×

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 Won't Be Censored

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the ambivalent-in-sweden dept.

Censorship 226

Naycon writes "In the end it looks like the Swedish police dropped the Pirate Bay from the list of sites filtered for containing child porn. The update of the filter, which is scheduled for later this week, won't contain the Swedish file-sharing giant. The police say that the reason for this change is that the torrent containing the porn has been removed. But the Pirate Bay states that no files have been removed. Was this just a cheap trick by the Swedish police to battle file-sharing? The link contains a statement from the Pirate Bay; several Swedish newspaper are also running the story." In a related story, reader paulraps writes "Sweden's Justice Department is backing a new proposal that would enable copyright holders to find out the identities of people illegally sharing their material on the Internet."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

226 comments

Let me be first to say (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19810775)

first lololol

Won't Be Censored? (4, Interesting)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810799)

The linked article says:

I want to point out that still to this day, the police has not given us one single hint on what content on the site has been containing child porn - and the things we have filtered out has been proven not to be child porn either.
(my emphasis)
Which sounds to me like they did remove something, and maybe even that if there was child porn they would remove that too. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just the Slashdot headline seems inaccurate. (Unless the article doesn't mean what I think.)

Re:Won't Be Censored? (2, Informative)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810809)

Heh, well I guess it's the Slashdot headline I didn't understand! I guess it means "won't be on the censored list". But the summary also says "the Pirate Bay states that no files have been removed", but the linked article makes it sound like they did.

Or something :)

one don't smartass childporn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19810897)

childporn is a to sensitive topic to be brushed away with the usual smartass piratebay routine. I's just as good to duck when they start tossing childporn over the battlefield, even if it's nonsence.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (5, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811171)

They have removed lots of stuff. They aren't exactly trumpeting that particular fact in their public grandstanding, though.

Try comparing http://thepiratebay.org/user/achim106/ [thepiratebay.org] and
http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:B5kqltngQjcJ: thepiratebay.org/user/achim106/+http://thepirateba y.org/user/achim106/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 [209.85.129.104] for instance.

I tried submitting a more balanced third-party article about this earlier, but apparently it's not interesting to Slashdot unless it's spin.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811255)

And now many people will soon realize that they just searched google for child pron.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811851)

In most countries, searching for child porn isn't illegal. Downloading child porn is. After all, how would all those vigilantes out there trying to shut down all the child porn sites do so if they couldn't find them?

Re:Won't Be Censored? (2, Interesting)

catxk (1086945) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812341)

Your logic doesn't make sense. How could all those sorry bastards battle child porn if they couldn't download it first to check if it really is child porn? The thing with The Pirate Bay seems to be that some jerkoffs had described torrents as containing child porn, when in fact, they did not. That the police acted on this without verifying - downloading - the material is totally unacceptable and I hope they will get their fare share of kicks in the groin for it.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (2, Funny)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812451)

Those cops should know that porn on p2p is _never_ properly named! That was a pretty stupid move.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811331)

That doesn't prove more than that the files used to be there. It might as well have been the user who removed them, especially since the warez was removed too.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (4, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811521)

Several different user accounts have mysteriously disappeared, within hours of this story hitting the net. No, I don't think that's a coincidence. The Pirate Bay admins themselves have complained that they had to guess at which files to remove because they got no communication from the police.

(The Police and The Pirate Bay both claim they were unable to contact the other.)

Re:Won't Be Censored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811443)

oh, but what's in a filename? Without downloading and opening each of those, they could be renamed Metallica songs, for all you know.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (1)

newr00tic (471568) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811761)

"Whats in a filename?"

TPB has a policy that they will delete entries with "false descriptions." -Meaning, if only theoretically, that the Metallica songs would've been removed in an instant while the abused kid would be "left alone," so to speak.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812239)

I tried submitting a more balanced third-party article about this earlier,

Considering the comments you made today and on the prvious story, the idea of you writing a "balanced third party article" is ludicrous.

And since you've used Google to find these torrents, why don't you extend your campaign to them? By plugging the terms into Google, I can immediately find hundreds of sites with the same links. Is every indexing site, web or torrent, supposed to send new links to you for approval before they make them available?

Re:Won't Be Censored? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812369)

Considering the comments you made today and on the prvious story, the idea of you writing a "balanced third party article" is ludicrous.

I wasn't referring to what I wrote. I was referring to the article I linked, which was written by a third party, and was not a Pirate Bay blog entry. I thought the summary was quite fair, though: http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=216345 [slashdot.org]

Or do you disagree?

And since you've used Google to find these torrents

I didn't, and Google actively works to filter out child porn. It's not perfect, but they are making an effort. The Pirate Bay, meanwhile, has not been. Other torrent sites remove this kind of torrent when they find it, but Pirate Bay has been making a point out of not doing it.

Some info about the filter (2, Informative)

tpwch (748980) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811291)

In a swedish newspaper they stated that they hadn't removed anything. Guess both sides are lying here.

Anyway, here is some info about the filter:
The filter is not mandatory in anyway. Its voluntary for the ISPs to implement it, and I'd estimate that about half of the swedish ISPs does it. Its also just a simple DNS filter, so its easy to get around by using another dns server, or running your own.

What is interesting in here is the fact that the agreement between the ISPs and the police states that neither party can show the list to anyone except a few technicians needed to implement the list. That kind of worries me, since they won't even show us what is censored. I think it may even be illegal, since Swedish freedom of press law says that you can't stop anyone from publishing anything, you can only take action against them after it has been published and spread if they are spreading illegal content, this is just because they want the people to be able to see what it is they want to censor, to make sure it can't get out of hand I suppose.

Re:Some info about the filter (1)

tryfan (235825) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811535)

> since Swedish freedom of press law says that you
> can't stop anyone from publishing anything

Except child porn. It's per definition illegal to publish child porn in Sweden, by an exception to fundamental law.
Another thing is, of course, that it hasn't been legally decided yet whether it's illegal to publish *links* to forbidden material, whether it's copyrighted material or whatever.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (2, Funny)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811399)

I say, if they filter anything, child porn is a thing that must be filtered.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (5, Funny)

computational super (740265) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811901)

I admire your courageous efforts to go out on a limb and commit yourself to such a controversial stance.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812311)

Freaking hilarious!

That is all.

Re:Won't Be Censored? (3, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812157)

Which sounds to me like they did remove something, and maybe even that if there was child porn they would remove that too

According to some comments in the blog, their admins checked a lot of torrrents some had claimed to be CP. They didn't find any of that, but did find other crap, like viruses, falsely labelled files, duplicates, etc and so they did remove those.

