Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay Launches Uncensored Image Hosting
Spamicles writes "The guys over at the Pirate Bay have launched a new, censorship-free image hosting website called BayImg. Users of the new service don't have to sign-up in order to upload images. However, they can assign a 'removal code' to uploaded images, in case they want to delete the files after a while, and tags to categorize images. BayImg currently supports 100+ file formats, and supports uploading Zip and Rar archives. The maximum file size of uploads is 100MB. The article also discusses TPB's plans for launching a video streaming service that will potentially compete with YouTube."
To be immortalized thusly..
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
People are going to like them a whole lot less if this turns into a big child porn site.
I can't see this thing both:
1) Holding true to the principles of no censorship whatsoever.
2) Not being immediately shut down when some troll posts necro-pedo-beastility images as part of some SA vs. Fark vs. 4chan contest to find the most simultaneously illegal and offense image to post.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Image files with 100MB? Seriously? That seems quite large, even for packing some images in one archive.
more free porn
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Just to upload this video.
.. You are a Pirate!!!!
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free
As others have pointed out, the first things that come to my mind are the fact that this will allow--at least, on the premise--people to upload and distribute pornography that is already illegal most everywhere (i.e. kiddie porn). It may also become a haven for other distasteful images that, paradoxically, no one really wants to see but that aren't necesarily illegal. Which still begs the question, is there actually a legimiate usage for such a site?
No it is not. Just because you got some copyrighted stuff from someone who doesn't care about copyright, you are not allowed to disobey copyright yourself. So if you live in such a country as Sweden like the pirate bay does, you can use those images. In the U.S. and most European countries you are not allowed to.
Yeah I had a semi-grudging respect for what they were trying to do at first, and then I saw that. I still think they're going bass ackwards about it though. They take the fight to make a created work free. One thing I do not get about this whole thing is their version of making it free is take someones hard work, and let anyone who wants it get it without collecting any monetary reward for the person who did the work.
This image site can do the same thing (ignoring the pedo stuff). Someone could go to the store, buy a Playboy Mag, scan in every image and post it to the site and everyone else could download the pics for free if they new the URL and of they go. So all the money playboy paid the model, the photography crew, the editors, the printers, poof.
Contrary to some of the internet ho's out there who like their pictures posted for free some people like monetary compensation for their investment/grace of good luck genes and deserve to be rewarded for it. How is supporting hosting of their images for no monetary fee 'free speech'
If they were hosting Neo-Nazi's, Black Panther, Anti-semtic, Islamic Jihadist stuff, sure ok that's free speech. But taking someones work and providing it for free? That's what copyright was intended for and it's not free speech, it's theft of services or whatever is the new legal mumbo jumbo for saying stealing money from someone who worked to earn it.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Publish the date, time and ip address of every upload. No censorship.
Deleted
"Do Be Evil" vs "Don't Be Evil"
This is good, but if they really want to make it safe for users they should:
Otherwise this is, as numerous people have pointed out, going to get shut down shortly after people start screaming "kiddie porn!".
Liberty in your lifetime
before it gets overwhelmed by porn ads.... just took a look at it. it already happened.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I can't think of a country that doesn't have some law SOME where that will be broken in the commission of running a completely censorship-free site. Even if it wasn't hosted in Sweden, Swedish law was going to apply to them since the company is based out of Sweden.
I think this will be an interested exercise in which happens faster.
1) The Pirate Bay compromises their morals.
2) Law enforcement shuts down The Pirate Bay on charges that will stick.
Honestly, I really expect Swedish law enforcement -- which has tried raiding them once before -- to just be salivating at the chance to shut this down and arrest the owners as soon as some child porn gets posted. I wouldn't be surprised if they had someone outside of legal liability for entrapment post it for them. I'm sure the FBI would be willing to spare some for the cause.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Don't give the law a legitimate reason to show up on your doorstep, TPB! Drop this immediately. SERIOUSLY bad idea.
If you do this, it'll all be over in a day or two. Cop finds TPB image site, uploads kiddie porn from free and basically untraceable wifi spot near coffee shop, calls other branch of law enforcement about an "anonymous" complaint. Cops show up that day.
It'll be the end of you guys if you pursue this.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Without some ranking system. At least as good as diggit, it will just become a trash land. It has no search mechanism, no ranking of content. No categorizing of content other than by unsearchable tags. As it stands, it is a little more than the beginning of another attempt at usenet.... except even less organized.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
The point is that they don't judge what it the content is. The fact that people use The Pirate Bay to post child porn instead of blank panther stuff is a measure of how awful society has become, not a measure of TBP's intentions.
