Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 To Create YouTube Competitor

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the torrential dept.

Movies 232

Jared writes "The Pirate Bay has confirmed that is working on a streaming video site with user-generated content. A spokesman said the site will be modeled after YouTube but there will be 'no censorship': The Pirate Bay 'will not be the moral police' and determine what content stays or goes as is oftentimes the case with YouTube. He added that 'the community will have to do that.'" The site will be at thevideobay.org, but nothing is up there for the public yet.

cancel ×

232 comments

Ironically (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19193755)

Their version of YouTube will have no copyright infringement.

Re:Ironically (5, Insightful)

elysiuan (762931) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193803)

I'm curious how they are going to pay for the bandwidth to run such an endeavor. If the service is unreachable due to bandwidth issues then no matter how in demand it might be its not going to go anywhere. I'm sure that thepiratebay.org is a fairly high traffic site but essentially they are just serving lots of little static text files. Full, streaming video is going to be a bit of a jump from that.

I imagine they have some sort of person-network in place for bandwidth but how will that scale? Even things like topsites wouldn't use as much bandwidth as a youtube thing since they are hidden from the general public.

I'm perplexed.

Re:Ironically (5, Funny)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194105)

If their name is any indication, they'll travel the seas, attacking any and every Bandwidth Ship that journeys by. Their fearless captain at the helm, they'll be like the Robin Hood of the seas and the Internet. For too long have the Bandwidth Barons held the vast majority of the Internets, and preventing the peasants from using theirs as they will. TV episodes and music clips for all who need them!

Re:Ironically (4, Funny)

Dragon By Proxy (1063904) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194329)

Ahhh, this sparks memories of the Crimson Personal Assurance...

Terrors, one and all, I tell ye.

Re:Ironically (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194243)

They'll place ads in the videos and pay for bandwidth that way.

Re:Ironically (1)

HaMMeReD3 (891549) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194259)

I'm sure the answer is "advertising"

Bandwidth (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194303)

That was my first thought as well.

However, perhaps they have some ad revenue lined up to pay for the extra hardware/bandwidth they are going to need? They are doing ads now so its not that far fetched.

Re:Ironically (3, Insightful)

SlOrbA (957553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194437)

Bandwidth isn't issue in the Northern Europe.

Americans have cheap petrol and Scandinavians have cheap bandwidth.

Already a site that does this... (5, Informative)

satchmodian (657710) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193849)

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/ [tv-links.co.uk] Someone beat them to it.

Re:Already a site that does this... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19193907)

They don't host the shows. Those are linked to other pages, and some of them are broken due to the videos taken down from the source.

Re:Already a site that does this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194251)

It's still kind of cool.

Re:Already a site that does this... (4, Informative)

eMbry00s (952989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194375)

mod parent up for truth, also to bring more publicity to tv-links.co.uk

Something tells me a war is comming (5, Interesting)

Intrinsic (74189) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193761)

It will be interesting to see what happens if the new pirate bay video site becomes as popular as youtube. As more sites pop up that dont have restrictions on hosted content, what is going to happen to the other content providers who are restricted to what content they can host?

Re:Something tells me a war is comming (5, Interesting)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193813)

YEP ... although my guess is that censorship at the country borders (as has been done to YouTube a couple of times) and/or blocking by large organization (US military is doing so now) might curtail this slightly if they get really, really popular.

But yea, the content providers who have to "operate by the rules" will be handicapped ... so perhaps I Too Welcome our new Video Site Overlords!

Sneak preview (4, Interesting)

glassesmonkey (684291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194027)

Thanks to the google.

(Though one of their test uploads looks to be NSFW) google cache of thevideobay.org/recent [64.233.167.104]

Prior to shutting down all external links that were left live, they were using flvplayer.js with this header in the javascript.

