×

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 Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the heads-will-roll dept.

Music 212

palpatin writes to let us know that The Pirate Bay has now taken up residence at IFPI.com, a domain once owned by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The Pirate Bay says the site will now promote the International Federation of Pirates Interests. IFPI can still be reached at ifpi.org. Torrentfreak has up a brief interview with Brokep, one of the administrators of The Pirate Bay, who says: "It's not a hack, someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

212 comments

Let me be the first to say (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980685)

Yaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr!

And let me be the first to reply... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980821)

I'll be taking your mp3s mate! Harrr Harrr...

Re:Let me be the first to say (5, Funny)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980825)

Is this the first time a first post/anonymous coward combo has got anything other than an offtopic? Well done Sir!

Re:Let me be the first to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20981145)

Let's hear from the Asian pirates too: "Ellllllllllllllll"

Legality? (5, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980701)

While I admire The Pirate Bay for taking advantage of Swedish law to freely host torrents, I wonder about the legality of this. How has Swedish law generally treated trademarks and domain names?

Re:Legality? (4, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980769)

Makes one wonder what the legal mechanisms are for domain names and other international property like this if they are "unrightfully transferred"? I recall that the owner of sex.com was so worried about his domain that he had it on file at his registrar that they were not to transfer it without written request from the owner. Someone spoofed a letter and got it transferred anyway. He wasn't without the domain for very long, but just goes to show you that things like this are hard to make bulletproof.

If by chance, someone managed to get say, riaa.com, transferred to another registrar that was like the hosting we read about recently in Russia, where they don't care as long as they get paid, just how hard is it to get your domain back? I seem to recall "unlock codes" being required and there not being any by-legal-force way to get this. (remembering the recent fiasco of godaddy.com not providing unlock codes) I could picture such a transfer being irreversable if the thief was stubborn and knowledgeable enough. Or is there an angle?

Re:Legality? (5, Informative)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980819)

Interestingly enough, this comes as a porn site was forced to give up acdc.com and give it back to the band. Here's an article [news.com.au]

Re:Legality? (3, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981205)

I think ACDC actually bought the domain back. They didn't force the porn site to give it up, they paid for it.

Re:Legality? (2, Informative)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981231)

The article doesn't say that they were forced to give it to the band. It says "finished negotiations". The article does say "give back" and "reclaim", but never mentions exactly when it was that the band owned the domain in the first place. If they never did, then they probably bought the domain. I don't see how the band AC/DC should have any automatic ownership of the acdc.com domain.

Re:Legality? (5, Funny)

monkeyboythom (796957) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981135)

If by chance, someone managed to get say, riaa.com,

You mean, if The Pirate Bay got a hold of it?
well, sir, they would of course have it default to the Arrrrrrr-iaa.com site.

Re:Legality? (5, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980795)

If I got it right, they founded the "International Federation of Pirate Interests" or something like that, which has (a happy coincidence, no doubt) the letters IFPI as its acronym.

You can have a trademark all you want, if someone has at least the same "reason" to have a domain, you have no case. Ferrero lost a case for the domain "kinder.at" (with "kinder" being their trade mark, before German legislation made trademarking common words illegal ("kinder" means "children" in German)) against (IIRC) some youth organisation. The court's decision was explained with the fact that there is no danger that the domain holder (the youth organisation) could be mistaken for Ferrero (a company making chocolate products).

Now, if the IFPI wants to claim that they could be mistaken for a bunch of 'pirates', this could be different...

Re:Legality? (2, Informative)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980859)

You're talking about a case in Austria here, elsewhere the situation might be different.

Re:Legality? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981103)

It was admittedly the first case that came to my mind, there are others. In general, the question is which party has the "better rights" to some domain name. This is true pretty much all over the globe, except in countries where the right depends on the size of your company.

It could be an interesting case. Mostly because it will settle whether you can "own" letters. Acronyms are usually three or four letters in length, and if it's possible to "own" acronyms, you'll see people scramble to get "theirs" before they're taken.

Re:Legality? (1)

eth1 (94901) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981023)

Now, if the IFPI wants to claim that they could be mistaken for a bunch of 'pirates', this could be different...

Well, if they're anything like the RIAA, they might have a case, then! :)

Re:Legality? (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981597)

If they really sue on those grounds, they may get the URL but lose more.