This just in! There's child porn on the internets! Shut 'em down boys, all of them!
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Every 2nd comment says that. But have you actually looked at the site? As of now, "humour" is way bigger than "sex" or any sex-related word in the tag cloud.
We may yet be surprised.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
for image spam. Great.
Piratebay keep acting like they are untouchable and the guardians of censorship, but it just seems they are trying to push the boundaries until thy get caught.
I like muppets.
Publish the date, time and ip address of every upload. No censorship.
Post it via TOR or some anonymizer. Unless they ban all IP associated with such tools (which even sites under dedicated troll assault like 4chan can't do), that's no guarantee for the hardcore.
Still, it's an idea that I find amusing for deterring the casual bad actor.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
So, in other words, people should be free to say what ever they like, as long as you agree with it. Brilliant.
Since they allow archives on the site, are people going to use this to upload and share warez? Or does the system scan uploaded archives and rejects non-images based on content?
BTW, I visited the site about 10 hours ago, and the tag cloud was full of injected JavaScript - it was pretty much benign (only a couple of alert functions), but funny nevertheless, and seems like the whole thing was put together very quickly. They've fixed the problem now.
On one hand, I agree with your sentiment.
On the other - the cat is out of the bag. We have an Internet, sharing of any digital content is unstoppable, and anybody relying on feeble copyright law is living in the past. Time to find a new line of business, people are bound to spend their money on something else now.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
They're currently Slashdotted, so I can't see their site's comments about itself.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I'd guess that Pirate Bay or the person who put it there won't come after you if you do that.
On the other hand, if the original image had a copyright, then the copyright holder could come after you.
Well, if you RTFA you'd realize that they specifically said they will not allow illegal images. You know, like child pornography? No doubt it will get uploaded, and shortly after deleted, but that's true for any site that allows people to upload images.
The entire foundation of our culture was created without the existence of copyright. All your Aristotle, Homer, Mozart, da Vinci. There's no copyright on the paintings in the pyramids nor on the bible.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
They have a disclaimer on their site that says the pictures uploaded need to be legal by Swedish law.
The same stands for barely the entire Internet. Copyrighted text never flow so fast around multiple sources, most of the times, without the explicit consent of the copyright owner. Everytime someone posts the entire content of an article here on Slashdot for our commodity (lazy slashdotters don't like to RTFA), it is copyright infringement too. That doesn't mean that Slashdot is supporting copyright infringement either.
The world has changed, and the availability of tools should not and will not be restricted just because some people will misuse those tools.
I don't understand your confusion -- catering to a bunch of greedy, selfish leeches *is* what they're trying to do.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Taking advantage of small children has nothing to do with being able to say what you want. I tell you what, I'll murder you, and your entire extended family, and we'll call it even on the grounds of freedom of speech. Deal?
If you're going to have freedom of expression, you're going to have things you don't like. Even things you really don't like, and things even 99% of the people out there don't like, too. And the fact that you don't think it needs a venue, because you obviously disagree with it, is exactly why it does need a venue.
Also, that article there isn't about TBP hosting a child pornography site, it's about them hosting a "pro-pedophile activism" site -- in other words, a site expressing political and social viewpoints. Are you saying such people and their viewpoints should be censored?
Liberty in your lifetime
Wow, that is amazing when you put it like that! Three people over thousands of years created some works without copyright. Too bad it took thousands of years for human history to really start creating mass quantities of intangible property.
it's really a disengenous argument.
I think the wording is the give-away. As long as the image is legal. A copyrighted picture is a perfectly legal image. It might not be legal to host it without the copyright holder's consent, but the image itself is perfectly legal. Very few images are illegal all by themselves. Child porn is about the only thing I can think about right now.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If you want to set up a website advocating the legalization of murdering people who disagree with you, and their extended families, and their little dog too, ...go right ahead. I'd defend its right to exist, too.
Liberty in your lifetime
I don't think that's how it works. If a submitter posts an image on a website that, as part of the TOS, says you don't have the copyright anymore, the submitter practically waives his copyright. So all images on the website would be public domain. Other websites say 'by uploading the image, you still keep all your copyrights and ownership of the images, we're just hosting them', I imagine TPB says 'No, no copyright for you. Public Domain' or something of the sort. But I could be wrong, I haven't read TPB's TOS.