/* Unobtrusive Flash Objects (UFO) v3.20 <http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/ufo/>
Copyright 2005, 2006 Bobby van der Sluis
This software is licensed under the CC-GNU LGPL <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/>
*/

Update to sneak preview (5, Informative)

glassesmonkey (684291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194071)

Oops, it appears the flash player is still live: http://thevideobay.org/player/flvplayer.swf [thevideobay.org]

You can also download some of the sample uploaded vids, but some are VERY weird.. probably nsfw.. you have been warned!
http://video01.thevideobay.org/vids/38.flv [thevideobay.org] (replace "38" with any number)

this is a non-event (4, Interesting)

acidrain (35064) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194409)

But yea, the content providers who have to "operate by the rules" will be handicapped

Or the main stream won't notice because censorship is a nerd issue. So for the last time, there are no girls surfing youtube that want to see you naked.

Also Sweden's laws allow hosting .torrents as they are not copyrighted, but tpb will have all the same headaches as anyone else if they start serving up tv rips off their servers.

Re:this is a non-event (3, Funny)

acidrain (35064) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194419)

One last thing: Can I be the first to coin the term "The Pervert Bay."

Re:Something tells me a war is comming (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194229)

As more sites pop up that dont have restrictions on hosted content, what is going to happen to the other content providers who are restricted to what content they can host?


Here's a news flash for the "entertainment industry": I'd even PAY for such a site that doesn't have restrictions on hosted content. Pay AND click through to their advertisers. And because it's The Pirate Bay, I'd even tell my friends about it, because while Sony and iTunes and URGE and [Corporate Media Site Here] has always had some aspect of their service that was like a stone in my shoe, not to mention DRM (which is a deal-breaker for me under even the best circumstances], The Pirate Bay has managed to give this consumer exactly what he wants.

The big Entertainment/Industrial Complex just doesn't get that a satisfied customer is a happy customer, and happy customers will make you a success. So while they are all looking for new ways to frustrate the consumer, someone like The Pirate Bay has an opportunity to do it right.

The entire entertainment industry can't disintegrate fast enough for me. And you know what? There will still be music, and movies, and novels, and art. And the innovators, the creative souls will still make a living. Brittney Spears might become underemployed, but that's just the price of sucking.

Re:Something tells me a war is comming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194591)

As more sites pop up that dont have restrictions on hosted content, what is going to happen to the other content providers who are restricted to what content they can host?

They will call the cops, and accuse the alternative sites of "stealing". And of course the military/nuclear option is always open to "protect their interests". For the Americans, copyright is as important as petroleum. Things could get really nasty while Hillary is on her period. God help us when she goes through menopause.

pr0n (4, Insightful)

Weston O'Reilly (1008937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193765)

http://www.xtube.com/ [xtube.com] and http://www.pornotube.com/ [pornotube.com] beat them to it.
Let's be honest, that's what we're talking about here.

Thanks (3, Insightful)

HullBreachOnline.com (1104555) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193817)

Hey, thanks for the links!

Re:pr0n (2, Interesting)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193919)

And there's also sites like TV Links [tv-links.co.uk] that link to streaming videos of all your favourite TV shows.

The genie is already out of the bottle, and no-one can put it back in again.

Bob

Re:pr0n (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194051)

The interesting question then will be, what kinds of porn will the censor?

pornotube and xtube _do_ have restrictions on what you can upload.

Re:pr0n (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194389)

Yeah, like people with clothes, what kind of sick person would upload that in those sites

Re:pr0n (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194407)

Way to go asshole, you slashdotted PornoTube. Now what am I going to do for the rest of the night?

Paedophiles (2, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193773)

If child porn (posted by RIAA/MPAA minions) doesn't get PirateBay shut down, nothing will.

Re:Paedophiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19193925)

Any evidence of that happening?

I can believe the RIAA doing something like that, but I'd like to see evidence of it first.

Re:Paedophiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19193953)

> I can believe the RIAA doing something like that, but I'd like to see evidence of it first.

"The site will be at thevideobay.org, but nothing is up there for the public yet."
Let's wait for the site to go live first, eh?

