Beta
×

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 Launches Free VPN

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the vpn-ahoy dept.

The Internet 359

bs0d3 writes "The Pirate Bay team is going to be making the RIAA angry, with the launch of a new ad-supported VPN service. PrivitizeVPN is available for free from The Pirate Bay. Instead of earning revenue through subscription as ipredator does, PrivitizeVPN comes packaged to install the Babylon search bar (adware). PrivitizeVPN appears to be available for Windows users only at the moment. The Pirate Bay staff has a long history of promoting services that have no logs; e.g. , you can't get in trouble if your anonymized IP is subpoenaed by government officials. Although PrivitizeVPN is being released silently, with no press coverage, no official statement, and no comments from The Pirate Bay of any kind, people are assuming that PrivitizeVPN will have the same familiar data protection policies. A backup download location has been setup here for people who have limited access to the Pirate Bay domain."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138041)

what a bunch of tossers

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (2, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138085)

Theft implies loss of property.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138111)

wooosh!

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138125)

or loss of earnings.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (4, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138723)

No, that's called competition.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1, Flamebait)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138133)

Theft implies loss of property.

That is true, but doesn't make piracy less wrong.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138181)

Theft implies loss of property.

That is true, but doesn't make piracy less wrong.

Actually it does. If you buy something and share it with someone that is good not bad.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1, Interesting)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138233)

No, it's called stealing no matter how much you want to try and rationalize it.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (5, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138341)

It's not called stealing. It is called infringement, but it isn't stealing by *any* definition.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138547)

>It's not called stealing. It is called infringement, but it isn't stealing by *any* definition.

Blah blah blah. Referring to a cowpatty as fertilizer doesn't make it smell any better.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138571)

Yeah but taking a sniff of that smell doesn't prevent anyone else from smelling it.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1, Troll)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138743)

If you want to be taken seriously, try using actual descriptions that match what you're talking about. Otherwise you're just another AC troll....

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (5, Informative)

xevioso (598654) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138577)

If I have an orange in my hand and you take it from me, I no longer have the orange. I now have one orange LESS than I had before. That is stealing.

If I have a cd in my hand and you copy that CD, I still have the CD in my hand. I do NOT have one LESS cd than I had before.

Small children can detect the difference between these two scenarios; but to some people they are equivalent. I have no clue why that that is.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138691)

not about the frikkin plastic disc though is it.

tard.

the IP owner has one less potential sale because you deprived them of earning potential.

if they want to give away promos that's up to them. it's not your right.

if I take your car, there's still the same number of cars on the planet, so that would be ok I guess.

even a small child could understand that.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138801)

So do You plan on criminalizing the loss of potential sales, then?
How about a bad review, then? It certainly limits the earning potential of the imaginary property owner, as some people might trust this reviewer and don't buy a CD. It's definitely a loss of a potential sale, isn't it?

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1, Troll)

fan777 (932195) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138709)

So what you are saying is a musician should only be able to sell their music once? Or, since this is slashdot, you write a pretty great application... you are okay with selling it once and then everybody else can just get a CD copied from their buddy?

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138843)

So what you are saying is a musician should only be able to sell their music once?

Who the fuck said that?

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138715)

> Small children can detect the difference between these two scenarios; but to some people they are equivalent. I have no clue why that that is.

It is because they are lawyers and politicians. They are impervious to logic or reality.

Everyone else, once they think a bit about it, can see that "intellectual property" is an oxymoron [cat-v.org] .

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138721)

If I have an orange in my hand and you take it from me, I no longer have the orange. I now have one orange LESS than I had before. That is stealing.

If I have a cd in my hand and you copy that CD, I still have the CD in my hand. I do NOT have one LESS cd than I had before.

Small children can detect the difference between these two scenarios; but to some people they are equivalent. I have no clue why that that is.

And is it wrong if I lend you my CD, you rip the CD and give it back? Pretty sure that is called "fair use". Look it up.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (4, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138727)

Because it is not about the orange or the CD. It is about the money in your wallet. You have it. They don't and they want it, so it must be theft, because otherwise they would have it.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138761)

Because you are focusing on the end user rather than the producer. If you take something, without paying for it when you are legally required to is called what?