There are imageboard sites out there with essentially a full-time troll culture -- often dedicated to invading other sites -- that will do their dead-level best to make this impractical. I don't think The Pirate Bay has really considered just how much effort monitoring a self-touting, "censorship free" site that allows porn is going to be.
They're pretty much doomed. It'll be an interested self-implosion to watch.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
It seems to me that once again the question comes down to whether or not the freedoms of the many are going to be ripped away because of the misbehavior of a few trolls. There have always been people who abuse the system and cause grief wherever they go just because it is fun for them to aggravate people/authority/whatever. Does that mean that all of the rest of us have to live in chains? I think not. Humanity needs to learn that in order to have freedom, sometimes we have to allow people to do bad things and clean up the mess afterwards. There is no freedom to do good without also having the freedom to do evil. If we can't accept that, then we'd might as well give up all of this lip service to freedom and lock the handcuffs right now.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
100mb "images" including RAR/ZIP files? This site is designed to push back against the YouTube, Gmail, Megaupload sites and give people a public data cache they can rely on for more than video. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first shot in a canny business strategy to make the next web 2.0 supersite, with Pirate Bay's essential idea being that of the remote public file cache as a precursor to the remote, public/private desktop.
technical writing / development
Since their true motivation is freedom of speech, you should have said, "But knowing that the TPB has opened with it being a haven for X in mind, where X is an element of the set of everything someone finds to be objectionable..." Even the article you linked to doesn't indicate that TPB are fans of child pron, but simply that they believe that it's not their place to censor other people's content.
In most places, though, active moderation by the administrator is the first step in accepting responsibility for all the content on the site. If they wanted to skirt that issue (and get a lot of maintenance help), they would allow users to tag something as "illegal" and let the images fall where the community feels they should.
The whatwasthat Bay now? Oh... er... "Pirate" Bay... Right. No obvious support or encouragement for copyright infringement there.
The problem is that any law that still allows legitimate activity (as they should) will have to allow generous loopholes. Yes, they may "only be hosting harmless trackers", for instance, but let's not kid ourselves as to the goals.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Could someone please indulge me as to why there is such a dire focus on child pornography? It's a horrible crime, certainly, but I've never see the same status associated with other, and in my mind, just as horrible acts such as snuff films, brutal rape, torture, etc. Is this simply another act of 'think of the children' knee-jerking, or is there some reason why this is seen to be counted as worse than torture and murder by a large part of our population?
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
Admitting it is the first step... now go get yourself some psychiatric help.
till this site is banned from China. I give it 1 week, if not already.
People can host copyrighted material without the owner permission. People can host themselves dancing like idiots. ThePirateBay, youtube et. al. will accept both. It is up to the copyright owner to protect their assets. That's what the law says, and that's how the world works. Can't blame the tools, people is that should be held accountable.
No, I hate the MPAA and the RIAA groups. I do however take photographs or people and sell them for money.
It costs me money to buy my camera gear, my time is worth something, and my expertise and knowledge about how to make it look really good are worth something.
The other person being able to right click and save it and go down to Costco and print it for $0.09 is not something I think should be legal any more than downloading someones song off the internet.
That being said, the RIAA suing their fans is the dumbest move ever, but it doesn't backfire one em because people keep buying music and no one will step up and sell music that the RIAA doesn't support.
I mean if Steve Jobs' thoughts about music included 'hey, and by the way, for $495 you can buy this software package that will package up your song into an album, incorporate cover art, and let you post it to iTunes and we'll take $0.25 in sales to do all that work for you' as part of the 'anti-drm' measure do you think someone like Bon Jovi or Britany Spears would wait for their contract to end and jump on over to doing it this way?
probably bad example of bands because one is actually good and the other one needs a producer to sound good. But the point being I bet even then at that point when the artists make money directly people will still not want to pay for it.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Why the quotation marks (indicating that the work wasn't infringing)? I love PA (and that particular comic) as much as the next guy, but even they had to admit (after receiving genuine legal advice from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund or some similarly-named organization) that this WAS an infringing image. You can satirize a subject, and that's fair use; I can freely create a spoof of, say, Pirate Master (Arr, the Pirate Bay Image Master! Which image be cut adrift this week?) and that's OK under fair use. But I can't create a spoof of South Park, in which they satirize Pirate Master, because South Park isn't the subject of the satire. In the same way, PA was not allowed to use American Greetings' characters to satirize American McGee's work. They could have fictionalized or parodied and existing game (as they clearly seemed to be taking aim at Alice, for instance) -- but not by leveraging someone else's characters/art/etc, only spoofing American McGee.