The ACLU will defend them (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194411)

A suburban Cleveland man accused of sexually assaulting nine disabled boys told a judge Wednesday that his apartment was a religious sanctuary where smoking marijuana and having sex with children are sacred rituals protected by civil rights laws.

The admitted pedophile offered a surprising defense Wednesday to 74 charges of rape, drugs and pandering obscenity to minors.

Appearing in an Ohio court for a pretrial hearing, Phillip Distasio, 34, of Rocky River, Ohio, said he was a pedophile.

He told the judge, "I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."

Distasio, a self-professed pagan friar, is representing himself on 74 charges. He said he's the leader of a church called Arcadian Fields Ministries, and that some of his congregants are among the victims in his case.

[snip]

Police said they found journals at Distasio's apartment in which he described his illegal activities, along with child pornography and videotapes of him engaged in sex with boys, The Plain Dealer reported

"Not all pedophilia is bad, and sex [with boys] can be healthy," Distasio told the court.

Re:The ACLU will defend them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194485)

I don't see anything about the ACLU in there.

Re:Paedophiles (2, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194449)

How the fuck did this get modded insightful? Funny maybe, but insightful? I seriously doubt they'd go that far; if it ever got out that they did such, they wouldn't even be able to convince the average sheeple that they were the good guys anymore. And shutting down one of the myriad BitTorrent sites, no matter how large it is, wouldn't be a big enough prize to justify that kind of risk.

Re:Paedophiles (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194733)

Duh..they wouldn't declare publicly that it was them uploading the stuff. Just that everyone knows that there's pirate stuff at pirate bay and no-one cares, but that if there were child porn there and the site owners were going `we don't care, la la la` a lot of people would find that morally wrong and Something Would Be Done.

Re:Paedophiles (4, Insightful)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194685)

Law enforcement agencies love the fact that the Pirate Bay doesn't censor child-porn torrents. You see, when you connect to a torrent, you tell everyone else connected who you are. The only thing law enforcement likes more than self-identifying criminals is self-convicting criminals.

I suspect there will be something similar for the VideoBay site.

No censorship? Or no blame for censorship? (4, Insightful)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193787)

If the community controls it, that means censorship through mob rule. Post something from Ogrish? Maybe it'll get zapped even though that's a form of censorship.

Freedom of speech exists not so people can say things that other folks agree with, it's so that the unpopular opinions can exist too. That's why Illinois Nazis (I hate those guys) can do their thing, not just the civil rights marchers.

So, in practice, I bet there'll be little difference between the end product and YouTube. New boss will be same as the old boss, except instead of a room of guys with thin mustaches and black eyebands that cackle as they zap content, it'll be legions of computer users doing the same thing.

Re:No censorship? Or no blame for censorship? (4, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193823)

So, in practice, I bet there'll be little difference between the end product and YouTube.

There'll be more porn. More, weirder porn. I'm looking forward to it.

Niche Porn (2, Funny)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194099)

Niche porn if you will, like beating off a dead horse. (Shamelessly taken from a post i saw today)
Oh please, can this be a new Slashdot meme? Pretty please?

Re:Niche Porn (5, Funny)

mux2000 (832684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194159)

Stop it man, you're beating off a dead horse.

Re:No censorship? Or no blame for censorship? (2, Informative)

rmccann (792082) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194369)

One of the samples on the google cache seems to be a midget gangbang scene...

Re:No censorship? Or no blame for censorship? (2, Interesting)

soulxtc (1063050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194509)

I was also wondering about the same thing, for is censorship any less wrong when it's done by the many instead of the few?

Lawsuit (2, Insightful)

eharvill (991859) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193791)

And they thought the last lawsuit and raid were bad... I guess they can show the videos from their torrent site now. lol

Re:Lawsuit (5, Informative)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194347)

> And they thought the last lawsuit and raid were bad... I guess they can show the videos from their torrent site now. lol

They thought the last lawsuit and raid were bad?