Reminds me of a case where a sleazy tabloid sued a parody site which was quite similar to their online presence, only a letter different in the URL. They took press agency messages, then cited arbitrary and with the intent to twist the words and meanings around, doctored pictures and generally were about as sensationalist as possible. When there wasn't anything going on, they simply made up stories.

They were sued on grounds of being "too similar" and that there is a danger that someone could mistakenly land on their parody page and think it's the real tabloid. And the tabloid won.

Tells you something about judges. And even more about people reading certain tabloids, or rather, what is to be expected from them.

Re:Legality? (2, Interesting)

ag0ny (59629) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981059)

You can have a trademark all you want, if someone has at least the same "reason" to have a domain, you have no case.

Unfortunately, there are judges who don't agree with you:

Nissan Motors vs. Uzi Nissan [wired.com]

Re:Legality? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981513)

"...except in countries where the size of your company determines your legal position rather than some written law", I forgot to add. I'm sorry.

Re:Legality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980815)

.com is not under Swedish law, so good luck making a Swedish judge care.

Re:Legality? (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980887)

Well, .com domains are registered via U.S. registrars, so U.S. courts may have jurisdiction here, although it's always possible, I suppose, that the plaintiffs could try to file suit in Sweden, since that's where TPB is located. At that point, it would be up to the Swedish judge to decide jurisdiction.

As far as whether it's a trademark infringement, it's important to realize that 1) trademarks are territorial in nature (IFPI would have to have a trademark on the name 'IFPI' in Sweden and possibly the U.S., and 2) whether or not the domain would fall under 'trademark dilution laws' depends on the nature of the mark that they filed and, ultimately, whether a judge would award them any damages. It's possible that they might -- but it's also possible that they might not.

So I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch about it. IFPI hasn't even filed suit at this point (of if they have, we haven't heard about it).

Re:Legality? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981601)

Swedish society works a bit like an Ayn Rand novel minus the hero/heroine, so I doubt they have too much to worry about.

So Pirates have their Interests Protected... (5, Funny)

snipingkills (250057) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980703)

What about those of us who are ninjas? Where is our coalition for the protection of our interests?

Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... (1, Funny)

Sirch (82595) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980725)

Pirates are better than ninjas.

Fact.

Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... (5, Funny)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980767)

Only because Pirates get better recognition. I live in Tampa, which happens to have a pirate celebration every year. I get to dress up as a pirate and I'm not seen as 'weird', I'm seen as 'cool'. Try that with a Ninja costume and you'll get maced, beaten, and jailed after a cop plants drugs on you (also called 'Saturday Night' if you're from Detroit).

Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981003)

Try that with a Ninja costume and you'll get maced, beaten, and jailed after a cop plants drugs on you

Surely if you were dressed as a ninja, you'd be effectively invisible and they wouldn't know what to mace/beat/frame? :-)

Still, knowing some ninjutsu is also recommended for those awkward "so you really can see me, huh?" moments...

Let's face the facts... (5, Funny)

DanielJosphXhan (779185) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980737)

Ninjas don't need to have their interests protected. They protect their own interests with a combo of martial arts and awesome.
 
Pirates are weak sauce with their "associations". Ninjas don't have associations. Ninjas have bloodbaths.

Re:Let's face the facts... (2, Funny)

l0cust (992700) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980773)

Ninjas don't have associations. Ninjas have bloodbaths.
and bloodline limits.

Not to mention the fact that pirates can't make awesome seals, what with a hook for a hand and all.

Re:Let's face the facts... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20981077)

By bloodbaths, I assume you mean, "Pants-wetting parties where all the gimpy arse ninjas cry and wet themselves at the mere mention of the word Samurai."

Samurai may suck compared to your average Pirate ("Oh noes, the Koreans! Let's wall off all of our beaches before they kick our butts again!") but compared to the pajama-wearing emo ninja, Samurai rule.

Ninja can't even be compared to Pirates. It's like comparing your grandmother's old school rotary telephone to an iPhone, except Pirates don't suck like the iPhone does. You can't see an iPhone after smudging up the screen with your thumbs, but a Pirate can see and kill you after having his vision smudged up by copious amounts of rum.