seven two six five
seven four six one seven
two six four two e
There is no TOS. The FAQ reproduced in its entirety in the Lawbean article is actually the full extent of explanation that exists on the site. In the absence of specific legalese, the phrase "NO COPYRIGHT. NO LICENSE." could be taken as notification that you waive your copyrights by uploading. But in the event it was disputed, that would be an extremely far-reaching interpretation that no sane judge would make. My own intuitive interpretation based on its placement on the page (i.e., where links to TOS, privacy policy, copyright attribution, etc. usually live) is that it's just as likely to mean the website has no copyright or license.
But more to the point of the original question, Bayimg has no powers, no matter how specific their notification is, to destroy the copyrights on any images uploaded by people who don't own them in the first place. A weak case may be made that if the copyright holder themselves uploaded the picture they would then be unable to defend against any infringement that resulted from that. But no case can be made that if someone uploads content they don't hold copyrights for, it magically absolves anybody who downloads it from Bayimg of any infringement.
Welcome to the internet, noob.
In all seriousness, what you describe (scanning the pages) already happens all over if you know where to look or know the right people (who scan, rip, archive, or crack).
Pirate Bay Images will be just one more "if you know where to look" place. The average schlub is never going to know nor care about it and still buy his Playboy off the rack like he always does.
As far as the total "pirated or copied stuff" goes, the image portion of Pirate Bay will not do a whole lot to the total, or overall make it a bit harder for the copyright holders who actively try to have stuff taken down to get all the places... even though that is useless as playing spammer whack-a-mole. Get one and five minutes later there are three more.
Getting all worked up about this particular place and method is pointless.
Not sure what you think the entire foundation of our culture is, but the concept of copyright was meaningless before copying such works became practical. After that time, copyright came into existence. And so did a whole slew of other works (art, science, etc) that are a hell of a lot more relevant to our culture and its current incarnation than a 3,000-year-old pile of rocks in the desert.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Walk with Music;
Read your straw man definition next time before accusing someone of doing it.
I didn't post something base on a fallacy. people do just what I described today. You can easily find blogs and websites by perusing the fark 'foobies.com' page that do just this. You can easily find copyrighted images on flickr that have been used in published works, or put on the front of a Porno DVD.
Right now the only way the powers that be think they can do this is DRM, and the tech community going out and helping people 'break' the DRM isn't the best use either.
So what every one is supposed to lock up their toys and go home? give me a break.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
How about I take pictures of me in the act of murdering them and post those instead? Right next to it I'll post pictures of my candid camera I have hidden in your bathroom to boot. Privacy shmivacy, your every move should be open for everyone to see at all times!
In England 17 is legal. The legal age varies a lot. In some countries it is higher- in some countries it is lower.
The legal age for getting laid is not the legal age for being photographed nude, which is what's (mostly) in question here. The latter is pretty consistently 18, anywhere that it's set. Which is almost everywhere.
The model's apparent age varies a lot too. How can you trust what looks like a 14 year old isn't really an under developed or made up 18 year old?
I suspect they'll probably axe some of these by mistake; EG, from models like Melissa Ashley (warning: NSFW!). Similarly, they may not remove all the pictures of random high school teen bimbos flashing their anatomy for admirers, since at the other extreme some 14-year olds may really "look like she's 19, officer!!!", and the claim of being underage will not be credible without further evidence.
But yeah... I think they're going to need a better method for getting notices about illegal images than getting emailed (too many unneeded bytes over the wire per notice), and I suspect they're going to need to add what they mean by "illegal" to the FAQ.
Meanwhile, however, I've around fifty gigabytes of random (legally downloaded) pr0n pictures I could upload to help with their server's stress test once I leave work....
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
It isn't skulking about unnoticed and it doesn't deserve another forum:
700 Pedophile Suspects Identified as Global Ring Is Broken Up [June 18]
A team of international investigators infiltrated an Internet chat room used by pedophiles who streamed live videos of children being raped, rescuing 31 children and identifying more than 700 suspects worldwide.
The chat room, which was called "Kids the Light of Our Lives," featured images, including live videos, of children -- some only months old -- being subjected to horrific sexual abuse, said Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center in Britain.