I have to say if one did want to trade CP, you would be competely insane to do it via a publc torrent indexing site. As far as I can see, the worst anyone has found is child models -- young kids wearing clothes, posing in a way some might find provocative, but no more so than in a JC Penney catalog. Sure, some are using it for sexaul gratification, but you could say the same about zucchinis and no one tries to ban them.

All about saving face... (5, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810801)

By referring to a file that was supposedly removed the Swedish police can say that they did their job correctly and remove the black mark they put next to The Pirate Bay's name without having to backtrack or publicly apologise in any way.

This is pretty standard practice with police everywhere nowadays: the politics of policing seems to be more important than actual policing.

Re:All about saving face... (0, Redundant)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811203)

Well, The Pirate Bay did remove a bunch of borderline child porn torrents before this announcements.

Or is it all about stopping child porn? (2, Interesting)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811531)

By referring to a file that was supposedly removed the Swedish police can say that they did their job correctly and remove the black mark they put next to The Pirate Bay's name without having to backtrack or publicly apologise in any way.

That's probably right, but perhaps there is a bit more to it. Perhaps it is in the interests of law enforcement agencies for there to be sites like The Pirate Bay in order to track, profile and investigate potential offenders. A bit like a 'raise the flag and shoot whoever salutes' trick. It wasn't, after all, their job to stop software piracy, copyright infringement or anything else other than child porn.


I would imagine it's actually rather difficult to infiltrate a group of individuals which does not meet in a public place, nor communicate using conventional methods. It's also difficult to form such a group without ever having communicated somewhere in public - but they'd do it if they were forced to. Therefore, it's not in their interests to push the activity too far underground.


Just an idea, anyway.


Fuck the police. (-1, Flamebait)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810803)

The police are corrupt, even if you think that they aren't.

Even if the whole force isn't corrupt, there is enough corruption (in this case probably near the top) that stupid bad stuff will still happen.

My guess is that someone told the chief (or whatever the head is called) that the act to "censor" the PirateBay for the reason given was stupid, that it was generating bad publicity and so on. Could it be the government?

Anyway, meh.

Re:Fuck the police. (2, Interesting)

siyavash (677724) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810867)

Corruption is EVERYWHERE. One can even suggest that it might be in human nature. HOWEVER, I'm no way liking censorship but to defend the swedish police, I have to say those encounters that I have had with our police been very nice. I doubt there is musth corruption in swedish police but corruption at political level. Swedish police is not like american police. They are usually very nice people and not thugs. I do like our police force. I'm originally from Iran so I know what a bad cop is, and swedish police are not bad. Although rotten eggs can be found anywhere.

Re:Fuck the police. (1)

siyavash (677724) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810893)

musth == much ( I messed up the spelling there. )

I also forgot to mention, not "fuck the police" but "fuck the bad corrupted people" sounds much better.

No surprise... (5, Insightful)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810823)

This was all bull from the start.

To put it in perspective: the supposed issue was that thePirateBay held links to child-porn, which is illegal in Sweden (there are forms of content that are illegal, but only some to which it is illegal to simply link). The government was proposing to have most of the major Swedish ISPs blacklist the site for having such links.

TPB stated that they do not hold such links, and if any are reported they are immediately investigated and removed. Since it is a forum on which anyone can post links to content, this is the most active policy it is possible to enforce. Therefore there are no grounds for blacklisting.

Most people suspect this was just a muscle-flexing on the part of the Swedish government - possibly under pressure from US and other governments, and ultimately from the MPAA, RIAA and other non-US affiliated organisations - and that it would come to nothing. They were just saying "Yes, you know our laws and do not flout them, but don't push it".

And in this case, it seems that this is indeed what happened. They have shown that they're not afraid to exercise a little force to keep ThePirateBay in line (albeit unnecessarily, in my opinion), and I daresay they've not harmed their cause at all in this regard. TPB is actually pretty strict and even-handed anyway, but this may have meant to serve as a bit of a warning from the Govt to anyone looking for inappropriate material: If you're after kiddy porn, TPB is not the place to look, and nor is Sweden.

I've simplified a little, and coloured heavily with my own opinion, but I just wanted to present a little more background for those who don't really give a fuck about all this but will insist on commenting anyway.

Thank you, goodnight.

Re:No surprise... (0, Redundant)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810985)

> TPB stated that they do not hold such links, and if any are reported they are immediately investigated and removed.

Those statements are not logically cohesive. If you run a tracker indexing hundreds of thousands of torrents, you have no idea whether or not you index any child porn torrents. You might know that you delete any that are reported as child porn, but if Bob puts up a torrent of an encrypted RAR called "my holiday snaps", or even a something in the clear that is named innocuously enough, it's probably not going to be downloaded by anyone except the people Bob invites to, so the chances of it being reported if it is nefarious are fairly slim. After all, TPB can't download things to check can they? That would copyright infringment ^_^

I have nothing against what TPB does, but I do think such blanket denials are silly.

Re:No surprise... (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811049)

But TPB doesn't host any actual files, just the torrent. So if the only people downloading Bob's torrents are people that he specifically invites, then why would he be putting it up on TPB at all. Since he is hosting the torrent, couldn't he just email the tracker to all the people who he wants to send the file to, or simply send them a URL to some password protected web directory so they could download the torrent file? Seems like a lot of extra risk to take, putting something like that up on a public site, when you just want to share it within a small group.

Re:No surprise... (1)

Odiumjunkie (926074) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811153)

Well, because it's the cleanest way of distributing a file to a number of people at once. It's efficient, and assuming no-one twigs, there aren't any copies left anywhere.

If you post even an encrypted RAR to a rapishare or a YouSendIt or whatever, then most likely there's a bit-for-bit copy of your stash on their servers for authorities to examine if they twig to what you're up to.

Fair enough, you could host the tracker yourself, but its not in the realms of the inconceivable for someone to do what I outlined.

Re:No surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811213)

The cleanest way would still be to email the tracker yourself, not to post it on TPB. If you don' want to email it, you would post it anonymously somewhere. Remember, for the analogy to work you would have to name it innocuously otherwise it could be found.

Yay!!! TPB is legal in Sweden.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811119)

Most people suspect this was just a muscle-flexing on the part of the Swedish government - possibly under pressure from US and other governments, and ultimately from the MPAA, RIAA and other non-US affiliated organisations - and that it would come to nothing. They were just saying "Yes, you know our laws and do not flout them, but don't push it".