"Just some stats... ... here are some reasons why TPB is down sometimes - and how long it usually takes to fix: [thepiratebay.org]
Tiamo gets *very* drunk and then something crashes: 4 days
Anakata gets a really bad cold and noone is around: 7 days
The US and Swedish gov. forces the police to steal our servers: 3 days .. yawn."

Wow, they're hiding their ph33r well.

lol, indeed.

Bad bad news (2, Insightful)

packetmon (977047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193797)

While I don't believe in censorship, this will likely last extremely briefly. For one, pedophiles will likely lurk there... Secondly, judging by what the US government is doing - censoring troops from MySpace, etc, soldiers will likely post videos there to the dismay of politically idiotic government who will call for a ban... Not to mention moronic terrorists using it as a forum to post their hatred. Hey I'm all for it, but expect it to last no more than a half a year.

good news or bad news? (1)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193865)

So is it bad news because it might be shut down or is it good news that an uncensored video site will be born an easy to use?

Re:Bad bad news (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194383)

You are such a fucking moron. The military has been blocking webmail, humor, video streaming and chat sites have been blocked for a long time. This is primarily a bandwidth concern, not a censorship approach. Hell, they block comics.com. That's not censorship, that's keeping the military network used for military type stuff. You, sir, a fucking retard. I know, it's Bush's fault. Keep repeating that until you get Queen Hillary elected.

Re:Bad bad news (1)

th3rmite (938737) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194667)

How many times do I have to say this, US Troops are only censored from using Myspace on government computers. It has been this way in my Division for over three years now. Our internet at the office is slow enough without streaming video bandwidth hogs.

I happen to use Myspace and Youtube from my personal notebook in my room just about everyday. jeez

The site will be hosted on Sealand, (5, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193805)

will run on Hurd web servers, and the first 1000 registered users will get free copies of Duke Nukem Forever!

Good (4, Insightful)

damacus (827187) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193807)

I'm sick of seeing worthwhile content getting pulled from valid sites. I remember looking for some video clips of Carl Sagan's appearances on Johnny Carson's show, and finding links to them in an index, but then getting there and finding that they had been pulled due to copyright restrictions.. I do hope this site can make it through. Like other posters mention, porn, especially pedo, may be an issue... but it's the cost of free speech. Althgouh I hope at least some level of self-censoring is put into place. I mean, there *has* to be a limit somewhere.... right?

What's wrong with this picture, moving that is.... (0, Flamebait)

y2imm (700704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193809)

So, uh, movies of me sodomizing the body of a baby I just microwaved would be ok? Or step by step illustrated instructions on how to carve grandma for dinner are cool? Censorship exists for a good reason.

Re:What's wrong with this picture, moving that is. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194107)

Well, aside from the whole "valid evidence in the prosecution of a crime" thing, you'll be 100% allowed to post those things online!

Re:What's wrong with this picture, moving that is. (2, Insightful)

Mercedes308 (832423) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194149)

You're a rather brave chap to post this as a non-ac, wish I had some mod points. Sometimes I wonder if people that take a subject to the absolute extreme to point of being ridiculous or peddle hatred to whoever really think that what they are doing is in the spirit of 'freedom of speech'. I'm for freedom of speech and expression, but some people just blatantly abuse it for their own perverse agenda.

Re:What's wrong with this picture, moving that is. (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194287)

So, uh, movies of me sodomizing the body of a baby I just microwaved would be ok? Or step by step illustrated instructions on how to carve grandma for dinner are cool?
They should be. You should be locked up for the rest of your life for the good of society for committing those acts, but you shouldn't be punished just for copying some particular bit pattern.

Censorship exists for a good reason.
Only for those doing the censoring.