Small children also know it's wrong to take things without paying for them. What is your point? That you think of things in terms of small children?

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138243)

only if it's yours to share. if you are granded a non-exclusive license to view/use or whatever with no distribution rights, it's not "good".

don't like the constraints, don't buy the product.

those who think it's ok, hope your house gets broken into. am sure the thief thought that was ok too.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138379)

The problem is the "Guilty until proven innocent" take on the stuff I do by legally. Why am I not allowed to copy it however I see fit? I bought it, and by 'it' I mean a license to use it, so I can use it wherever I like.

And if you want to argue I need a new license for every different 'use' of it, well you'll find most people won't agree with you when you explain that...

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138301)

Theft implies loss of property.

That is true, but doesn't make piracy less wrong.

Actually it does. If you buy something and share it with someone that is good not bad.

At least, that's what Jesus and our Kindergarten teachers told us.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138333)

These people don't realize that IP law is just freedom infringing bullshit and that sharing is a good thing.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138447)

and what about the freedom of those who create content to make a living.

you talentless selfish assh0le.

go make your own movies/music/games/whatever & share that under an unrestricted license if you want.

what you do with your own 5hit is your business. what others do with their is their business.

selfish talentless pirate d1ckhead5.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138481)

They have all the freedom to create or not. They do not the sacred right of exclusive control over which they created though.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138551)

drop the word "sacred" out of that & you're right. with the word, you're implying a deity.

prove that deity exists and you might be onto something :)

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138661)

drop the word "sacred" out of that & you're right

Okay:

They have all the freedom to create or not. They do not the right of exclusive control over which they created though.

So basically you just ceded the argument to him completely, but then tried to avoid admitting it by changing the subject.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138853)

no, I didn't quite finish that. I know what I mean :)

let me try again.

drop the word "sacred" out & you're just plain wrong under current IP law. without law we have anarchy, which can be fun at times but we all have to live together & get on without killing each other. or at least that is the optimal position from both sides of the fence.

with the word you're implying a deity, which unless you can prove it only lives in your head.

that is called 'insanity'. mad people tend to do whatever without regard for the consequences, which pretty much sums up the other side of the argument.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1, Funny)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138219)

That is true, but doesn't make piracy less wrong.

That's right. Piracy off the coast of Somalia is plain wrong.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138259)

It's true the boarding a ship at sea, and steeling it cargo is wrong, all though the majority of (Elizabethan) piracy was performed by government license and so may be considered a form of warfare.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138377)

Since when was war anything other than robbery and murder? How is that right?

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138511)

Well historically right and wrong has been defined by the wining side. That is why we shouldn't give too much credit to people saying stuff is "wrong". They just don't really understand the concept.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1)

xevioso (598654) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138609)

Is this really true? I had never head the numbers about whether or not most pirates in the 18th century were actual "privateers". I wonder what the actual percentages really are.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138327)

What determines how wrong 'piracy' is is the individual's own moral code.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (2)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138559)

I don't have a big moral problem with free file sharing only because the people this harms (MAFIAA) are such immoral scam that they deserve the treatment way worse than this. They are greedy assholes who are going around harassing and suing single mothers for ridiculous amounts of damages. This waaaay overshadows everything file sharers do.

BTW, I know people who download content illegally on principle, just because they don't want to give any money to this scum.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138489)

Theft implies loss of property.

That is true, but doesn't make piracy less wrong.

Yes, it does make it less wrong. A lot less wrong, in fact. It just doesn't make it right.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138543)

That is true, but doesn't make piracy less wrong.

Cheating on your spouse is wrong but it shouldn't be a crime.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138719)

It would be impossible to make something that isn't wrong... less wrong. So you are correct.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138189)

I'm curious, does it creep you out every time you hear someone say the government has to pay for tax cuts?

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138523)

Drop the property meme. It's rubbish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services [wikipedia.org]

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138099)

The RIAA is probably behind this, Babylon search bar is a far worse punishment than thier frivolous lawsuits.

Re:so you lot are promoting ip theft now ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138213)

No, they're handing out their own IPs.

BEWARE (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138045)

honeypot!

Why Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138083)

If anything, running Windows traffic through a VPN is like putting 20 inch rims on an '89 Corolla. It's already insecure.