And in this case, it seems that this is indeed what happened. They have shown that they're not afraid to exercise a little force to keep ThePirateBay in line (albeit unnecessarily, in my opinion), and I daresay they've not harmed their cause at all in this regard. TPB is actually pretty strict and even-handed anyway, but this may have meant to serve as a bit of a warning from the Govt to anyone looking for inappropriate material: If you're after kiddy porn, TPB is not the place to look, and nor is Sweden.
Let's dispel one urban myth, what TPB does isn't exactly legal in Sweden and, contrary to popular opinion, neither is copyright violation. The Swedes passed new antipiracy legislation just a few years ago. TPB has been living in a legal limbo in Sweden that is apparently created by the fact that Swedish courts have not yet ruled on the legality of bittorent trackers like TPB who facilitate copyright violations. I suppose that even if TPB's operation is ever completely outlawed in Sweden they will still be able to operate from facilities in places like Russia and Europe's wild, wild East but that will still not move their bittorrent tracking firmly into the realm of what is legal in most countries unless they make an effort to filter out torrents that point to unlicensed copies of copyrighted material (if that is even practically possible and not that they'd be inclined to do so if it was). TPB is pretty deliberately facilitating copyright violations and they are not afraid to flaunt it but that doesn't mean that the Swedish police are completely unjustified in raiding them, that TPB isn't hurting anybody's business with what they do or that having a service like this available to you is some one of your basic human rights. If you are going to download and consume software and multimedia products, without paying for the privilege, products that other people worked hard to create and depend upon to feed their families at least be honest about what you are.

Re:Yay!!! TPB is legal in Sweden.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811345)

If you are going to download and consume software and multimedia products, without paying for the privilege, products that other people worked hard to create and depend upon to feed their families at least be honest about what you are.

And what you are is a downloader. That's all.

All those hard working people who weigh so heavily on your mind still have exactly what they had before. They have lost nothing, not even a potential sale. (And if you insist on handwaving and claim that they have lost a potential sale, then I will do the same and claim that they have gained 2 extra potential purchases from the added social marketting plus an extra saving in marketting costs, an argument that is a good deal stronger than yours.)

So yes, let's be honest about what's going on here. It's downloading, that's all.

That is such a load of steaming bullshit.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811547)

All those hard working people who weigh so heavily on your mind still have exactly what they had before. They have lost nothing, not even a potential sale. (And if you insist on handwaving and claim that they have lost a potential sale, then I will do the same and claim that they have gained 2 extra potential purchases from the added social marketing plus an extra saving in marketing costs, an argument that is a good deal stronger than yours.)

So yes, let's be honest about what's going on here. It's downloading, that's all.
Ok, this is funny... you are honestly trying to tell me that every single solitary person who downloads say, a computer game off TPB, or simply downloads a little, cheap-as-shit, (but often very useful) shareware programs off the net and then cracks the program with a patcher or a keygen from a TBP supplied torrent is also a person who would never buy that program if they couldn't illegally download and crack it? I have written a Shareware program which is in fairly widespread use. I estimate that less than 10% of the copies in circulation are legal. You are either trolling or your are honestly so stupid as to really expect me to believe that not a single one of the ~90% of my user base who pirates my software wouldn't shell out the 10 measly bucks it costs to get a license if they had no alternative? Quite frankly I am not at all satisfied with a social marketing effect that yields me one license sale for every 9 unlicensed installations. Why don't you come and join the rest of us who live in the real word where illegal downloads represent real revenue losses for the manufacturer of the program/multimedia-content in question and don't make an ass of your self in public by claiming pirate consumers are doing invaluable marketing work for those they are happily ripping off.

Re:That is such a load of steaming bullshit.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811639)

grow up. how much 'cheapass shit' you ever produced? or are you content to just leech of those who make stuff?

Re:That is such a load of steaming bullshit.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811797)

grow up. how much 'cheapass shit' you ever produced? or are you content to just leech of those who make stuff?
Willful misquoting... could you possibly have come up with a more pathetic troll than that? I wrote: 'cheap-as-shit' which is roughly synonymous with 'really cheap' or 'costs little more than a meal at McDonald's'. I didn't write 'cheapass shit'.

Re:That is such a load of steaming bullshit.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811757)

Have you asked those 10% how moany of them have actually learned of your program through illicit distributions? Don't be so quick to disregard that a large portion of those who download actually choose to support good software.
Hell, even though I hardly ever use some software, e.g. K!TV, I've sent more than one of your licenses' worth to both because I want them to develop further. I can't remember last time I used K!TV. Or Damn Small Linux, same story.

Hell, if it wasn't for evil nasty pirating, I wouldn't have any albums by Willard Grant Conspiracy [youtube.com] (love that guy's voice) or for that matter, The Postal Service's only album.

Sure, I might be an exception to the rule, but rather than seeing 100'000 pirate downloads as 100'000 lost customers (never gonna happen), consider it 100'000 pitches to prospective customers where you don't have to actively do anything that you would not have done anyway (i.e., clean up your code, add new features, change colours every few iterations). (anon because I've moderated)

Re:That is such a load of steaming bullshit.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812069)

Have you asked those 10% how moany of them have actually learned of your program through illicit distributions? Don't be so quick to disregard that a large portion of those who download actually choose to support good software.
That's the frustrating bit, that only 10% of theuser base bother to be honest despite all the wonderful social marketing the cracker crowd, the keygen authors and the administrators of TBP and similar services. It kind of sucks that you have to live with 9 people effectively obtaining a counterfeit license to use your product, free of charge, to get one single honest sale. I bet if you had a supermarket you would be pretty pissed if the 10% of your customers that actually bother to pay learned about your supermarket from the 90% that shoplift. Pretty efficient marketing eh? (BTW. that was meant as a marketing efficiency analogy, not as a theft vs. illegal copying analogy) Thankfully all you have to do in your supermarket to bring the shoplifting rate down is to set up some cameras, screen your employees and worst case you have to put a guard at each door. With software this isn't possible, you are at the mercy of morons who have deluded them selves into thinking that they are helping you market your product by either writing cracks for your software and distributing them or by distributing pre-cracked binaries with the help of TPB.

Sure, I might be an exception to the rule, but rather than seeing 100'000 pirate downloads as 100'000 lost customers (never gonna happen), consider it 100'000 pitches to prospective customers where you don't have to actively do anything that you would not have done anyway (i.e., clean up your code, add new features, change colours every few iterations). (anon because I've moderated)
I don't see 100.000 pirate downloads as 100.000 lost sales but I find it rather simplistic to assume the exact opposite, that 100.000 pirate downloads don't result in a single lost sale because the pirate users that made them either don't need the software that badly or because they just intended to look at the software and didn't like it. If that's what they wanted there are easier ways of getting a demo version than to download the software off TPB and crack it. If somebody was to wave a magic wand today and all software became instantly unpiratable I think that a certain percentage of those 100.000 pirate consumers would (grudgingly) buy a software license because they genuinely needed the product and were saw no reason to pay for it when they could get it for free with the help of TBP.

