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!

Early Pirate Bay Server Immortalized In Museum

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the next-stop-smithsonian dept.

Piracy 40

Nerval's Lobster writes "One of the first servers used by notorious torrent tracker The Pirate Bay has ended up at the Computer Museum in Linköping. A picture of the exhibit sent to TorrentFreak shows the server in its original tower casing. The hardware will headline an exhibit on 50 years of file sharing. As the exhibit notes, The Pirate Bay is one of the focal points for the file-sharing phenomenon, used to share both copyrighted works (such as music and movies) and free-for-all material (open-source Linux distributions and the like). The sharing of the former has created a worldwide cat-and-mouse game, with governments doing their best to block file-sharing sites, capture their servers, and prosecute their operators. 'In less than ten years The Pirate Bay has become a contemporary historical phenomenon, due to its distinguished position in the file-sharing debate,' according to the museum exhibit. 'The discussions that have sprung from this simple computer server concerns serious subjects as freedom of speech, global democracy and of course the sole existence of copyright.'"

cancel ×

40 comments

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

First post (5, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549285)

Before FBI raids the museum and seizes the server.

Re:First post (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549445)

It's under Federal Protection. FBI can't touch it.

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42554695)

It's under Federal Protection. FBI can't touch it.

"Federal" protection? In Sweden?

Re:First post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42549725)

Before FBI raids the museum and seizes the server.

>FBI
Sweden is not in the United States.

Re:First post (5, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549745)

Neither is New Zealand...

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42552617)

Tell that the the ex investment banker running the country with his tongue firmly up Uncle Sam's arse

Re:First post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42554789)

You'll never get close enough, apparently he has more bodyguards than any previous prime minister.

I wonder what he's so afraid of.

Re:First post (1)

snemarch (1086057) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549939)

Tell that to Jon "MultiAGP" Lech "DVD-Jon" Johansen... Norway, not Sweden, but still anything from the .us shouldn't have had any jurisdiction there.

Re:First post (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549777)

Before FBI raids the museum and seizes the server.

It's more likely they'll just stick a camera outside the museum and photograph anyone entering and then add them to a terror watchlist.

Re:First post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42549853)

Maybe they should, for convenience, also build an Islam musem next to this.

All creative works have copyright (5, Insightful)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549419)

share both copyrighted works (such as music and movies) and free-for-all material (open-source Linux distributions and the like).

It seems the author missed the opportunity to learn even the basics of copyright from this exhibit : all creative works automatically acquire a copyright. The Linux system has copyrights.

Re:All creative works have copyright (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42550691)

That's pretty much what I was going to say. It's not helped by the media always talking about sharing copyrighted material, as if simply browsing the web didn't result in a constant flow of copyrighted material hitting a person's computer.

The distinction is between material for which permission has been granted (either explicitly, or implicitly) to share and copy (e.g. GPLed software, such as Linux) and material where permission has not been granted. There is an implicit permission for a person to download websites to read and use, simply because the site is freely available.

Also, the term "free for all" is poor, as the software is still copyrighted. Free for all seems to suggest you can do anything you like, which isn't true legally. Public domain material is free for all.

Re:All creative works have copyright (1)

znrt (2424692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42551019)

It's not helped by the media always talking about sharing copyrighted material

it's not helping whom?
it does. as intended.

Immortalized? LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42549601)

Since it isn't powered on, will now never have the chance to be, or even to have its components reused or recycled, it's technologically dead. It's the idea of TPB that needs preserving, sticking its hardware in a perspex box and charging the people a dollar-and-a-half to see it is a poor substitute.

Re:Immortalized? LOL (2)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549775)

The possibility of the individual components being reused is less likely than it being destroyed and broken down to the worthwhile chemicals.

It is worth more as a piece of history (no matter how inconsequential it was) than it is as a pile of chemicals to be.

notorious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42549699)

curious turn of phrase

Ahem. (3, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549743)

The Pirate Bay has become a contemporary historical phenomenon, due to its distinguished position in the file-sharing debate

The Pirate Bay has become a contemporary historical phenomenon, due to its distinguished position as the last man standing.
Before TPB, there was SuprNova (TPB's forums are still hosted @ https://forum.suprbay.org/ [suprbay.org] )
and before SuprNova there were several other sites that were central to the bittorrent community.

Some of TPB's contemporaries are still around, they're just not as vocal in their fight against the existing copyright regime.

