it, I dunno...deluge...flood...

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253574)

Since when does the DMCA apply to a South America registered via Hong Kong?

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255058)

That's why it's legit.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253602)

I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.

The DMCA allows copyright holders to subpoena the personal information of the uploader from the ISP. The copyright holder then has every remedy available to him by law.

Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.

Exactly how it should be. A free transaction between two willing parties. There's no reason to get any third parties involved.

This is one of the reasons why copyright is impossible to enforce. You literally have to inspect every communication between everyone.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (2)

dada21 (163177) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253916)

I run a print shop and we constantly need to snag installers for old software that is no longer supported by the manufacturers. One example RIP program that we use (and paid over $5000 for, mind you) no longer works with the dongle key that came with it.

So we traveled over to the dark side of the software world and snagged a great cracked copy. Works wonders. A year later our install was corrupted and we lost the installer, so I went back and downloaded it again (thanks, MegaUpload!). No issues.

Today, we lost our install again, went back to the forum to grab the link and MegaUpload had nuked it because the copyright owner asked to remove it. Thankfully I found a USB key from a year ago with the installer and we're back in service -- "pirating" software I've already paid $5000 for plus around $3000 for all the annual support subscriptions. The copyright owner, who has little reason to actively attack this old software, still spends time trolling the bootleg forums to specifically find these links.

And that's how it will continue to be -- companies with high cost software definitely troll the many bootleg forums to report to the content sharing hosts and have the ISOs removed. This said software is probably 10 years old (older?), and is sub-par compared to all the modern apps available. Yeah, I should probably get a new license and upgrade, but we're using it on a 12 year old printer that we run maybe twice a month, and it works just fine with the old software I paid for and want to run.

Hopefully, TPB does a better job at UX/UI versus MegaUpload and RapidShare, who have some of the most annoying interfaces imaginable.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254370)

Your fourth paragraph explains: If people can keep on using the old software via pirate source, and it does what they need, why would they pay for upgrades? In many cases, a software companies greatest competitor is themselves from five years ago.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255738)

Good, that will encourage them to actually write new and interesting programs instead of regurgitating the same things over and over.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254484)

criminal!

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254042)

A dream come true?

Warez groups and forums have been using filesharing sites(rapidshare, megaupload, etc) to do this for years.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255054)

You sound like you care about the RIAA, or even MPAA. Do you work for them? Have they done anything for you lately other than use their money to abuse the freedom of the Internet by means of Government enforcement, to serve their own monopolistic and monetary goals?

I've seen you on here before, so I'm wondering why you ended your post as if, in the scheme of content online, the **AA have the largest stake in it all.

Just an observation.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255478)

it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.

Even better: Upload files, create a torrent using this as a web seed. You won't need to seed it yourself (granting better anonymity) and by the time the file has become popular enough to be noticed and targeted by DMCA, it's probably already propagated too far for the web seed to be necessary anyway.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255764)

In most legislations it's perfectly legal to let your friends make copies of your music or movies or whatever. That doesn't change because you're doing it over the net. It's when you make it available to the public that it becomes illegal.

Huh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253178)

the site borrows its method of operation from the likes of Megaupload and RapidShare

Yeah, it's called HTTP, you may have heard of it.

No torrent, no download (5, Insightful)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253230)

Which no one will use.

People (legitimate uploads at least) put their files on Pirate Bay because it offloads the server work and increases their customer base. Almost like free advertising for their software. You go to TPB, see what files are popular and download them. You might download software you could never have heard of since you have no other contact with that company. Can't go download something from a website you never heard of. And since it was torrents, popular files you could get in no time vs going to the company's main website for a direct download which could take way longer if they didn't invest in their servers/connections. Going rapidshare style almost blows the whole point of going to TPB.

Re:No torrent, no download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253566)

I hope you run MD5 checks on the files you get from TB. otherwise already ice a nice zombie name for your computer.

Re:No torrent, no download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253832)

Wow people actually use tpb for things like that?
I just google for "MOVIE_OR_FILM_NAME pirate bay" or "SOFTWARE_NAME pirate bay".
Didn't realize people actually browse through all the crap to find anything.

Re:No torrent, no download (0)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254792)

Trying to portray PirateBay as a legitimate software listing or server offload service is hilarious. It's a piracy site--its main function is as a piracy site, and the majority of its users are using it to pirate so they don't have to pay the creators of the material for their work. That's the "whole point of going to TPB," not browsing the popular downloads section to look for legitimate, unknown software to download (that would be a nice way to get your computer infected).

Re:No torrent, no download (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255116)

I never said it didn't have piracy on it. But it does have legitimate users from legitimate companies with legitimately free software uploading to it as well. My point was pertaining to that topic. Reasons why legitimate traffic would or would not go to the new website verses the old Pirate Bay.