"You could go and if you were in the club, arrange a time and a place when online you could view a child being raped and brutalized in real time."
the free speech issue (the sites they host)
and the copyright issue (torrents and image hosting).2. The Pirate Bay is in Sweden
3. TPB's actions are legal in Sweden
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Personally, I am siding with my morals here, TPB is legal, but wrong.
That's funny, I'm siding with my morals here too. Free copying is illegal, but moral. Scarcity is a great evil, if it can be abolished it must.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Piratebay keep acting like they are untouchable and the guardians of censorship, but it just seems they are trying to push the boundaries until thy get caught.
Should have been obvious. They're now a political party; "acting untouchable" and "trying to push the boundaries until they get caught" seems to follow that naturally these days.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People also couldn't copy their works en-masse at the time. (If at all!)
The fundamental question is: How does Playboy, in that instance, get paid for creating the content in the first place?
Given that they're not getting paid to produce those pictures, Playboy, by definition, must shut down at least their "picture producing" division. Now where's your content coming from?
I'm not arguing free speech. I'm not arguing copyright. I'm arguing finance. If content producers (be they game makers, pron producers, or musicians) are not financially compensated for their efforts, they will eventually stop producing content.
We can discuss whether that's good or bad, but I haven't seen anything on YouTube that makes me want to swear off film. Yet.
ceci n'est pas un sig.
How about people should be free to say whatever they like, as long as their actions don't encroach on other people's rights, freedoms, and safety? Posting pictures of kids being abused is an action - not a dialog - where the act hurts children.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
and who draws the line as to what does and doesnt encroach on other people's rights, freedoms, and safety?
But knowing that the TPB has opened with it being a haven for child pornography in mind, I can't say I'm pleased.
Well, as others have noted, they're certain to remove stuff that blatantly unlawful; they note on each picture's page how to email them a notice about illegal pictures (although the link could be better crafted). Or do you have other reason to believe this was their specific intent?
A more interesting question is whether they will be maintaining IP logs of where images come from, so as to turn over for criminal investigation. If they do, they'll doubtless be subpoenaed (and seized) by all sorts of places, which won't make the Bay very happy; if they don't they'll be accused of helping the kiddie porn distributers, and get lynched in the public arena. Bad choice.
Alternatively, they might be planning to be infested with kiddie porn, take it down promptly, and turn over the source IPs from the logs routinely to the police, in the hopes of using their own sleazy reputation to help stamp out the pedophile scum of the internet.//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
This might very well replace RapidShare for me. I get about full speed (10mbit/s) on RapidShare because TeliaSonera (my ISP) provides two download servers for RapidShare, but the nasty download limit usually spoils the fun. Sounds promising.
Wrong, freedom of speech is not limitless, and both of those would fall outside of the realm of what is allowed, sorry. I'm sure from your armchair over there, you'd like to believe you can say, and express anything you like and be protected. Back here in reality it doesn't work that way.
It has nothing to do with mixing up the issue, just more examples of cases where *freedom of speech* does not apply. Too many people seem to think freedom of speech means you can say anything you like. It doesn't quite work out that way.
Read the linked article. They aren't hosting child pornography, they're hosting a discussion site. Big difference between action and discussion, chief. Same goes for your murder anecdote.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
1) Backup to file.
2) Encrypt file.
3) Inject data stream into lossless image format.
4) Upload image.
5) Retrieve anywhere.
So long as you were actually prosecuted for the murder, why should you be further prosecuted for the photography? What purpose would that serve? What additional harm has been committed by the existence of the photos? And if you haven't been prosecuted for the murder yet, I suppose the pictures could serve as some pretty damning evidence in a trial... but again I wouldn't think there'd be any need to prosecute you for having the photos themselves. And I certainly wouldn't think going after all the people that downloaded them from your website would serve any purpose.
I don't think either of us were talking about taking pictures of people without their knowledge. Are you trying to say child pornography is usually made without the children even knowing about it? In all the stories I read online about pedophiles being caught, it always seems to involve people "enticing" or "luring" children into this or that act -- and that doesn't sound very covert to me at all.
Anyway, we weren't even talking about kiddie porn, although I still think that you think that we were. Both I and the article there were talking about The Pirate Bay hosting a website belonging to someone advocating legalizing such behavior. To you, such advocacy is comparable to photographing a murder?
Liberty in your lifetime
Well, go ahead, but I gotta warn you - when I posted those same pictures, people complained and wanted me to take 'em down...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
http://www.bayimg.com/album/GaacoaAaA
Its a limit of 100MB per file.