Re:What's wrong with this picture, moving that is. (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194365)

No, I don't agree. Most people would find what you describe as objectionable and would therefore practice self-censorship. The problem however is when someone else is doing the censoring and then you might not agree as to what is acceptable and what is not. While I do not think that your examples would be difficult to find some consensus of agreement, what would happen if someone with extreme views had the responsibility for deciding what is decent? I wouldn't want some religious zealot telling me what I can view, nor would the majority of the US accept, say, a muslim cleric deciding what kind of images are deemed 'suitable' for hosting on the video site. Family videos? Not acceptable if the subject includes a female and the hair is being displayed or anything more than the hands or feet in view, for example? No, censorship will always be wrong in someone's opinion.

That's fine and dandy (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193881)

but how about making a copycat site that supports higher resolution videos. Desktop screencasts are next to useless on youtube & google video.. the video is just too pixelated/grainy :~(

Is this legal? (5, Interesting)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193889)

How is this legal? I can understand how a tracker is legal, since they aren't hosting the actual files on their own server, but unless they come up with a way to do p2p video streaming, I can't imagine how this will stay up very long.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

WoLpH (699064) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194007)

Well, using a system like Tribler [tribler.org] it should be possible to realise a youtube without hosting it, but for something like that even a website wouldn't be needed anymore.

Perhaps it'll be a site where people can upload there torrent files with a description and thumbnail so others can view?

Re:Is this legal? (2, Informative)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194013)

At first glance it's legal, they have been very careful to say user generated content, so expect to see lots of poor quality video of knobs behaving like only knobs can. Unfortunately all too many people confuse user uploaded third party content with user generated so they can actually have some decent content on the site(thats their no censorship clause kicking in). Thats when the legality starts to crumble.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

Shinra (1057198) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194461)

Well you see, ALL content uploaded would be user-generated.
So if I ripped an episode of Heroes from the broadcast, and uploaded it,
I would have generated the video onto the site.

*ducks for cover*

Re:Is this legal? (1)

gradster79 (878963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194033)

I would imagine they will simply host the site in a country where copyright laws aren't enforced.

Re:Is this legal? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194197)

I would imagine they will simply host the site in a country where copyright laws aren't enforced.

Hence the forthcoming server move to North Korea?

Re:Is this legal? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194227)

Because there is no such thing as censorship in North Korea.

Re:Is this legal? (2, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194037)

Maybe they are doing a bitorrent-in-the-browser thing. There's nothing to say that someone can't hack together a nice Flash-based instance of a Bitorrent client. {shrug} It'd probably be slow as heck, but it'd be non-hosted.

Or they'll do a hybrid. Host low-peer files, and torrent popular ones.

Re:Is this legal? (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194295)

I don't know about Flash, but the Java security model does not allow an applet to make socket connections to any IP other than that of the server from which the applet originated. I'd be slightly surprised if Flash were any different, since it's a potentially nasty security hole to allow arbitrary connections. Actually, thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if Flash were different...

Re:Is this legal? (1)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194319)

I highly doubt that. For one, it would be really hard to prioritise the pieces to get the streaming done well, since BT doesn't get exactly the pieces you specify in the order you specify. Streaming would be way way longer, perhaps too long to be useful. The biggest problem, however, would be that since people close the browser window after seeing the video, noone would keep seeding. The last pieces would disappear pretty fast...

Re:Is this legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194145)

How is this legal?

You must be new around here...

Re:Is this legal? (2, Insightful)

Gossi (731861) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194285)

As far as I know, Pirate Bay actually operate their own Torrent trackers at the moment, which connect the clients together (suppling IP, peer data etc). It's already a little shady from that point of view. Plus, when The Pirate Bay's servers were raided, they were moved to another country, which makes things murkier. One thing I can say: the fact The Pirate Bay still exists and runs fine after all these years is a huge embarrassment to the MPAA and RIAA. It shows how little power those folk have in foreign lands, and that must be humiliating for them.

Re:Is this legal? (1)

birdboy2000 (1053598) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194555)

There's nothing against it in North Korean law, is there?

Potential Uses (3, Interesting)

anjin-san 3 (983912) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193915)

If implemented properly this video service could be quite useful for pirate bay users. Imagine if you could use it to preview the quality of a movie before you torrent it. That would save a ton of wasted bandwidth previously used for mistakenly grabbing a camcorder-quality flick.