Re:Yay!!! TPB is legal in Sweden.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811745)

I'm always confused by this sentiment, so please explain it to me.

You state that there is no sale lost, and this is the part that confuses me.

Are you saying that all the downloads are for products that aren't good enough to be bought? If so, why is anyone downloading them? If downloading were not possible would more copies then be purchased? If so then isn't a potential sale being lost?

It can only be no sale is lost if the product would not have been purchased if downloading wasn't possible, and if it is that bad why are people downloading it?

Mind you I'm not stating the copyright holders are entitled to any expectation of a sale, but to consistently state no sale was lost due to downloading may sound technically correct (no physical items were harmed in the making of this copy) but I don't think it is completely accurate.

And as for your counter of gaining 2 extra potential purchases, huh? How does unauthorized distribution help marketing unless there are people that just download anything and everything new to see if they like it? I'm guessing most folks download something they already know about, either through marketing or friends, so marketing has already occurred.

And why would there be a potential purchase? I've seen the comments where people state that they download first then buy the CD, but I've not seen any real studies that show the larger downloaders actually go off and buy more.

Re:Yay!!! TPB is legal in Sweden.. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812315)

Are you saying that all the downloads are for products that aren't good enough to be bought?
Living in Poland, getting to know some local populace.. I'd have to say that people in Poland value their entertainment. But they value their money a lot more and they will not spend it if they can help it.

I've known people who were filesharing non-stop getting cut off from the Internet for over a year. They did not buy a single movie/song during that period.

Of course individuals vary, but I do believe that is a 'common mentality' in Poland, this is probably true for some other nations.

Re:No surprise... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19812307)

Indeed, such an offense as that should be tracked down and prosecuted, yet where do you draw the line? Digital bits, sickening as they may be cannot be removed from society no matter how many bans we impose. Such effort isn't just futile, it is counterproductive to the dissemination of such abhorrent images. Still, such futile efforts must be made for we have no better way of combating this unacceptable sick violence. There is slim hope for humanity, soon we will descend into the chaos predicted by theologians globally. See ya'll in the pits of Hell :p

Doo dah, doo dah (0)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811025)

So basically bet your money on the Swedish police, nobody bets on the (Pirate) Bay?

sorry, but not very.

No deletions? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19810829)

Except in the TPB blog, people posted links to questionable torrents, and some of them went dead soon after. I didn't verify the contents of these torrents, but some stuff was removed for sure. Like all torrents by this user:
http://thepiratebay.org/user/debruin/ [thepiratebay.org] (Nothing to see there now..since it was removed, but I am certain there was stuff there earlier.)

I guess if one were inclined to give both parties the benefit of the doubt, it might be a matter of what is seen as child porn. The police thought it was, TBP didn't, but deleted things anyway at the request of some users.

Re:No deletions? (4, Insightful)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810915)

TPB seems to have has many times more child porn uploaded on their site the past few days, than all the years they've been operating. So whomever it was that decided to put TPB on that list, has in fact _increased_ the distribution of child porn.

Re:No deletions? (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810959)

Not trying to create a new conspiracy, but maybe just had to create a crime to match the report...

Re:No deletions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811111)

The user debruin has been around for ages though.. And the PB tracker is still tracking the child porn. If you go to an aggregator like BT Junkie and search for the lost lolita archives or something along those lines you'll find some that has been around for years. TPB just removed it from the web interface.

Re:No deletions? (2, Interesting)

hacker (14635) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812035)

So whomever it was that decided to put TPB on that list, has in fact _increased_ the distribution of child porn.

Perhaps that was the point?

If you claim that they're being delisted because of child pornography, and then the masses decides to revolt against that by uploading gigabytes of child porn, you just validated your original (false at the onset) assertion. Now they CAN take TPB down, because they are, in fact, a party to distributing child pornography.

But as TPB removes it, they'll have to then start looking into benign-named torrents that may contain child pornography instead. An ebook on faucet repair in a 1gb .rar file? Are you sure?

Re:No deletions? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811217)

Another example is http://thepiratebay.org/user/achim106/ [thepiratebay.org].

That one is still in the Google cache: http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:B5kqltngQjcJ: thepiratebay.org/user/achim106/+http://thepirateba y.org/user/achim106/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 [209.85.129.104]

The police thought it was, TBP didn't, but deleted things anyway at the request of some users.

Actually, no, they specfically didn't delete these things when users requested it before this big upset. It's only after they got all this unwanted attention that they suddenly started nuking entire user accounts.

So what you're saying is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811475)

that TPB always deleted stuff from their areas, including KP. Just like AOL removes stuff like KP when some tosser puts it on AOL systems.

So why is it TPB is blacklisted for having temporarily KP on their machines but AOL isn't?

Re:So what you're saying is (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811549)

Try reading that again. I was saying the exact opposite. They did NOT remove those torrents in the past.

Read the linked article (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810871)

Mr. Andersson put it quite directly, and straight to the point: Bending over to the recording industry will do more harm than good in the long run.

Right now, it's quite possible to follow the trail of data. P2P links directly from source to destination. With data retention and easier access to user data, users will switch to tools that reroute the traffic through multiple nodes from source to destination, so following it becomes near impossible.

Currently, people don't use it. Simple reason: It increases traffic by a multiple, depending on the number of hosts you route it through, it can three, four or tenfold. And thus the data throughput is lower. So following the trail of "really" criminal data is quite possible for the police. Should someone (ab)use a P2P network to transfer data that doesn't only infringe copyright but actually contains something that would interest a general attorney (not only because of lobbying of certain interest groups but because it is the G.A.'s biz, because it DOES actually affect every citizen if a crime of this kind if committed), it's fairly easily possible to find source and destination.

If now file sharing is criminalized, people will quickly pick up obfuscation mechanisms to protect themselves against the recording industry. And thus will protect invariably those that use those channels to distribute data that can be used for (or is by its very nature) a crime. Not only against certain interest groups and minorities, but against the majority of people on this planet.

In other words, the RIAA is helping pedophiles and terrorists all over the planet (hey, why should terrorhype and thinkofthechildren only be used by the adversaries of privacy?).