Re:No torrent, no download (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255658)

Piratebay guys aren't doing this to be legit.

it's easier to pirate and no worry of antip2p scraping the torrent for ip's

now it's like megaupload who is huge in the pirate business

for example

Icefilms moved over to an all megaupload solution http://www.icefilms.info/ [icefilms.info]

Thor http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IUBDT2GZ [megaupload.com]

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K3VZ3O80 [megaupload.com]

Whistleblower http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JV45BJ01 [megaupload.com]

Now using megaupload it's harder and no 3rd party antip2p scraper is going to get your ip address. Megaupload supposedly doesn't keep their logs of what ip downloads what. So if they get a dmca request, they remove the file. But there is a script called RapidLeech: http://www.rapidleech.com/ [rapidleech.com]

Rapidleech automatically puts the file back in place from remote sites as a link dies.

usually much handier for pirates since don't have to worry with peerblock, antip2p lists keeping updated and 3rd party antip2p companies sniffing ip's from torrent swarms.

So as they mention in the http://suprbay.org/ [suprbay.org] linked off piratebay's site. This way it's safer for the pirates, and since it's a direct download it will become a hell of a lot more safer. Since megaupload has been offering pirates the same thing for many years now. And rapidleech puts the files back as soon as they are removed.

Always check http://icefilms.info/ [icefilms.info] for link updates

obedience is not starting the new site (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253358)

Is it possible to run a user supplied file sharing site without eventually if not immediately being accused of aiding copyright infringement? What will they do after they are inundated with DMCA takedown notices? After they are sued?

Seems likely the whole thing is some kind of ploy. Appeasing the music industry doesn't sound possible. Perhaps they aim for appeasement of the courts?

Cite Viacom v. YouTube (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253476)

What will they do after they are inundated with DMCA takedown notices?

Presumably the same thing YouTube does: take stuff down, forward the notice to the uploader, and wait for the uploader to file a counter-notification.

After they are sued? Cite Viacom v. YouTube and get a summary judgment in favor of BayFiles.

Re:obedience is not starting the new site (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37255660)

Is it possible to run a user supplied file sharing site without eventually if not immediately being accused of aiding copyright infringement?

There are numerous filehosters (Rapidshare, Megaupload, Hotfile, etc.) around with exactly the same business model and user interface (nag the user with CAPTCA and 30sec wait into buying premium accounts) and while some of them had a little bit of legal trouble, I don't think any of them ever had to close down or even pay damages. So yes, that business models seems to work quite well.

Premium membership (1)

johnny_and1 (2450132) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253364)

If you don't get the premium membership your download speed will be xyz kb/s. Can somebody translate that to me ? That's written on the page of the bayfiles premium membership [bayfiles.com] .

Re:Premium membership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37253716)

If you don't get the premium membership your download speed will be xyz kb/s. Can somebody translate that to me ?

It's obviously base 36. Converting to decimal gives you 44027 kb/s

Re:Premium membership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254424)

I like how they say "Only your connection speed will dictate your download speed" and then go on to (attempt to) quote a figure in kb/s.

If the Studios were smart.... (1)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253440)

They'd include a link to buy a copyright license right next to the download. Might as well earn their buck or two where the people get their shows. Sell a reloadable card at 7-11 for people that want to be anonymous. It's about timing and convenience. Let the download service keep 15 cents.

They'd double their profits.... duh.

BayFiles (5, Funny)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37253710)

Then I shall have to make a webcrawler for it, and I shall have to call it BayWatch. Surely that name is available?

Re:BayFiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37254128)

The Pirate Bay opens a 'legitimate' site and you're still finding ways to infringe on copyrights, for shame!

Re:BayFiles (1)

TheFakeMcCoy (1485631) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254950)

Damn beat me to it, I was thinking Baywatch would have been a new team assembled by the Motion Picuture Industry to monitor and send takedown notices.

BayFiles? Really? (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254240)

That name brought mayflies to mind first time I read it. And if the takedown rules are for real, that may be a telling descriptor of how this thing will work.

Bayfile: n. A transient stored file that is taken down quickly. Usage: "It was here and gone like a Bayfile."

Why not Amazon S3 ? (2)

DalDei (1032670) | more than 2 years ago | (#37254844)

What purpose does this serve that Amazon S3 doesnt ? Is it the "free" part or is there a category/search/index to help find your "legitimate" files ? Amazon S3 even supports torrents. No takedowns required. Push files, make them public. Sit back. Oh you pay some $ ... but very little.

checksum collisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37255670)

Their privacy policy says they will delete previously removed files solely based on the SHA-1 checksum of the file. So what happens when there's checksum collisions?

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...