There's a reason Ninjas are masters of stealth, because they'd get their butts kicked by your incontinent, crippled grandfather, let alone a Pirate. That's not to say anything bad about your grandfaters, Slashdot, because I'm sure they were all capital men who killed a bunch of Ninjas during World War II. And also Samurai. But not Pirates, no sir - the Pirates did not support the world domination of Germany one bit. The Ninjas did, of course, because the Ninjas suck and had to leech off of Germany's military might. But not the Pirates. The Pirates were out there kicking arse and taking names, sinking U-Boats and causing mutinies on the Bismarck. A little known fact is that FDR was a Pirate.

Some of our greatest leaders have been Pirates, including but not limited to George Washington and Ghandi. Jesus was a Pirate - and He died for Your Rum.

Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... (4, Funny)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980739)

There are actually over 250 ninja-coalition domain names on the Interweb.

You just can't see them.

dotcom (4, Interesting)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980707)

Sure, but the .org one is still active.
.com must have expired and was registered by someone - maybe it wasn't really that popular? (Um, popular as in "under heavy use"/"meaning something to someone")
Hey, this IS funny - but not really such a big deal if examined closely.

Re:dotcom (1, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980777)

I think it's hilarious, if a bit cruel. So far, I'd probably have done the same thing, though.

The turning point will come when the original IFPI asks for the domain back. I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost, and reimburse the guy who snagged it. Will they? I don't think they did anything illegal, so they are under no obligation to help an organization that is dead set on putting them out of business. It'll probably depend on the IFPI's reaction, I guess.

No matter how you look at it, this is interesting and will be fun to watch, as with everything TPB does.

Nononono (4, Informative)

themusicgod1 (241799) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980851)

(IANAL)
"I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost"
That course of action would lead you to be a criminal, or at the very least instantly lose your legitimate title to the domain. Do *not* under any circumstances offer a price. That's how microsoft got Mike Rowe, and how other large corporations worldwide have gotten many other domains. As soon as you name a price you are a domain hijacker. This isn't just an american law; it has happened pretty much worldwide with the same consistent results, afaik.

Re:Nononono (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981089)

Well damn, you can't even be honest anymore without someone suing or stealing from you.

In that case, I guess the IFPI could kiss their domain goodbye, because they can't legally return it and compensate the source without it costing them money. Fsck that.

Still, I'm not TPB, and they may have other tricks up their sleeves. Will still bear watching.

Re:Nononono (2, Informative)

MPolo (129811) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981253)

Selling it at normal cost (that is, the $30 a year, or whatever you paid) shouldn't cause a problem. Mike Rowe's problem was naming a higher figure to pay for the work that he put into the site, which then branded him as a domain hijacker. Or at least that's how I understand the original story. I think Microsoft even offered to pay the registration fee when they originally demanded the domain in the first place.

Re:Nononono (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981285)

So if someone lets a domain expire, and then you buy it (or register it, you never really buy a domain), and then try to sell it back to them, then you are a domain hijacker? I'd call it being a smart business man. It's not like you stole the domain from them by pretending to be them. They had plenty of time to renew the domain. If they don't renew it, they have shown that they aren't that interested in keeping it. If someone, even a past owner offers to buy your domain, what's wrong with asking a fair price? Or even an overly inflated price. Isn't it just using the free market to your advantage.

Re:Nononono (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981731)

The goal of ICANN is not to reward smart businessmen who know when to buy domains, it's to keep the internet somewhat organized and having domain names not lead where any reasonable person would expect them to lead only causes confusion. IOW, give the registrar his cut or he won't care.

Re:dotcom (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981161)

I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost, and reimburse the guy who snagged it.

      Are you kidding? That site will get many more hits now, it should be worth at least 10 times more! :)

Re:dotcom (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980801)

I think it's funny that the music industry tries to stop computers from doing what's most essential to them: copying.

Sweet RIAA Defense (4, Funny)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980753)

It's not a hack, someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it.

Can I use that to explain the music on my computer?

"Umm yeah, some guy gave me a cd of this music. I have no idea how he got it, but it's mine and I'm keeping it."

Someone call Ray Beckerman - I think we have the new defense all worked out for him! I don't care if it was his to give or not - still my music as they gave it to me!

Re:Sweet RIAA Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980881)

Can I use that to explain the music on my computer?


No u cant but thanks for admitting. Except a raid to your house in 5-6 hours. Hope u know how to shred data instead of normal delete.

Re:Sweet RIAA Defense (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980923)

Why not? I mean, if you buy or borrow a book from someone, and it has some passages copied from another source, why would you be responsible?