Jokes aside, I wouldn't mind trying it out on a couple virtual machines to see what it'll do. Maybe they can develop a *nix version that doesn't require the adware.

Re:Why Windows? (3, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138211)

You seem to be missing the point. The whole goal is the adware, why would they make a version that doesn't have it?

Re:Why Windows? (2)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138221)

I don't get your analagy. How would changing the rims have any affect in making your car more secure? Is the analogy not about security and just a comment in general? Something like, "A 89 Carolly is already shitty beyond hope, so why bother putting rims on it?".

Ironically, the funniest part of your comment is right after the "Jokes Aside" comment where you suggest that there might be a *nix version that dosen't require adware. Get out of the basement!, Also, someone is stealing the rims off your Carolla.

Re:Why Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138299)

I had a teacher called Carolla. She drives a Corolla.

Re:Why Windows? (2)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138451)

just run it full time in a VM, or on a spare machine you don't care about.

at that point, who cares?
"This adware can totally see everything I do on my computer... which is... download torrents. that's it."

Legit? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138095)

This would be the worlds greatest honeypot if it was setup by the **AA themselves.

Babylon search bar is not optional (1, Interesting)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138101)

It seems I cannot opt out of installing the search bar during installation. Too bad, I will never get to try it out.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (2)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138127)

too bad no one reads TFA

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138315)

Which "TFA", exactly? Do you mean the primary one that is nothing more than a download link? What exactly was this target of your ire supposed to read, the raw data stream of the download?

(I know you meant the third link in the summary as "TFA", but there was humor to be had from your omission.)

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138137)

The irony of those would rather avoid the various 'extras' included with DVDs, now having to submit to an 'extra' ad-bar...Hilarity ensues!

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138171)

It seems I cannot opt out of installing the search bar during installation.

So sandbox it in a VM; that's my plan.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (4, Interesting)

bs0d3 (2439278) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138291)

it worked weird from sandboxie, it was tricky to stop after; just bust it open with uniextrator and run the exe without the ads like tfa says

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (4, Interesting)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138791)

OK so I installed this on a VM (MS Virtual PC 2007, running XP) and it has installed fine. However, DESPITE EXPLICITLY SELECTING NOT TO INSTALL BABYLON, it still installed. Regardless I'm not bothered, easy enough to uninstall.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138177)

I opted out during install just fine

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (4, Informative)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138381)

You can opt of setting babylon as you default search engine and home page. But you cannot opt out of installing their toolbar. It also seems to install iNTERNET Turbo, which I would consider yet another spyware.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138245)

Install in a VM.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138271)

That's odd. The very first dialogue window that free_vpn_secure.exe opens allows you to opt out of installing both easily. How did you miss that?

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138281)

It seems I cannot opt out of installing the search bar during installation. Too bad, I will never get to try it out.

Yeah, but its easy to remove afterwards.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138293)

It seems I cannot opt out of installing the search bar during installation. Too bad, I will never get to try it out.

Are you trying to tell me that the level of technical finesse possessed by the average slashdotter is insufficient to defeat a toolbar install? I'm going to download this into a vmware session right now to see what horribly intrusive and nasty malware this i--er... wait a second. Google just updated. Ah. It's just an ordinary toolbar [ehow.com] , uninstallable in the traditional fashion provided by the operating system.

Deeeeeerp.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138431)

I would never be sure that I completely got rid of it. So I would never install it on my primary workstation.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (2)

maxdread (1769548) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138515)

What a shocker, you can't disable the advertising on an advertising supported service!

If you don't like the search bar, there is an option without the search bar... You just need to pay for it.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138599)

That is exactly what I am doing now, I do pay for my current VPN service. I only wanted to test their service without installing spyware. I went ahead and installed in a dedicated VM now, though.

Re:Babylon search bar is not optional (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138749)

Not too-too bad, I have half a decent system at home, I run 2-3 VMs on it under virtualbox, here comes one more just for this purpose.

Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (5, Insightful)

clonehappy (655530) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138155)

Even when the damage is data retention laws and the best censorship their wholly-owned politicians can shove through the legislature. Will the dying, dinosaur media companies ever realize that Pandora's box can never be closed, and the genie cannot be returned to the bottle?