Of course the video quality would have to greatly surpass that of youtube for this to work...

Re:Potential Uses (2, Informative)

the unbeliever (201915) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193975)

Just use a good tracker that hosts the original files from the release group, Sample/ subdirectory included, and download the sample first...

Re:Potential Uses (1, Insightful)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194129)

Fiscally conservative. Socially liberal. Against revisionist history.
The term "fiscally conservative" is revisionist history. The Republicans have never supported smaller government(which is what most people mean when they say fiscal conservatism), excepting maybe Coolidge. Conservatives don't support small government, they support replacing the gov't programs that help people with gov't programs that hurt people.

Re:Potential Uses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194205)

Congrats for shoving words into someone's mouth so you could sucker punch them. "Fiscally conservative" means "spend less" regardless of how the Republican party, Reagan, and the neo-cons have abused the term.

Re:Potential Uses (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194323)

Did the dude mention the Republicans? I don't think he did, so why are you ragging on him about what the Republicans did and do?

I'm all for no censorship except... (1)

iamnafets (828439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193917)

Kiddie porn? Bestiality? For the majority of people, there are lines...

Re:I'm all for no censorship except... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194031)

i live by this rule: "Dont like it, Dont download it"
no "Dont like it, dont download it, whine until content i dont like is deleted"

i believe in total freedom of information, some may agree, some may not. But you have to agree other peoples "lines" as you put it, are not always in the same place as yours, and its not so nice when what YOU think is OK starts getting removed.

Re:I'm all for no censorship except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194131)

That seems a little naive. Things like child pr0n are *always* exploitative. In suppressing content like this it's not people's free speech that's being suppressed (they're still free to express the perverted view that it's OK to exploit 10 year olds for sex) it's the actual exploitative act which is suppressed. And surely demonstratively defamatory content (malicious, demonstratively untrue statements about other people) should be censored - it maybe just one person that doesn't like it, for obvious reasons, but it would be morally wrong in my view for a web site's admins to implicitly promote such views by giving them a platform.

Re:I'm all for no censorship except... (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194499)

Things like child pr0n are *always* exploitative. In suppressing content like this it's not people's free speech that's being suppressed (they're still free to express the perverted view that it's OK to exploit 10 year olds for sex) it's the actual exploitative act which is suppressed.
No, it isn't. That's like saying you could suppress terrorism by banning the 9/11 crash videos!

The actual exploitative act has already been committed long before the video recording of it is posted or downloaded by anyone. Censorship can't turn back the clock and prevent the original act; it can only prevent speech.

Child porn isn't so bad, we do much worse things (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194515)

To be offended by it is fine, but there are much worse things we do to children in our daily lives.

Look at the result of just going to the store and getting a chocolate bar: http://www.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm [american.edu]

I don't want to see a child used for sex or used in slavery, but I think it is obvious which is worse. Pedophilia is a problem that has been around for a long time and will continue to be. The percentage of people that are into it is certainly in the double digits. Pushing it underground is not going to help things, there needs to be real dialog. The internet has gotten it in the public eye more, maybe this new site is a step in the right direction should they allow it. Maybe something practical can be done about it instead of just ignoring the problem.

Re:Child porn isn't so bad, we do much worse thing (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194695)

There is no "we" in this, chum. They do that to children. You can't foist the action on someone a half world away who is unaware of the problem. Even your link puts the numbers at one child per 40 "small farms". How does someone in the US tell which it came from. We should indeed put the Ivory Coast on notice and jamb decency on them as best we can, but you'd starve 39 of each 40 because of one?

Your assertion is also a non sequitor. Just because big problems exist does not obviate the need to deal with other big problems. No, I'm not "offended" by either child slavery or child rape. I'm enraged by both.

Re:I'm all for no censorship except... (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194445)

That's not a good rule, a better one would be: Legal to make, Legal to download.