Re:Sweet RIAA Defense (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981291)

Over here in Sweden we had laws which for instance said that you could keep the bike if someone had sold you a stolen one but you really thought it were legit.

Nowadays, due to abuse I suppose and to protect the real owner, there are no such thing and if you buy a stolen bike you can never say you didn't knew that and it belongs to the first owner.

I don't know how much that would relate to domains and CDs, but I guess you can't defend yourself by saying "uhm, what? Those nukes? Someone gave me them.."

Re:Sweet RIAA Defense (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981761)

Best solution would be to force the seller to buy you a new bike and give the old one back to the original owner :P.

Re:Sweet RIAA Defense (1)

sexybomber (740588) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981489)

Nuh-uh. 'Cause then giving someone a CD will become "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material."

Come to think of it, couldn't it be considered that already, given a sufficiently evil interpretation of the law?

Consider this: I buy a CD and make an archival copy (legal, because that's fair use.) Then I give the CD to my buddy, who makes an archival copy (legal, because he too has fair use rights.) Then my buddy gives the CD to his girlfriend, who makes an archival copy... Sort of like P2P, just slower. The effect is the same.

Does something like this negate fair use, even if that's not the intent of the gifting process?

Re:Sweet RIAA Defense (1)

Laurence0 (832251) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981733)

Sadly not, you have to either give the backup to the person you give the CD to with it, or destroy it. The law actually makes sense in this area, amazingly!

Ill gotten gain? (3, Insightful)

SunTzuWarmaster (930093) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980759)

Does anyone else have a problem with the justification of:
"yes, this shipment of cigarettes just arrived at our doorstep, we figured we'd keep 'em".

Re:Ill gotten gain? (4, Informative)

will_die (586523) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980959)

Well in the US if the owners of the cigarettes did that they are considered a gift, provided you had not requested them or they are mis-delivered, and you are free to keep them.

Re:Ill gotten gain? (2, Informative)

jratcliffe (208809) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981571)

Only if the people who sent them to you are the owners. If you know, or have good reason to know, that they're not, it's possession of stolen property.

Re:Ill gotten gain? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981321)

Not really. Someone is handing out free t-shirts. Do you question it or do you assume they have some legitimate reason to be handing them out? Personally, I assume something would be done about them if it wasn't legit and so take one (as long as it's not someone off-loading a load of crappy charts pop t-shirts).

Also, as with the RIAA and 'theft' of digital music, there's a difference between "someone just gave us a physical item that could be stolen" and "someone offered us the rights to an address that has an audit trail so that it can be returned to the 'correct' owner if necessary".

Re:Ill gotten gain? (2, Informative)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981585)

Yarrr! As long as ye follow the laws of ye Admiralty [wikipedia.org] any salvage by ye shall be yours by right of cutlass!

Pity they announced it (4, Insightful)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980807)

The Pirate Bay could have been rather more subtle about it:
1. copy the content of IFPI.org
2. change the content, subtly at first
3. publish ever more outrageous claims
4. wait for people to realize the site isn't owned by the IFPI.

Re:Pity they announced it (4, Insightful)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980837)

Right, because then they wouldn't have breached about a thousand copyright laws in the process and REALLY put themselves in the legal spotlight?

Re:Pity they announced it (4, Informative)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980843)

A nice idea, but that would be a violation of copyright, and (let's be very clear about this) The Pirate Bay does not violate copyright laws.

Re:Pity they announced it (0)

Nossie (753694) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981175)

of course they don't.... they just have links to copyright works... a lot like google.

case closed!

Re:Pity they announced it (1)

dapyx (665882) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981295)

You can do it without it being a violation of copyright: Parody is excepted from those copyright laws.

Re:Pity they announced it (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980907)

1. copy the content of IFPI.org
1.1. Get sued for copyright violation or forgery.

Re:Pity they announced it (1)

tao (10867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980977)

3. publish ever more outrageous claims

In other words, they should've just reproduced various IFPI press releases about how horribly bad the industry is doing because of "piracy", how low the margin on CD's are these days, and how they only do this for the good of their artists, without no self-interest? ;-P

All this said, anything along what you outline, while entertaining, would be a clear case of copyright infringement.

At least they can call it theft now. (0, Flamebait)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980835)

Looks like TPB just gave them justification to call TPB thieves instead of just infringers now. Because I'm certain that this DOES deprive them of the original.