You would think they would realize now, almost 15 years into this cat-and-mouse game that their offensives are futile, burn goodwill with their customers, and make them look like an angry old man who wants the kids off his lawn.

Smart record, production, and media companies take note right now: You WILL innovate, or you WILL go bankrupt. I'm not some radical pirate or communist, I'm giving you advice, trying to help you. Technology CANNOT be killed by legislation and propaganda. Your only hope is to adapt. Better to realize that now than before you are completely bankrupt. You're welcome.

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138303)

Technology cannot be killed by legislation and propaganda? Perhaps you haven't heard of the Dark Ages?

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138331)

That's not how it happened, but sure.

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138613)

Technology cannot be killed by legislation and propaganda? Perhaps you haven't heard of the Dark Ages?

It only works when the masses comply. Non-compliance is the only hope.

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (5, Insightful)

OldSport (2677879) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138357)

See the comment below re: circumvention for reasons why big content will probably win eventually, and why the citizenry will lose in the process. It's all about creating such restrictive legislation that people have no wiggle room. Somewhere there is some bought-and-paid-for judge who will happily rule that, say, having a Bittorrent client installed on your computer is equivalent to conspiracy to commit copyright fraud. All big content needs is for the legislative framework to be in place, and then they will go about slashing and burning the remnants of digital freedom with glee, and since there are already scores of elected representatives that are a toxic combination of a) clueless about how tech really works and b) bought and paid for by lobbyists, that's not much of a problem, either.

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138383)

I know, why do these ridiculous people want money for what they do? I'm sure major record executives are following your every word and it's nice of you to offer advice.

We are the future.
We can not be stopped.
Bow down before us and keep making trashy sci-fi/fantasy movie with no possible hope of remuneration.

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138555)

False. ACTA's successor is on drawing boards, and it would take next to nothing to have a country-spamming NAC system, where either a device has a valid hardware DRM stack, or it isn't allowed to connect to the Internet.

The school I am working at had a system that worked well. Unless the box was a Windows or Mac machine, it would not be able to connect. If it were one of those platforms, it had to run some client software which forced antivirus scans, disabled VPN tunneling and NAT, and blocked a number of hosts at the machine itself. Think this couldn't be expanded to almost the whole Internet? Think again.

DRM is also a lot tougher than just changing two values to "EA EA" in 6502 assembly. Satellite units have not had any security issues since 2004, Blu-Ray is a cat/mouse game, the PS3 is going on 5+ years of not being hacked other than for GH's breach which got patched and can't be used with new consoles.

The media companies will still be selling a Justin Beiber clone 10 years from now, people will be buying it.

The people who have lost due to piracy are musicians. You never hear of a band getting signed and making it big anymore. In fact, flip the radio on, on a mainstream rock channel. Same tunes now as in 2008, 2005, and 2000. The record labels just changed to "growing their own", and the average musician out there now has to realize there is no money to be made, just like meat packers and sewing workers discovered in decades previously.

Re:Again, the Internet routes around the damage... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138581)

And the award for the most cliche idioms in a single post today goes to.. This fucker!

Maybe you should have mentioned that this is also rubbing salt in an open wound, maybe the riaa/mpaa and pirate bay should bury the hatchet.

If we can hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards, checkmate!

Circumvention (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138187)

The war on piracy uses pretty much the same tactics as the war on drugs.

You can't have downloaded content. Any downloaded content you do have must be in clear digital containers with the administering agency. Even if you have prescr--er, license, for the downloaded content you have in your possession, you can still be charged with a crime if it does not come in a pre-approved container. Taking other people's downloaded content, even if they have the same content as well, is also forbidden. You cannot move your downloaded content from one container to another container, this is also illegal. Admission that you have downloaded content, or a suspicion that you may be in possession of downloaded content, legally or not, is grounds to search your person for it. Possession of a sufficient quantity would normally get you intent to distribute as well, but we have declared a quantity of zero to be intent to distribute: Every downloader is also an uploader, as a matter of law.