So if you shit in your wife's mouth when you make a vid, that's legal, its nasty, but she likes it the dirty skank. If you rape a kid to make your film, thats not legal, and it's not legal to make a film of it, so the distribution of your vid should be illegal too. I'm not sure about the legal status of animal fucking tho, it's probably classed as cruelty to animals in most places, so I think you will have to miss out on your dog porn and horse on woman action.

The only flaw with this rule is, someone might try to apply it to those cool videos of kids smashing the crap out stuff, like the one where they completely trash that guys house, and smash his toilet and everything. That would be uncool, cos that video rocks.

You are for censorship. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194559)

Censorship is one of those few things in life that is absolute. Either you support censorship, or you do not support censorship. There is no middle ground. The moment you think in the slightest that some idea, subject, work, etc., should be censored, you immediately support censorship. It's impossible to be against censorship, while concurrently believing that it's acceptable to prohibit certain forms of expression.

So please don't say that you're against censorship, only to immediately list two subject matters that you apparently think should be censored. You're making yourself look foolish. At least come out and admit that you do support censorship.

Re:I'm all for no censorship except... (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194671)

If you're for "no censorship", there is no "except". There is no wiggle room here. You're either for it, or against it. If you wish to censor anything, then you are for censorship. It can't get any simpler than that. So, what's it going to be?

Awww yeah! (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193983)

Thousands of young exhibitionist females out there making videos of their lovlies for all to see!!!

Boob Tube (1)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194337)

This service practically names itself.

Re:Boob Tube (1)

JonathanR (852748) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194465)

But if you're watching it on your 19" LCD, then there's no tubes anymore... ...oh. Um, er, hello there Mr Stevens!

If TPB went legit... (5, Insightful)

Podcaster (1098781) | more than 7 years ago | (#19193987)

I'm not sure that it is a good idea for TPB to try to build an real business running a proper internet service. The many software developers here on /. will tell you that there is a massive difference between what it takes to host the current TPB website, and what it would take to develop and deploy a youtube rip-off.

Developing such a site demands a return on investment, which calls for a business model and legitimate corporate structure, which will ultimately require them to protect themselves by censoring their users and removing illegal content.

Looks to me like the start of a slippery slope - if TPB ever goes legit it will bring about the end of an era. Until copyright law is reformed on the international stage, true rebels will have to remain completely outside of the system.

-P

Re:If TPB went legit... (2, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194213)

Until copyright law is reformed on the international stage, true rebels will have to remain completely outside of the system.
That'd make for a nice sound bite, but it's wholly ignorant of the international landscape. There are plenty of small countries in Eastern Europe & Asia that have fat internet pipes and no regard for copyright.

The only small countries that give a damn are those trying to get into the WTO or the EU. And most of them don't take enforcement as seriously as the MAFIAA/RIAA/BSA/etc.

Ignorance is a virtue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194453)

That'd make for a nice sound bite, but it's wholly ignorant of the international landscape.
Among the Left ignorance is considered a virtue.

Re:If TPB went legit... (1)

kebes (861706) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194325)

You seem to think that TPB isn't pulling in lots of cash right now. I'm pretty sure they are. The ads on the site generate revenue, and I'm sure they get quite a bit of traffic. Creating a second site with user generated content is simply an expansion of this: it will also have ads, of course, and will generate revenue. TPB is a huge site with massive traffic, so the people involve already know how to scale a site, and build redundancies (witness, for instance, how quickly TPB was back online after their servers were confiscated!) Admittedly they will have to do some new work to build a decent flash player, but I'm sure they already have experience with running a large database.

And of course, as we all know, community is one of the most valuable things on the internet. The "brand name" that TPB would bring to this new site is significant. People would feel that they could post and discuss things there that they might not want to post or discuss on other sites. (For example, people might trust TPB to not hand over search records or user account records... or indeed to not even maintain such data.)