Freedom of speech isn't limitless; I think we've established that fact. What I and these other posts are advocating is that it ought to be, or at least any limits placed on it ought to be a lot lower than they already are. Of course you seem to think people advocating legalization of pedophilia are akin to murderers, so maybe this whole "advocating things should be different" idea is incomprehensible to you.
Liberty in your lifetime
Heh, I rather liked this one, with that tag :p
;)
Of course, there was other fun stuff (NSFW) there too
BTW, anyone know that that type of 3d picture is called?
It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Ah, yes! Social engineering by trying to limit supply. Remember when we tried that with drugs, and now there are no more drug addicts out there? Yeah, it'll be just like that.
Liberty in your lifetime
Since their true motivation is freedom of speech,...
BullShit! They are not motivated by freedom of speech in any manner. Haven't you people see what their true goal is yet? Their True Motivation is free porn! To get this free porn they have hatch a perfectly brilliant scheme. God Damn I can't believe I didn't think of it.
Okay, let me spell this out for you. Instead of enduring p2p and filtering through usenet to get their free porn like the rest of us dumb fucks. They just set up a server and tell you they are hosting free images with no restrictions. Now all they have to do is sit back and wait while the rest of upload tons of porn to them. We do all the searching and uploading and they just sit back and jerk off to the rewards. How fucking brilliant is that?
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Viewing child porn is not the same as taking advantage of small children. I've unintentionally run across cp sometimes while viewing /b/ on 4chan or when downloading mislabeled stuff on freenet, and you know what? It didn't make me rape any children or hurt anyone.
You are claiming that allowing complete freedom of media is equivalent to allowing complete freedom of actions, but that is absolutely absurd. Do you really not realize how ridiculous that is? It may lead to some unpleasant stuff being freely available, but media can't jump out and hurt people.
I am entirely in favor of complete and total freedom of information and media.
you seem to be confusing law with freedom of speech, which is limitless. that's what freedom means. if you're not free to say something, you dont have complete freedom of speech. it doesnt matter what you're saying.
Posting a picture is an action? (Beyond the obvious sense of clicking through a web form.) How so? And how is it different from me posting a picture of your cat with "I LOL'd" written across the front of it?
The harmful act was the taking of the photograph. Sticking it online isn't the harm here; taking it was. Downloading it causes no additional harm because the downloader had nothing to do with the initial act whatsoever.
"Freedom of speech" ought to only apply to speech that can be framed as a dialog? So I guess any form of advertising is out, since they don't exactly let you comment on it. News sites are out, unless they have some dinky blog or forum attached to them. Religious material is obviously out, because if there's one kind of people who hate critical dialog of their opinions, it's devout religious believers!
Overall you seem to have a pretty funny definition of what constitutes speech and actions. It's almost like one of those contrived ad hoc definitions some people like to make up to work around a point of hypocrisy in their worldview.
Liberty in your lifetime
copyright began as censorship:
the two issue are separate, but still closely related. in any free speech discussion, the issue of copyright and trademark comes up quite often.
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
While I agree with the general idea of your post, one thing hit me - we live in a world where it is OK to post Neo-Nazi / Anti-Semitic / %insert_history's_mistakes_here% content, and it is not OK to post something that delivers "monetary compensation".
In the same context, do you think the neo-nazi or anti-semitic folk do it absolutely NOT for the money? I believe that in either case there is a lot of money at stake.
I don't know... but I think something is wrong here. If it's free speech all the way, then all the way free speech it is, and we shouldn't categorize content like that.
The saddest poem
Only because I have so few opportunities to quote Milton on /. and the parent comment brought him to mind:
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness.
John Milton, Areopagitica: A speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing to the parliament of England
Of course, he recommends Spenser, not child porn, for the contemplation of evil.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Scarcity is a great evil, if it can be abolished it must.
OK, let me run a thought experiment by you.
Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that I invent a cheap 3-dimensional copying device which produces perfect copies of anything placed in it. Even down to the material used to produce the copy, its strength and its colour. This device can be made and sold cheaply enough to market it to the general public, and it's not really possible to spot the difference between the copies are originals.
Note that it doesn't allow you to create an object from scratch (so it's a bit different to computer software in that respect, and thus the ability for individuals to innovate with it is substantially curtailed). Considering the economy as a whole (including the number of people currently employed in manufacturing), Is it a good or a bad thing?
I have to agree with you, don't understand how this is fighting anything at all.