Re:Read the linked article (4, Interesting)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19810961)

Yeah. But onion routing is only one way of foiling traffic-analysis. Downloading to a shared machine (with many users) that deliberately does not keep logs, and then transfering from that machine to your own using an encrypted protocol also works. It does mean transfering the content twice -- first to the shared machine, and then from there to your own machine, but that isn't a very large price to pay. But true, onion-routing is practical. And gets more practical as bandwith grows more than the content grows. I've got the lowest speed offered by my ISP. 10Mbps symetrical. At that speed, downloading an album of music compressed to say 192Kbps takes on the order of half a minute. If it would instead take 5 minutes, but be untracable, that wouldn't be a huge price to pay at all. Yes it's an order of magnitude more, who cares, it's still 5 minutes. Even larger stuff, say something which is 1GB large. At line-speed that is 10 minutes. If it took an hour, but was untracable, again that'd be a reasonable enough trade-off. And I'm being conservative here. You don't need to bounce the average packet trough 10 nodes to give plausible deniability. I doubt it's going to be possible to convict someone for something that it is, for example, 25% likely he is actually guilty of. (which would require bouncing packets trough on the average 3 dummy-nodes.)

Re:Read the linked article (1)

SpaceballsTheUserNam (941138) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811191)

So wouldn't this mean that each node would then be guilty of pirating, whether or not they actually download something illegal for themselves? You could say that just by running the software they knowingly distributed pirated content.

Re:Read the linked article (2, Insightful)

Eivind (15695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811339)

I don't think so. Typical implementations use encryption, so that there is no way for you to know what kind of content you are forwarding.

It'd be sorta like claiming your ISP is guilty of copyrigth-violations if they forward encrypted packets to you that happen to contain a copyrigthed work distributed illegally.

If that view went trough, it'd essentially become illegal for anyone to forward encrypted packets to anyone.

Re:Read the linked article (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811103)

"In other words, the RIAA is helping pedophiles and terrorists all over the planet"

congratulations, that's the most exploitative, desperate and pathetic defence of copyright infringement I have ever read in my life.

Re:Read the linked article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811151)

Yes, it is beautiful.
From now on, i'll never again pay for copyrighted material, that way I help undermine consumer terrorism.
(ok, i will occasionally pay for indie games, but that's it!)

Re:Read the linked article (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811701)

I know it's becoming common to reduce every argument to the bottom line and ignore the reasoning behind it, but do you think it's possible, at least here on /., to remain in the good tradition of actual discussion (akin to the philosophers of the days of yore, not Oprah and Springer)? If you don't like my argument, you're invited to counter it with an argument. Yelling WROOOOONG is none.

It doesn't make sharing copyrighted material legal. I don't claim that it does, nor do I want to argue in favor of copyright infringements. All I want to argue is that, knowing human nature, this is the logic consequence. What is more likely? That people stop using P2P to share files they shouldn't, or that they will adapt and evade the tracing mechanisms? Keep in mind that it does not require any knowledge of tracing and avoiding it, all it takes is to download a tool that does it for you. Quite similar to the way P2P already works. How many of the people using P2P tools have the foggiest clue how they work?

And since people will do whatever necessary to avoid being tracable, this development will lead towards more privacy for those that actually do commit a crime. When you push ordinary people in the vicinity of real criminals, they will aid those criminals, simply by being indistinguishable from them.

So if you want to take my argument apart, please do. I enjoy a good discussion, and yes, I'm aware of the most obvious counter argument, that it's the people's fault if they're helping the criminals by using better encryption and better obfuscation. The question remains whether they'd do it if they weren't pushed to do it. Because, as said above, people will not heed a law they don't support. They will do whatever necessary to evade it, but they will not bow to it.

Re:Read the linked article (1)

computational super (740265) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812085)

If now file sharing is criminalized, people will quickly pick up obfuscation mechanisms to protect themselves

File sharing was criminalized as soon as Newsweek published the first article describing what it was to the computer illiterate. I reasoned along the same lines as you're reasoning when they shut down Napster (oh, boy, now the file-sharers are going to create an underground, untraceable network), but it never materialized. If it didn't happen then, it's not going to happen now (not that I'm a big fan of the RIAA - just pointing out that you're making some big assumptions here).

Is this an argument over method or over result? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19810963)


It's often argued that the method of tracking torrent sharers is evil. For a number of reasons - the 'library principle', personal privacy, the uncertainty of which computer is the torrent client, and the uncertainty of which user is making use of the computer. These are all criticisms as to method.

But let's say this was for something quite different - let's say it was surveillance in order to.. monitor the sharing of child porn and catch offenders. Would exactly the same _method_ criticisms apply?

I have the cynical suspicion that the _method_ criticisms regarding monitoring torrent sharers are actually vicarious motives for _end_ criticisms, as they do not seem to apply in other cases where they equally much should.

Re:Is this an argument over method or over result? (4, Insightful)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811611)

So you are saying that we should treat the guy sharing a bootlegged copy of Spiderman 3 as if they were peddling child porn?

All joking aside, and as much as I dislike pedophiles. I have to say the exact same standards for someone sharing a copy of some movie should be the same standards we use to prosecute pedophiles.

Which is to say that you should not be able to convict someone based on an IP address alone. The police when dealing with those who peddle and share child porn often have to go through alot. The timeline is typically something like this.

Pedo gets caught talking to a 10 year old girl IRL by their parents. (skip this if its potential sting operation by a legal entity)
Parents contact FBI (see above)
FBI agent pretends to be 10 year old girl.
Pedo eventually tells FBI Agent posing at 10 year old girl to come meet them at X-location.
FBI gets warrant to show to ISP getting themselves the physical house address to the IP address corresponding.
FBI gets warrant to search the premesis based on evidence in last step.
FBI raids the house when they see the people are home and seize all the computer equipment and arrest everyone inside.

Which is a far cry away from the RIAA/MPAA model
Get IP Address
Issue DMCA order to ISP to get them to try and cough up the name/address of the person who owns the account
Extort money from said person (We know that you were sharing music/movies! Here take our offer of $3000 so we can go away and pretend this never happened)
...
Profit!

associations with child porn (4, Interesting)

MrSpiff (515611) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811015)

it has also been suggested in various swedish blogs that the reason for this could be to label the pirate bay and file sharing in general as a dirty business and to scare people away from it by associating it with child porn. representatives of the danish antipiracy movement has stated that child porn is actually a good tool for fighting piracy (source http://forum.piratpartiet.se/Topic79221-15-5.aspx# bm79282 [piratpartiet.se]), if service providers agree to filter child porn and help prosecute those who distribute it (as is the case for most providers in sweden today), it will be a much smaller step to do the same for copyrighted material.

Re:associations with child porn (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811181)

That may very well be the case.

However, it's also true. The Pirate Bay has been running (and, I hear, still runs) torrents for very borderline if not outright illegal child porn material. They have refused to remove them (like many other trackers do) until now when it suddenly got worldwide attention, when they started nuking torrents left and right.