So in terms of return-on-investment, I think they have a pretty solid case, and I don't think they'll have too much trouble pulling together the money required. Whether or not the site actually succeeds is another matter, but I think they have a good chance.

And, with regard to TPB "becoming legitimate" ... well, as they are fond of reminding us, they are not violating any Swedish laws. So, in fact, they are already entirely legit.

These guys are asking for it (1, Redundant)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194111)

I mean, honestly. Freedom of speech and what not. From aside it looks as if they weren't happy they got away so easily last time, so they decided to push their luck further.

I see no use of their service, YouTube isn't exactly repressive and brutally censoring free speech, is it.

Not much good will come out of this (1)

streptocopter (1052066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194121)

If you look at every other Youtube clone site that claims to be uncensored, they all have a small but faithful psycho/pedo/wierdo/crying-bald-eagle89 user base, which means no sane human being will ever go there twice.

In related news... (2, Funny)

Gerocrack (979018) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194233)

"In a marked change of approach, the RIAA and MPAA recently fired their entire legal staff, and began purchasing surpluss cruise missles from the US military."

Streaming Sucks (1)

coaxial (28297) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194279)

Sure streaming is fine for viewing things in a one off way, but there's sometimes I want to save the video. Streaming sites, don't let you do this. Sure, I can use something like VideoDownloader for Firefox, but that only works for a handful of sites, and really, I shouldn't have to. Easy downloading the FLV instead of the MOV or MPG would be fine. I don't want to have my videos on unstable remote storage damn it.

Web TIVO? (1)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194307)

If there really is no censorship and care about uploading of copyrighted works, then this site could become your own personal tv channel like a TIVO. Just think about it, no more having to wait for that usenet/bittorrent download to finish of the latest episode of some tv show you're hooked on but they're not airing it in your country yet (or ever), just press play and watch.

Just like a TIVO you could tell it what kind of tv you like and it brings up suggestions, teach it what specific shows you like and throw in a random function so you could create a few 'channels' just like regular tv.

The potential is there to end up with something quite extraordinarily good, lets hope the programmers can come up trumps, that there's plenty of server space + bandwidth for decent quality video that looks good on fullscreen, and lastly that they've thought out the sticky legal situation of hosting (inevitably) copyrighted material.

Misplaced morals (4, Interesting)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194351)

"The Pirate Bay 'will not be the moral police'"


Moral? Er, doesn't it just mean, "the police"? Sharing copyrighted material is a legal matter, it's not like debating the ethics of euthanasia.

Re:Misplaced morals (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194539)

Sharing copyrighted material is a legal matter, it's not like debating the ethics of euthanasia.

You could say euthanasia is just a legal matter, as well. Not like debating the merits of the current copyright system...

Also, since the PirateBay is outside the US, it's really NOT a legal matter. More than copyright, I suspect they were talking about censorship for violence, sex, or other offensive material.

Google acquisition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194431)

HAHA, It'd be great if Google bought thevideobay.org before the price skyrockets.
Would love to see how Google lawyers would defend both companies....

Wont be an easy ride (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194497)

IANAL, but the reason why thepiratebay is somewhat free to continue as is despite concerns of piracy will not work for a youtube knock off.

Actually hosting copyrighted material, which will happen and wont be "user censored" sooner or later, and their gonna be violating copyright. Now sure, they wont be getting DMCA notices, they'll be getting polite nudges from the swedish legal system to take em down before they have to throw em all in jail.

Unless... they really are buying sealand, yaaar.

limits (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19194583)

All content now! No limit! I buy stuff I like, I look at stuff I am only slightly interested in. I am not stealing from anybody cause if I am interested in it and I like it I will buy it. As for kiddie pR0n, I have no desire to look at that crap so what's the problem? If you are worried about your kid seeing it then you need to be more involed in your kids life and know what they are doing.

A quick look in the forums.. (2, Informative)

eZtaR (764650) | more than 7 years ago | (#19194609)

reveal a kinda disturbing google cache [72.14.253.104] of the site :P
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...