Don't get me wrong, having a place where you can upload images without having to register is nice, but it's not like there's a lot of censorship going on in Sweden. Basically, avoid anything illegal and you're good to go, which is exactly what they are doing. Plus, this time around they are actually hosting the files, with TPB they are just linking to them which is why they haven't been shutdown (yea yea, I know they got shut down once but they haven't been convicted of anything.... yet).
Anything illegal = site gone, and I'm certain the government/police/xxAA would _love_ a reason to shut them down.
Don't worry about us, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about. I see no evidence that TPB has opened this picture hosting site "with it being a haven for child pornography in mind."
In regard to the link you provided: the site in question which was hosted was a pedophilia discussion site. There was no child pornography involved. Just because someone mentions the words "pedophilia" and "website" in the same sentence doesn't mean you have to respond with the predictable, "OMG child pr0n and pedos, what evil horrible bastards, all individual rights and liberties are now void!"
You mean replicators? That would be fantastic. No one would ever have to work again.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Hey, I just thought it was cool to have another option for hosting all the lolcat images I like to plaster my blog and myspace profile with. But apparently it's not like that and doesn't support remote hosting! WTF?
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
I think someone needs to cut back on the caffeine. And brush up on their reading comprehension skills.
That, or you're replying to the wrong comment.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Ok replace with "tombs in the valley of kings". It's longer and the point remains.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes, the end of scarcity would alter the economy, perhaps even abolish it.
No, this would not be a bad thing.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
True, but incomplete. You could easily copy on the scale that 99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue do, even in 2000 BC. A song is quickly learnt and repeated, and back then people had better-trained memories.
In fact, I think the copying industry very much pre-dates copyright. People made a living copying paintings or books centuries before copyright came into existence.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I just noticed they host Google ads on the image pages. Pretty sure this is a violation of Adsense's terms of service:
http://bayimg.com/aAAegaabC (nsfw -- or home, for that matter)
If they're depending on the ad revenue to support this thing, either they'd better get in touch with adultfriendfinder.com or I don't expect this will be around all that long.
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
As subject.
"it's theft of services or whatever is the new legal mumbo jumbo for saying stealing money from someone who worked to earn it."
1. You cannot steal a service.
B) Stealing means removal of something from someone else's possession so that you can possess it. By definition, copying is not stealing. It is illegal, but in a different way.
2. Just because you worked for something does not entitle you to make money from it. Even copyright does not change this. If I spent 8 years building a model spaceship out of paperclips I am not automatically entitled to profit.
3. The "legal mumbo jumbo" takes the above into account.
"Copyright" is just another law, a law that restricts expression of information. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, that doesn't change. Violating copyright is just that. Anyone who says "copying is stealing" automatically loses any credibility in my mind, because it shows they have ether no respect for legal definitions and place their own bias above them, or truly do not understand them. What are you?
Great Intellect...
first line: "No its not censorship in every parlance."
Obviously its censorship in parlances other than that in which i participate, or we'd not be having the disagreement.Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
It's the greatest thing in history. You just solved world hunger and made it so no one NEEDS to work. Really, are you that short sighted to think that a replicator would be a BAD thing? Luddites....
Great Intellect...
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
The blank panthers were so scary. For one thing, you could never see them coming. Not to mention their leader Malcolm _______ was a total bad-ass.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Is that some sort of Richard Hell fanclub?
It's more than just images..
As I see it, its just the next step in piratbyråns http://www.piratbyran.org/ campaign against copyright, although not officially
linked.
Theyve been pretty successful as political activists, much helped by blundering swedish police and white house pressure.
The logical next step after piratebay, which only stores links to copyrighted material, is to actually host it.
Images is a nice way to dip the toe I guess.
Any media group who wants to try it in court face a group of highly motivated and well connected people.
Youtube sucks. They censor, and that to me is absolutely not acceptable. Fuck Google, and Go PiratesBay!
I'm at work, so I can't be sure, but I suspect what you're talking about is a Random Dot Sterogram. (magic eye type of pic = RDS) Won't know until I go home and check it out though lol.
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
It should have read "Pirate Bay Launches Worlds Largest Porn Archive"
It would be the best thing ever. Nothing non-perishable would need to be made from scratch more than once, no more resources would need to be depleted, manufacturing and construction would be much, much, much more efficient (who needs an expensive cement mixer when you can just make 1 litre of it and continuously replicate it), and farming would be far, far, far more efficient (grow a hundred plants, put them into a hundred replicators, and you can have as much food as you want).