Compare http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:B5kqltngQjcJ [209.85.129.104]: thepiratebay.org/user/achim106/+http://thepirateba y.org/user/achim106/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 and http://thepirateba/ [thepirateba] y.org/user/achim106/ for instance.

Re:associations with child porn (1)

MrSpiff (515611) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811327)

even so, the very reason why The Pirate Bay has not yet been shut down by swedish authorities is because no copyrighted material actually exists on their servers due to the nature of Bittorrents and simply linking to it is not a crime (yet atleast). swedish child pornography laws only prohibit posession of child pornographic material, linking to it or viewing it, even posession of it in the form of a browser cache in some cases is not considered illegal. the staff of TPB does not have the resources to view the contents of all torrents they track, but they do remove what they can whenever they discover virus or child pornography.

Re:associations with child porn (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811505)

Actually, they have specifically not removed these torrents in the past, when they have been reported. They only removed them now due to massive media attention.

Furthermore, it does not take much effort to search on obvious child porn keywords and check, or just plain remove them without checking. Many other torrent sites remove all torrents like this.

Re:associations with child porn (2, Informative)

MrSpiff (515611) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811633)

quoting one of TPB's admins, brokep, from his blog (http://blog.brokep.com/2007/07/06/swedish-police- will-censor-the-pirate-bay/ [brokep.com]):

To make things perfectly clear - we don't host any content. And I have never seen child porn on the bay. Our moderators work on all the reports we receive from the public and they contact ECPAT or other organisations if they found suspicious stuff. The police has never contacted us in any aspect regarding child porn!

Re:associations with child porn (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811779)

To make things perfectly clear - we don't host any content. And I have never seen child porn on the bay.

Quoting another admin, anakata:

"We have a police to not remove torrents. We have however reported the ten or so suspected child porn torrents to the police..."

http://www.flashback.info/showpost.php?p=7647263&p ostcount=264 [flashback.info]

So one says they have never seen child porn, the other one says they have. Let's just say their statements in general are not quite matching up in this matter. They have been taking a very laissez-faire approach to child porn, and now that it's coming back to haunt them they are covering up. They're hardly unbiased in this matter, and they aren't being very honest, so I would recommend against taking what they say at face value.

Re:associations with child porn (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811903)

To make things perfectly clear - we don't host any content. And I have never seen child porn on the bay.
and

"We have a police[policy] to not remove torrents. We have however reported the ten or so suspected child porn torrents to the police..."
The 2 are not mutually exclusive. One states he has not seen any child porn, the other states that they have forwarded 10 or so suspected child porn torrents to the police. If they haven't received any confirmations on those 10, then there's no confirmed child porn on TPB and both statements can be made without contradiction.

Re:associations with child porn (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812313)

That's nothing but semantic games and weasel words. It's the kind of thing Slashdotters will scream and shout about when politicians do it.

Re:associations with child porn (1)

MrSpiff (515611) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812337)

Thank you. It's very important to not forget the fact that a lot of p2p content is questionable to say the least, but for it to be illegal it must be subject to investigation by professionals and tried in a court of law. Sadly for our legal system, the swedish police authority wants to cut the process a lot shorter. Also, just because pictures of scantily clad children and teens upset a lot of people doesn't make it illegal. I would consider TPB to be hypocritical if they let their own judgement decide what's ethical to share through their service instead of the law.

from the article: (4, Insightful)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811123)

"The aim of the proposal is to facilitate efforts to clamp down on illegal file-sharing. This in turn is expected to stimulate the development of lawful alternatives for the spread of music and movies over the internet, according to a statement from the Justice Department.

Tobias Andersson, press spokesman for lobby organization Piratbyrån, was critical of the move.

"This is completely crazy," he said, before adding that "it is time to stop pampering the record industry".

"The danger here is that it will speed up the development of anonymous file-sharing programmes that make it technically more difficult to trace somebody's internet use. These kinds of services can also be exploited by people involved in criminal activities, such as paedophiles".

============

Okaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy. So the guy from the 'pirate party' is now trying to defend a website full of copyrighted material because "to attack our freedom to share copies of spiderman 3, is to encourage paedophiles".
This is truly pathetic, and goes to show the lengths some people will go to in order to keep on getting music, movies and other stuff for free. If the pirate bay really gave a damn about free speech, they would remove *all* copyrighted material, and merely use the site to host information that genuinely should be protected, like leaked documents from whistleblowers, information that governments want suppressed, political opinions far outside the mainstream etc etc. The fact is, maybe 0.01% of stuff on TPB will fall into a 'geneuine protected speech' category, the rest is just copyrighted stuff people want to leech.
By doing this, ironically, they are totally undermining the legitimate argument for the protection of a free, uncensored web, and peoples right to publish information of a sensitive nature. If you put some civil right activist in a courtroom arguing that its essential that TPB exists because it is a defence of free speech, he will just be totally crushed by an opposition lawyer who hands the judge a PC and shows him the top 500 torrents on TPB.

If you care about privacy, freedom of information and censroship, defending people like TPB is entirely the wrong way to do it. They trivialise the entire argument into "my human rights to get free hollywood movies".

Re:from the article: (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811229)

Piratbyrån does NOT represent the Pirate Party of Sweden, nor is it The Pirate Bay.

PiratByrån - NGO.
Pirate Party - Political Party.
The Pirate Bay - Bittorrent tracker search engine.

All run by different people. Obviously, they have overlapping interests, but so does your local recycling center, the green party and greenpeace.

Strawman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811271)

First, a couple of points:
1. Piratbyrån != Pirate Party, ok?
2. "Think of the children"-arguments do indeed sucks.
3. The Pirate Bay is not full of copyrighted material. It's a torrent tracker, ok?

But Piratbyrån does not, AFAIK, use freedom of speech to defend piracy. They are saying that
todays copyright law, e.g. monopolization of culture, only serves to enrichen the industry at the expense of others.

I do not know how fighting for a reformation (or elimination) of copyright law relates *directly* to the battle against censorship and the defense of privacy.

However the defense of the Pirate Bay does not cheapen the argument for freedom of information, why should some information be not-free just because you don't like it? Isn't that censorship of a sorts?

Re:from the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811283)

So the guy from the 'pirate party' is now trying to defend a website full of copyrighted material

I had a look at TPB but couldn't find any copyrighted material at all, just links
to it, like you find on Google.

Do you have a link to this copyrighted material or are you talking out of
your arse?