This is a bad PR move for them. The only people who really cheer for this sort of thing are the types that would download a copy even if there were a low cost, drm-free authorized source for the files. I would like to see the Pirate Bay lose this, simply because they are going in a direction that I think is a bit more like promoting anarcy rather than protesting outdated laws.

Stealing a domain name is something that I think we all can agree is pretty wrong.

Re:At least they can call it theft now. (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980849)

How can they steal it from them if they (anti-pirates) didn't own it in the first place?

They didn't steal anything (1)

DaveCar (189300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981033)


The IFPI use ifpi.org as their canonical domain.

Presumably IFPI let it slip (assuming that they once owned it), someone got it and passed it on to TPB.

I noticed that Virgin once let virgin.net slip back in the 90's - wish I had snaffled that ...

Where's the theft? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981037)

A domain was registered. This domain was transfered to TPB. Where is the theft?

Who said that IFPI.com was ever owned by the IFPI?
Who said that they still own it, provided they ever did?

You have to register domains to have them. Having "your" domain isn't some sort of human right or part of your intrinsic rights when filing for corporation. Just because those four letters are some sort of acronym for your company/organisation/whatever doesn't mean you have all rights to those four letters and nobody else may ever create anything that could use that acronym and (god forbid) even register a domain name that consists of those four letters. There are actually only 26^4 ways to create four letter acronyms, and some (like ANAL or FUCK) ain't really useful. At least to most businesses.

Re:Where's the theft? (2, Insightful)

McDutchie (151611) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981335)

Who said that IFPI.com was ever owned by the IFPI?

archive.org does: http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.ifpi.com [archive.org]

Looks like the IFPI site was there from March 30, 2003 at the latest until October 19, 2006 at the earliest. Between that time and February 2, 2007 someone appears to have snagged it (legally or not, I have no idea). Then it briefly became a blog. I guess the blogger then gave it to TPB.

Re:Where's the theft? (1)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981603)

"Who said that IFPI.com was ever owned by the IFPI?"
Archive.org [archive.org] says so.

"Who said that they still own it, provided they ever did?"
Nobody says that ifpi still owns it, least of all Slashdot or TFA. Piratebay owns it, legitimately. Looks like the IFPI let their domain name expire, it was taken over early this year by sharp-eyed music sharers, then donated to piratebay.

GO, PIRATES GO! (4, Interesting)

eiapoce (1049910) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980841)

The IFPI. I hate them. They tend to play in europe the same role as the RIAA in USA. With the difference that in Europe States have actual laws that private firms are bound to respect: trivial things like privacy and the concept that the State actually runs the law instead of mediadefender.

So far their intimidating letters and scary tactics have fired back all the way. (I have seen one they sent to the guy at the Network managment of my uni a few years ago). I can just hail to the new domain!

peta.org (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980847)

I don't know how long TPB can hang on to that domain name (remember peta.org?) but it should be fun watching the fireworks.

huh? it looks like it's still for sale (4, Funny)

metroplex (883298) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980853)

If you actually go visit ipfi.com , it says it's still for sale: The domain name www.ipfi.com is for sale Prices in the region of US$4675

Re:huh? it looks like it's still for sale (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980901)

maybe you should visit www.lysdexic.com as well...

Re:huh? it looks like it's still for sale (-1, Redundant)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980957)

It is IFPI [ifpi.com] actually, not ipfi.

Re:huh? it looks like it's still for sale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980971)

Yeah I noticed, my bad! Forget what I wrote above

IPFI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20980987)

I fail to see your point, but that's really cheap. Let's go found the International Pirate Foundation Incorporated.

Time for a name change perhaps? (2, Interesting)

Ilex (261136) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980861)

Having a name that always parses as "The International Federation of the Pornographic Industry" is not just silly but shows how resistant to change the recording industry really is. I mean when was the last time you actually saw let alone played a Phonograph?

Re:Time for a name change perhaps? (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980941)

Unfortunately, the reason they probably still use 'phonographic' is that the word 'phonographic' still has a legal meaning in many countries, including the U.S. Even though CDs aren't phonographs per se, they are stilled referred to as 'phonographic recordings.'

Re:Time for a name change perhaps? (1)

clonmult (586283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980995)

Yesterday?

But then I'm a total luddite, and one of my housemates is a part-time DJ, nowt but vinyl for him.