Re:Ahem. (3, Informative)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42551787)

Not to mention all the crackers and hackers with BBSs came before and spawned the Demoscene [scene.org] to one up eachother's cracked intro screens, and coined the competitive term N-Day, eg: 3-day or 0-Day (three day or zero day -- meaning a software (or game) that had its copy protection (DRM) cracked on 3rd day or 0th day (release), thus devs didn't know about the hole and it needed to be patched immediately) all originally in the pursuit of sharing files...

Will a torrent server operator wake to the beeping terminal alarm "Archive Not Present" and search frantically to swap in a different disk/drive just so you can access the warez or porn you're looking for before you log off the BBS at 2:00am? Now THAT is a service; For what compensation? Just to meet folks and share common interests -- You're browsing the files when suddenly: Your screen splits in two "Sysop Wants To Chat" and you chat about some rare games / demos / warez for a bit, seeing each keypress as they're typed, much more personal than today's revisionable chat progs... Ah good times. [bbsdocumentary.com]

File sharing has been around since files. Torrents, eMule, Usenet, etc. are just the latest incarnations. Seems like the smart thing to do would be to join them and leverage the "pirates" (who are the biggest fans) as word of mouth advertising, I mean, considering that "you can't beat 'em". That's what we're seeing in some new-media, e.g., Indiegame the Movie uploaded their film to TPB with a scroller that appears ~3 times at the bottom asking you to buy a copy if you like it so they can keep making films... That's smart, but the scroller text could have been more wobbly and colorful IMO... kids these days...

I get your post is specifically about torrents, but if you're just picking some arbitrary point in the past to say "these sharers came before", if you ask me. To say they're the "last man standing" is laughable at best. File sharing evolves, they're just another notable part of its history, more relevant due to being more recent and powered by a global network, not limited by local calling area codes, you know, like the warez rooms on IRC w/ direct transfer requests... I feel that so many people get caught up in the present day struggles that they forget sharing files is something that has always been a part of digital culture.

You can't win the war on sharing information -- That's what makes us human. Making laws against human nature is how you create a police state...

Re:Ahem. (1)

Whiteox (919863) | about a year and a half ago | (#42555727)

Well that puts me (and probably a whole lot of us) as 'file sharers' as we cracked Printshop and a couple of Apple games way back then. Strangely, we all owned the software anyway, but now we had working backups because those 5.5" disks were pretty flakey. My experience of BBS was pretty much from the ground up and it was online games that were the attraction for me - as well as meeting the local crowd - fun times.

Re:Ahem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42556363)

I Definatly would not lump usenet into the johnny come lately crowd.

The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (5, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549757)

It is copyrighted, and distributed under the GPL v2.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549839)

And before Tivoization was discovered, that really meant something too!

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42550007)

That's "free for all". The only way to protect your work from having someone else copyright it then force you to pay for what you created is to copyright it first. If copyright (and software/business patents) didn't exist, then there'd be no GPL, no in fact, as the law wouldn't allow it, and not in theory, as it wouldn't be needed.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42552351)

That's "free for all". The only way to protect your work from having someone else copyright it then force you to pay for what you created is to copyright it first. If copyright (and software/business patents) didn't exist, then there'd be no GPL, no in fact, as the law wouldn't allow it, and not in theory, as it wouldn't be needed.

Without copyright, how would you force people distributing derived works to supply source code for it?

A world without copyright would be more as if everything were BSD licensed than as if everything was GPL licensed.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42552567)

Without copyright, how would you force people distributing derived works to supply source code for it?

You wouldn't. Without copyright, it wouldn't matter.

A world without copyright would be more as if everything were BSD licensed than as if everything was GPL licensed.

Yes, except reverse-engineering code or functionality would be explicitly legal. You couldn't lock down a "look and feel" of a program to block uncopyrightable functions.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42552907)

Yes, except reverse-engineering code or functionality would be explicitly legal.

And so would be any tricks to make reverse-engineering harder. Not to mention that reverse-engineering the compiled code is an order of magnitude harder than reading the source code even without explicit measures to prevent it.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42553373)

Back before the software industry took off, there were many more decompilers. They died off because they were mostly illegal to use. If they were explicitly legal again, then the only difference between compiled code and source code would be comments.