Re:from the article: (1, Troll)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811365)

hello coward. has it occurred to you that these guys are just facilitating others breaking the law? its a pathetic moral defence to say "I'm not actually physically hosting the bytes in this case", its a bit like saying "I just told them how to bypass the locks, I didn't actually physically break in, officer"
TPB exists so that geeks can get hollywood movies for free, while its owners rake in advertising cash. It's a business model based upon copyright infringement and leeching. Dressing it up as anything else is just naive

Re:from the article: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811427)

Don't get your knickers in a twist - Copyright infringement isn't wrong, it's just currently illegal. If there was a law telling you to kill your firstborn, would you obey it because it's the law? No, of course not. A law forbidding you from passing on information is arguably "less" bad than a law requiring you to kill your firstborn. But it's still bad, and one should not respect unjust laws.

If you disagree with a law, encouraging disrespect for it is a good thing, and The Pirate Bay encourages disrespect for copyright law.

Re:from the article: (3, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811439)

its a pathetic moral defence to say "I'm not actually physically hosting the bytes in this case", its a bit like saying "I just told them how to bypass the locks, I didn't actually physically break in, officer"

Yeah, it would be just as wrong as publishing an article [slashdot.org] about . [wikipedia.org]

TPB exists so that geeks can get hollywood movies for free, while its owners rake in advertising cash. It's a business model based upon copyright infringement and leeching.

I assure you, I haven't been tempted to download Hollywood movies or RIAA music for ages. I can't imagine why anyone would be.

Re:from the article: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811711)

Hi I-talk-out-of-my-arse cliffski

Has it occurred to you that Microsoft facilitating others breaking the law in
allowing IE to connect to TPB which links to copyright material? Or that
Mastercard is facilitating others breaking the law in allowing me to buy a
computer which runs IE which will allow me to connect to TPB which links to
copyright material?

Or do you just not think before opening your arse/mouth combo?

Re:from the article: (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811975)

TPB only links to copyrighted and illegally hosted material, and it does it deliberately in an anonymous way to help them get away with it. IE doesn't mask the URL does it? Think about it. And learn to be civil kid.

Re:from the article: (1)

Agrajag-01 (1085957) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811371)

It seems odd that a positive bias is afforded to the pirate bay (certainly not negative) when we know they really do facilitate copyright infringment. It is worse though that they can continue however kids using peer-to-peer, and not event understanding what peer-to-peer means, get clobbered.

Demanding that we be able to view/listen to our purchased products how we see fit is a very different argument to defending people who admit and even enjoy notoriety as thieves.

I am a bit hypocritical in that I might download a movies to see what it is like or copy an overnight rental for viewing later but if I like it I nearly always buy it. It just means I spend less on junk (now that has hollywood scared, not that I have watch many hollywood films in the past 5 years). I say almost because some foreign stuff is pretty hard to get.

Re:from the article: (2, Interesting)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812023)

It seems odd that a positive bias is afforded to the pirate bay (certainly not negative) when we know they really do facilitate copyright infringement.
I, for one, do have a positive bias toward TPB, even though they facilitate copyright infringement. Mostly because I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to how copyright infringement is a Bad Thing(tm).

You yourself admit that it has helped you weed out the junk in your movie purchases. And the studios still get your money for the good stuff. If this means that the movie studios and the record labels don't get to make any money off of stuff people don't want to watch/listen to, all the better.

Bottom line, if they are making quality art, people will pay for it (assuming they don't alienate their customers by having a couple of their "John Doe" lawsuits brought to the attention of the general public)

Re:from the article: (3, Interesting)

Hydian (904114) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811403)

Okaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy. So the guy from the 'pirate party' is now trying to defend a website full of copyrighted material because "to attack our freedom to share copies of spiderman 3, is to encourage paedophiles".
You completely missed what he did say in your efforts to rush forward with what you wanted him to say.

What he said is that forcing file sharing to go underground is going to accelerate the development of tools that make said file sharing harder to trace. If child porn is the government's larger concern as they claim it is, then they should recognize that those same tools will be used by those priority targets which will make catching them tougher. It is true, but not a good argument.

As far as your misconceptions about freedoms...the fact that some people abuse something is by no means a legitimate argument against freedom of speech. That is about the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. Not that any of it matters in this case since no one country owns the internet. TPB doesn't break any laws in their country and you don't have any more right to try and push your laws on them than they have to push their laws on you. You don't have to like it, but you should respect it.

Re:from the article: (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811477)

I don't respect people who take other peoples hard work, distribute it, and make advertising revenue from doing so.
Plus, have you thought through their argument?

industry says "we want to remove the anonymity of filesharers"

pirates say "this is wrong. removing anonymity will result in more anonymous file sharing services, which will be a haven for paedophiles"

so basically the pirates are saying anonymity is bad because it will allow people to break the law. And from this, they conclude that anonymity should remain.
What part of their logic actually makes sense to you? Anonymity either encourages the breaking of the law or it does not, you cannot have it both ways, just because you want free music.

Re:from the article: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811735)

I don't respect people who take other peoples hard work.
(a) nothing is taken. Copying is simply not stealing.
(b) the amount of "Hard work" is rightly irrelevant in a capitalist society. Karl Marx believed in the now-long-discredited labor theory of value - that something is somehow "worth" the amount of effort it took to produce - trivially stupid, once you stop think about it: If I work for years to make a car out of toothpicks or something similarly pointless, I've just wasted a big chunk of my life producing something of very low value to the world. The failure of Marxist communist theory to correspond with reality ultimately stems from Marx's belief in the Labor theory of Value, not "human nature" or some nonsense. His axioms were simply wrong.

I'm totally fine with hollywood shutting down and the record companies going out of business and some artists going back to having day jobs. Total Freedom of Information is far more important than privileging those very artists most willing to help build a police state to secure their privilege. Copyright and patent have no place in a free capitalist society. It saddens me that so many young people think should "fight capitalism", they should recognise that the current Western system is nowhere near capitalism and getting further away the more state power to grant market-destroying monopolies like copyright and patent is exteded.

Re:from the article: (0, Flamebait)

cliffski (65094) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812003)

why is it that such drivel is always posted by anonymous cowards? amusing to hear you slagging off karl marx, when your attitude to the market for creative works seems to be a communist one.

Re:from the article: (2, Interesting)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#19812317)

I don't respect people who take other peoples hard work, distribute it, and make advertising revenue from doing so.
Technically, TPB doesn't distribute, It provides a forum for others to distribute. The people distributing aren't making money from advertising. They are paying for their own bandwidth, so you could even argue that they are losing money. The advertising on the Pirate Bay's site is so they can afford to run the site, servers aren't free you know.