If charged, you are guilty until proven innocent. The best lawyers in the geographical area you are being prosecuted in will be used against you, while you will be given a crappy public defender, or none at all, since we've found that we can throw you in jail for civil violations as well, and only criminal court has to provide one. Possession in and of itself, regardless of whether or not you have a valid license to possess it, is sufficient for a conviction. There is no appeals process, or any appeals process present is designed only to look at things that are a "matter of law". You'll note the law has been so narrowly written as to make everyone guilty, merely by possession.

Fines and punishments will be far worse for this than any other crime. In fact, if you murder the artist who's song you downloaded, you'll face less time in jail and less fines. Actually, you could murder the whole band, and their agent, and still get off comparatively light.

Oh, lastly, trying to hide your content trafficing using encryption, vpns, or any other obfusciation technology will result in additional punishments, as it is obstruction of justice now to do so. Thank you for you cooperation, corporate citizen.

Re:Circumvention (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138689)

Hmm. Must have said something politically controversial recently to be picking up all these 'troll' flags. Oh wait, found it: I said something bad about Apple [slashdot.org] . That tends to get people's panties all up in a knot. Well... here's a little something then to help them burn through those extra -1, disagree points; links backing up my previous post....

The war on piracy uses pretty much the same tactics [goodcanadiankid.com] as the war on drugs.

You can't have downloaded content [torrentfreak.com] . Any downloaded content you do have must be in clear digital containers [cnet.com] with the administering agency. Even if you have prescr--er, license, for the downloaded content you have in your possession, you can still be charged with a crime if it does not come in a pre-approved container [slashdot.org] . Taking other people's downloaded content, even if they have the same content as well, is also forbidden. You cannot move your downloaded content from one container to another container [cnn.com] , this is also illegal. Admission that you have downloaded content, or a suspicion that you may be in possession of downloaded content, legally or not, is grounds to search your person for it [scottandscottllp.com] . Possession of a sufficient quantity would normally get you intent to distribute as well, but we have declared a quantity of zero to be intent to distribute: Every downloader is also an uploader [cnn.com] , as a matter of law.

If charged, you are guilty until proven innocent [dailymail.co.uk] . The best lawyers in the geographical area you are being prosecuted in will be used against you, while you will be given a crappy public defender, or none at all, since we've found that we can throw you in jail for civil violations [slashdot.org] as well, and only criminal court has to provide one. Possession in and of itself, regardless of whether or not you have a valid license to possess it, is sufficient for a conviction. There is no appeals process, or any appeals process present is designed only to look at things that are a "matter of law". You'll note the law has been so narrowly written as to make everyone guilty, merely by possession.

Fines and punishments will be far worse for this than any other crime. In fact, if you murder the artist who's song you downloaded, you'll face less time in jail and less fines. Actually, you could murder the whole band, and their agent, and still get off comparatively light.

Oh, lastly, trying to hide your content trafficing using encryption, vpns, or any other obfusciation technology will result in additional punishments, as it is obstruction of justice now to do so. Thank you for you cooperation, corporate citizen.

TOS (1)

number11 (129686) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138199)

To install you need to check "agree with the terms and conditions". Which link doesn't work to view.

I suppose that means I'm agreeing to NO terms or conditions.

Ad-supported *and* a installed browser toolbar? (2)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138209)

*And* being hosted by a seedy torrent site?

What could possibly go wrong there? Hope you enjoyed your accounts while they lasted if anyone installed THIS.

Re:Ad-supported *and* a installed browser toolbar? (5, Funny)

chiefmojorising (114811) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138261)

Well, what good is a torrent site without seeds?

Why Bother? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138225)

It will just make it easier for you to be tracked.

Warrant a legit company. Pull User ID's (and perhaps personal info) from people who have pirate bay IP Addresses. See if they have non-pirate bay IP addresses connected to that login. keep an eye on that IP address, gather more personal information to prove it is the person not just the Address. Get enough info to get the the person. Warrant to check their computer. Then they got you.

Congratulation you had just made your user account flagged as a hacker/pirater.

Re:Why Bother? (2)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138343)

That requires actual investigation. So if you're going to use it for something that will piss off a real law enforcement agency, you might want to think twice, or at least be very careful. If you're going to use it to download movies? The MPAA is unlikely to go to that kind of effort, certainly not on the scale of their IP address scraping.

Re:Why Bother? (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138537)

Warrant based on what? You need something to get the process started.