Re:Time for a name change perhaps? (3, Funny)

the_womble (580291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981137)

I mean when was the last time you actually saw let alone played a Phonograph?

About the same time as they had a viable business model.

Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome (3, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980865)

I can see it now, Pirate Bay having the wind gauge, lufting up to the scurvy lubbers and giving them a full broadside of grape before setting the grapples and boarding, cutlasses flashing, pistols firing, blood in the scuppers. If they be called pirates, then by God, they be actin' like pirates! And don't nobody tell me they just paid a fee and transferred the domain legally, you'll totally harsh my visualization here.

Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980991)

Sort of like the Crimson Permanent Assurance? [youtube.com]

Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981113)

"The producers would like to apologize for this unwarranted attack by the supporting feature..."

      Still makes me laugh today.

Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981141)

Sort of like the Crimson Permanent Assurance? [youtube.com]
*grin* Yeah, but I'd imagine the Pirate Bay crew would be younger, hipper, and more Swedish.

You bastards !!! (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20980999)

That is so very "pirate" of you. "Piratisch" even. So did you use broadsides to make them surrender or did you board them ?

Makes me laugh (1)

Procasinator (1173621) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981045)

"It's not a hack. Someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it."


Sounds like a little kid who finds a lost puppy, and is upset when the owner comes along to reclaim it.

Really, they should just give the domain name back. It's not theirs. They are just encouraging lawsuits and more problems for themselves - and for what? Bravado?

If I was trying to better a competitor/critic, I would want to do it the big way; not peity tactics. Censoring there views is not the way to go...

I suppose I'd make a pretty shitty pirate!

Re:Makes me laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20981143)

Censoring there views is not the way to go...

Where?

Re:Makes me laugh (1)

Procasinator (1173621) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981261)

I would argue replacing their content with IFPI, in this case, censoring. Mind, I'm being fairly liberal in my definition of censorship.

They are taking away traffic intended to be for IFPI. They are making it harded for IFPI to voice their opinion by unethical means. If you look at it from an unbiased view point (don't even look it to the purposes of either sites), you would probably agree that PirateBay are more wrong than right.

I suppose the matter comes down to whether you think it okay to supress critisism when you disagree with it.

Ofcourse, you could be taking the mick out of my use of 'there' instead of 'their', making this post a useless rant.

Re:Makes me laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20981159)

They are just encouraging lawsuits and more problems for themselves - and for what? Bravado?

that's what all these types want, to be martyrs. they don't really care about the cause.

Re:Makes me laugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20981387)

They don't care about anything but making money (9 million a year) ->
http://rixstep.com/1/20060708,00.shtml [rixstep.com]
TPB is just a large on-line business run by full-time crooks. don't kid yourselves any of them give a flying fuck about copyright, or the rights of the consumer. they enable people to steal take everyone else's hard work for free, whilst becoming millionaires from advertising revenue at the same time. Don't ever mistake what they do as caring about anyone but themselves.
If you want to promtoe copyright reform, you need the EFF and sites like it, not a warez index like TPB.

It's sad to see so many of the slashdot and digg crowd taken in by the thin veneer of grass roots credibility these people smear themselves with.

And from the other ifpi site... (2, Funny)

N Monkey (313423) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981055)

In news from

Earlier today the New South Wales Police, together with Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) raided the home of an illegal trader of country music in Kelso near Bathurst, seizing in excess of 2,000 pirated CDs, ...

Could his defence be, perhaps, to plead insanity? :D

It looks like it expired, not stolen (5, Informative)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981091)

According to the whois:

Creation date: 28 Jan 2007 19:02:24
Expiration date: 28 Jan 2008 19:02:24
This looks more like the phonographers let the domain expire at the beginning of the year and someone else registered it on January 28th. This happens all the time, especially by spammers and registrars that turn it into a "search page" for a while.

Being a pirate... (1)

sageres (561626) | more than 6 years ago | (#20981621)

I was at the Ren. Faire festival over the weekend and the darn pirate song won't leave my head... So here is variation: Being a pirate is all fun and games Until someone gets sued (By MPAA, RIAA or some software alliance) Without any reason they'll put you in prison And then you'll be screwed But it's all part of being a pirate, You can't be a pirate (you can't be, you can't be) Unless you've been sued; It's all part of being a pirate, You can't be a pirate (you can't be a pirate) Until we're all screwed! (Continue singing...)
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...