Plus, have you thought through their argument?
Yes, let me break it down for you.
In the beginning, there was Napster. Napster and other "p2p" sites weren't really peer-to-peer. they were "facilitated peer-to-peer" or peer-to-server-to-peer. In this environment, it was relatively easy to get the IP address of an infringer, all you had to do was check the server logs. Then the RIAA, MPAA, and associates began cracking down on this "p2p" traffic and suing the living crap out of every one they caught (or thought they caught) infringing.
So, many (the more cautious) began using torrents. Torrents are truly p2p (with the exception of the server hosting the trackers, which is just a direct download, no sharing involved) and so, much harder to track, but not impossible.
Now, for the Pirate Bay's argument:
"If you continue to persecute bittorrent sites, it will lead to the development of even more anonymous, (encrypted, node-hopping) networks, where it will be harder to find someone when a real crime (e.g. kiddie porn distribution) is committed."

What part of their logic actually makes sense to you?
All of it.

Anonymity either encourages the breaking of the law or it does not, you cannot have it both ways, just because you want free music.
Anonymity is a tool, to be used for bad or good according to its user. It can be used to protect kiddie porn dealers just as easily as it can be used to protect free speech. In this case, the free speech happens to be, "Hey, I don't agree at all with your silly copyright laws! So pbtthh on you!"
The point of the statment was, If you force us pirates (arrgg) to develop and use even more anonymous means to our end, then don't blame us when the pedophiles do the same.

Re:from the article: (1)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811783)

Freedom of Speech means being able to say and do things that other people find offensive.

Much of the piracy you see is a result of an old outdated 'Copyright' law. One that has been systemically modified, expanded, extended, and enhanced over the years from what it was originally meant to be.

14 Years was the original duration of Copyright. If it was still the case then maybe just maybe people would respect it more. Now its been expanded to Life + 70 years and in the case of companies possibly indefinately/forever. All on account of corporate interests *COUGH*DISNEY*COUGH*! Under the original duration things might become public domain while still culturally relevant

Now for a short educational film on Copyright Law [youtube.com] yes it's been posted on slashdot as its own article before but it applies here.

Either way rampant piracy has as much to do with an outdated business model, treating their customers like criminals, DRM (or anti-DRM) movement and other such things. I find it hard to respect a company that smacks me over the head with a moral argument about piracy before the start of every film I go to see IN THE THEATER.

Any other company would go out of business treating their customers like criminals. Why should they be permitted to thrive?

Re:from the article: (3, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811899)

This is truly pathetic, and goes to show the lengths some people will go to in order to keep on getting music, movies and other stuff for free. If the pirate bay really gave a damn about free speech, they would remove *all* copyrighted material, and merely use the site to host information that genuinely should be protected, like leaked documents from whistleblowers, information that governments want suppressed, political opinions far outside the mainstream etc etc. The fact is, maybe 0.01% of stuff on TPB will fall into a 'geneuine protected speech' category, the rest is just copyrighted stuff people want to leech.
All the 'good' things you mentioned are almost certainly copyrighted too you know. Who gets to decide what is 'good' infringing material, and what is 'bad' infringing material? Defending free speech means defending all of it, even those things that you disagree with personally.

Ah, but leeching free copies of spiderman 3 isn't free speech at all! I hear you say. Which just goes to show what a good job the media industry have done.

Remember, copyright is a two-way deal. I suspend my free speech right to diseminate copies of public domain material for a period of exclusivity for creating copies by the original author. For 14 years, if I remember rightly. All so that ever greater amounts of creative works enter the public domain, for the benefit of all - our shared culture to grow ever richer, for derivative works to grow, for the education and entertainment of all. All works will enter the public domain, because the stories and ideas and shared culture that people create from also come from the public domain.

Fast forward a couple of hundred years. Copyright isn't a deal any more. It's 'intellectual property'. Ideas, stories, music all of it. Locked up in digital vaults, defended by infinitely-extending copyright duration. Huge amounts of material should be in the public domain by now, and yet none of it is. Some musicians in the UK are complaining that their 'property' is about to expire after 50 years. Well, the deal was even less generous when they created the works, yet they want to extend the duration of the copyrights again, and again, and again after the fact.

Well you know what? Stuff them. They had a deal. and they broke it, over and over again. I have a right to make backup copies, I have a right to share these materials with my friends and I have a right watch it in any damn way I please. The law may not recognise these rights, but any law which criminalises 60-70% of the population (and if you include trivial violations like media shifting, it's damn near 100%) is a bad law, and should be repealed. There are alternative ways to encourage and fund creative works, and get them into the public domain - lets explore that.

You argue my views, and the exercise of them is illegal, and should be prevented by people like TPB. How is that any different than making illegal and banning 'proper' free speech like whistleblowers? They feel that all speech is to be protected, even copyright violations, as copyright law is broken, just as laws protecting corporations from whistleblowers or banning political speech are broken.

They trivialise the entire argument into "my human rights to get free hollywood movies".
The human rights underlying the whole copyright argument - free speech, privacy, anonymity, corporate mal-influence over the political process, restriction of the public domain, DRM etc etc are pretty important too. Defending the pirate bay is a way to bring the whole thing into the open, and perhaps reform the political and legal landscape to benefit the public and the artists rather than all the money and influence being with corporate middlemen who add nothing to the exchange, only pervert the system for their monetary benefit.

Some stuff was removed (0, Troll)

Jaaay (1124197) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811267)

If you read through the previous slashdot article there are some now gone torrents that google cache shows.

The pathetic thing about the pirate bay in general is they're doing immature things that aren't worth risking your freedom for. People are meant to risk their lives and freedom for ideals worth protecting, not the freedom to download copies of the latest far from essential Hollywood trash without paying for it.

I'm guessing the admins would be arrested the moment they set foot in a lot of countries so it's a shame they chose this for a cause to fill the voids in their lives.

Re:Some stuff was removed (3, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811405)

Many people believe that concepts like copyright are doing severe harm to the progress of human culture, arts, science, and civilization as a whole. Anyone can see the damaging effects of intellectual property laws firsthand in this dawn of the Information Age. Sharing movies, books, etc. is only one aspect of this fight which must be fought...and won. That you can't see beyond the issue of mere "movie piracy" (which has a negligible to zero effect on movie sales anyway) makes it little wonder that this seems like a silly ideal to fight for.

The free flow of information could be saving lives and making the world a better place for everyone if it were allowed.

This just in! (0)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811363)

A huge child pornography ring involving almost every senior member of the Swedish Police was discovered yesterday!

Re:This just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19811827)

I think you're confusing Sweden with Belgium

Child porn, eh? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 6 years ago | (#19811967)

People were predicting over here [slashdot.org] this would be the excuse they'd use to take TPB down. Nice to see your government's scumbaggery is so predictable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...