If decompiling was trivial (As it used to be) then there'd be little reason for someone to not release the source with the code, as the usable part would be trivially deducible, and the goodwill from helping the community would exceed the loss from sharing a few comments (with the possible exception of people afraid of bugs and security holes that prefer security through obscurity.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560729)

Back then, there was very little optimization. The compiled code very much resembled the source code. Today, the compiled code may look very different from the source code. Not to mention constructs which only exist at compile time; good luck with decompiling C++ template code.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42555951)

The GPL is based on copyright law. It is *not* predicated on any kind of patent law. Those are completely different laws, and it is important to know the difference, lest we get caught in the "intellectual property" mumbo jumbo.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42560691)

The need is based on patent laws. That software patents overlap copyright proves you wrong. Try knowing what you are talking about before incorrectly correcting someone else.

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

grumpy_old_grandpa (2634187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42572875)

Read and learn:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html [gnu.org]

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.

Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.


So no, patent and copyright laws do not "overlap". (As for your first sentence, I'm not even sure what it means; "The need"? Right now I need a coffee, but that is certainly not based on any patent...)

Re:The Linux Kernel is *NOT* "free for all". (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42573075)

So no, patent and copyright laws do not "overlap".

So you are saying that there are no software patents because software is copyrighted? Reality always trumps the opinion of some zealot. There are plenty of business patents, and copyrights on documentation about the patents, overlapping the two. There are many places where IP laws "overlap". There are trademarked catch phrases that are also copyrighted. Also, the clause empowering Congress to create copyright and patents is the same (not sure where the power to form trademarks comes from, perhaps it isn't there, but nobody complains), so Constitutionally, copyright and patents are the same.

I'd like to see... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42549951)

An original suprnova.org right besides it, back then tpb was tiny it was after the then major sites got shut down that pirate bay weathered the legal storm and became what it is today... but suprnova might've been the first major torrenting site showing proof of concept and representing people sick of paying $20 a movie and $15 a cd to watch previews & fbi warnings, or listen to 2 songs.

What about *actual* file sharing networks? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42550303)

BitTorrent is just a better FTP. And the gradually added the functions to it, that all other protocols had *loong* before. Some of those, which existed before BitTorrent was even born, are still not implemented, and, because of the stupid limits of BitTorrent, never will be.

Napster & Scour Exchange -- One centralized sever, built-in search, automatic sharing of a local directory, no encryption, no anonymization. The first generation. SX was heads and tails above Napster, both in functionality, but Napster is what the idiotic press went after.
Gnutella & FastTrack -- Added full decentralization. The second generation. Impossible to take down. But slower search. Swarming and even encryption were added later.
eDonkey -- Step *backwards* to multiple centralized servers. But in theory faster search. Also features swarming. (The Razorback servers *definitely* deserve a place in that museum.)
Overnet & Kad -- eDonkey, but fully decentralized again. Encryption was added later too.
WinMX -- Honorable mention, because it had really nice rich functionality. A bit superior to Gnutella. Faster search.
Darknets like Perfect Dark, Freenet -- Adds full encryption and advanced anonymization. Also, because of distributed keyword/hash tables, search is rather good.
BitTorrent (original) -- HUGE step backwards. Multiple centralized servers again. NO search (WTF?). NO encryption. NO anonymization. Cumbersome way of sharing files (With torrent files, and manual uploads.) Relies on web sites, to be usable *at all*. (EPIC FAIL)
BitTorrent (nowadays) -- *Finally* managed to graft decentralization on top. And at least mostly encryption too. But not on the darknet level, of course. Still no anonymization. And if clients have a search function at all, they just use a website internally. Ditto for sharing files, which still is only partially automated, even though Napster already offered fully automatic directory sharing.

I wonder when BitTorrent will also get darknet-style anonymization, on top if it all, to become a Windows-ME-style mutant of a upside-down pyramid on top of a turd... And what *actual* modern file sharing networks will have then.

Re:What about *actual* file sharing networks? (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42550591)

I agree with you, but at least BitTorrent had one thing right. No tons of fake and dead files unlike the one previously mentioned.

Re:What about *actual* file sharing networks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42552859)

BitTorrent is just a better FTP.

BitTorrent doesn't support a client initiating a server to server copy.

It is an alternative to FTP that is better in some circumstances, it is not better in every single way.

this explains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42550335)

why my hobbit download is taking so long

martyrdom (1)

letherial (1302031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42550427)

They have become martyrs...and we can think the recording industry's for that. Maybe not true martyrs, but there sacrifice has caused the movement to push back with full force.

Specs? (1)

sunami88 (1074925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42552513)

I saw this pop up in my Google Reader on another site, but I immediately came here to look and see if someone had posted the specs for this machine yet. I'm not seeing them listed anywhere.

Someone care to help? I even went crazy and RTFA (I'm new here, ya see...).
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>