Is it a viable service? Maybe (2)

udachny (2454394) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138231)

This is a normal thing that you see within any context where there are people who want control vs people who want freedom, this is just one type of manifestation of such a situation. Yes, RIAA and the cohorts will be pissed and they will try to shut it down as well. Yes, TPB will try to avoid being shut down and there will be more services like this one available. The fact that TPB is going to try and make a buck off of it makes perfect sense, somehow the service has to be managed, somebody has to put in the time and resources, whatever capital, land and labour that it will take to have this thing running and it makes perfect sense to try and run it for profit, why not, if people find this to be a useful service, they'll go for it, ads or no ads. Actually I wonder if they will also just have a subscription model, so that the service could be just bought with a monthly payment?

Re:Is it a viable service? Maybe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138419)

This is a normal thing that you see within any context where there are people who want control vs people who want freedom

Yea, but that's not the context. Rarely in human history has it ever been about control vs freedom.

What we have is just people who want control vs other people who want control. That's what usually happens in history: two or more groups of people want control, so they fight for it.

With control comes profits, and profits are the only thing that matters. "Freedom" doesn't matter. "Freedom" is usually just the marketing pitch to bring more people under your control (and thus more profits)

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Flamebait)

mcwop (31034) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138267)

In America your business is pirate - you did pirate that, RIAA happens you!

Why should I trust them? (4, Interesting)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138353)

Call me paranoid, like the voices in my head do, but why should I trust the Pirate Bay with access to my network? A VPN goes both ways and most people are not going to be up to the task of fire-walling off the VPN host from connecting back to their local system.

Re:Why should I trust them? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138601)

This would be happening automatically in Windows unless you've gone to lengths to disable your Windows Firewall. Get a more user-friendly OS.

now all you have to do is .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138397)

... completely trust the piratebay with all your vpn traffic.

Just remember folks.. (0)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138399)

the TPB makes millions in ad revenue every year....for things that you'd wet yourself with indignaton if somebody was doing to your beloved GPL stuff.

Re:Just remember folks.. (5, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138589)

Piracy of Linux is indeed a serious issue. I found quite a few Linux torrents at TPB.

There oughta be a law! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138441)

Yes! we must outlaw the unauthorized use of VPN. ISPs will be required to monitor the end points. Route around that!

Sounds fishy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138457)

no comments from The Pirate Bay of any kind

Who's to say this isn't being released by some government body so it's easier to track what you're doing?

RIAA angry, why? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138553)

"The Pirate Bay team is going to be making the RIAA angry

It might be making the RIAA members angry, but I doubt it is making the RIAA angry -- in fact, quite the reverse. The RIAA is an organization whose members will be more convinced that they need the RIAA and will happily pay dues to the RIAA because of actions like this from the Pirate Bay.

Really, one of the issues that needs to be highlighted is how the large music publishers have changed the dialogue from how the music publishers are suing people over file sharing into a dialogue about how a faceless organization is suing people over file sharing.

Re:RIAA angry, why? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138829)

the riaa has been a horrible failure and instead of embracing technology to make their Customers happy and maximize their profits they have been dragged kicking and screaming pissing off everyone in the process. If Apple had not saved them from themselves they might have been dissolved by now. As a business, if I looked at what the riaa has accomplished for me I would certainly end my association with them.

Pure Crap (1)

popo (107611) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138635)

If you need a VPN, pay a couple bucks a month. This is just adware crap.

Babylon (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41138707)

You will regret the day you had anything to do with the unbelievably intrusive Babylon, which almost impossible to delete. Truly an awful choice by Pirate Bay.

Oblig. Bad Car Analogy (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#41138837)

The gov't response to this (already in some jurisdictions) will be mandated logging.

Today, you can't drive on a public road without a driver's license, current vehicle registration and liability insurance. Soon, Internet access will be taxed [slashdot.org] , registered and and regulated [slashdot.org] . Sure, some people will bypass this and continue to surf without a license. Just like some drive now. But the majority of the population will comply. And when they do, the majority (that pays its taxes) will look down on the unlicensed freeloaders as some sort of criminal or lower class who must be dealt with. Or at least kept out of their neighborhoods.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?