I don't know how many people here actually, you know, checked the site or anything, but even under the "humor" tag, it's ~75% hardcore pornography - which is great if you're an incorrigible porn addict, but for, say, anyone with a modicum of taste, this site is less than useless. Unless they implement some way for people to edit which results get shown first, or a method to automatically drop images into some "unscrupulous/desperate porn site owner spamming images" section, this thing is DOA.
http://www.bayimg.com/MaaCKaAbf/
Seriously..
- sigilicious -
I am reminded of Ragnar Danneskjöld who as the counterpart to Robin Hood was returning property to its rightful owners although he was suppose to be Norwegian and not Swedish.
t es/atlas_shrugged/55.html
http://education.yahoo.com/homework_help/cliffsno
". . . when the law is engaged in robbery, people who want to return stolen goods to their rightful owners must become outlaws."
Nobody would also want to make anything new ever again. The advancement of technologies would come to a halt. That is what he is trying to say. You are dodging the real issue here and you know it.
With something like this your essentially eliminate the market economy and thus production will cease to exist. People would have little incentive to want to make anything new or improved because they would make no money off of it. They would have lost their job and live in an economy with no money or spare capitol to mess around with.
Answering like you did is juvenile and you know it. I could say that people would replicate huge bombs and kill everyone too. That is not what he is trying to say. He communicated his point just fine to me, why are you so reluctant to see it? Because you know he is right.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
No. The Statute of Anne, the first real copyright law, was passed in 1709. Give me an example of a 'copying industry' that significantly predates that. The printing press was invented in 1450, only 250 years previous. Sound recording came much later. Works of art were reproduced by hand, in extremely small quantities.
As for the examples you mention, remembering a song and then singing it later isn't prohibited by copyright anyway - unless you're performing it in public. How many people, in a basically subsistence economy, have the time or ability to 'share' songs in that way? I don't know much about the history of art forgery, but based on what I do know I strongly doubt that it was a terribly wide-spread 'industry.'
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Just wait a minute here.
There seems to be a fairly resounding condemnation of kiddy porn here, but at the same time the parent and a few other posts appear to support freedom of speech for groups that promote hatred, violence and murder. I'm not supporting the sexual abuse of children, but is it really any worse than violence committed in front of or on children? Is kiddie pron any worse than dropping cluster bombs on civillian areas, where unexploded bomblets can go off, taking children's limbs with them? Is it fine to kill relatives of children in front of them? Is it okay to tell children they are sub human because of a fiction we call race? Or that they are condemned becuase of the religion they are born into?
This idea that sexual activity is somehow morally worse than violence is really fucked up. (pun intended)
Seriously, get some perspective, people. Child pron on the internet has as much moral right to exist as sites promoting Islamic Jihad or the Invasion of the Axis of Evil by the leader of the "free world".
I'm not condoning any of it, but if you truly support free speech, you have no argument against sites like this. They may at least make it a bit easier to track down who's committing the actual abuses.
I don't therefore I'm not.
"In fact, I think the copying industry very much pre-dates copyright. People made a living copying paintings or books centuries before copyright came into existence."
You make a good point. Many people are boggled by the fact that copyright owners are upset that I can use BT to share a perfect copy of a CD with 100,000 of my closest friends. They cite the fact that we were trading analog copies of cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s. They do not see a significant difference.
Monks illuminating books one at a time::analog tape copying in the 70's as movable type::modern P2P networks.
Movable type got rolling with the Gutenberg Bible in 1455. Copyrights followed soon after; 1486, to be precise. This is no coincidence: new technology drove the creation of new laws, just as it does today. It took until 1709 for things to get sufficiently out of control (in the eyes of authors) for widescale copyright law to be adopted.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
No it's not.
The fact that people use The Pirate Bay to post child porn instead of black panther stuff is a measure of how many sites allow posting child porn vs. how many sites allow posting black panther stuff.
If I want to go post equal-rights pictures, I don't need to resort to The Pirate Bay. I can use any one of a hundred image sites. Why would I use a new, untested site which is affiliated with (what a lot of Americans would consider) known criminals?
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
"As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here"
To be perfectly legal you have to have permisson from copyright holders. If you have a quick look around the site it seems improbable that this is the case for most of the pictures.
Isn't the point of advancement to make our lives easier? If we just fill that time with more work it becomes a rat race, a tread mill. I don't want to live in that kind of world. The dream is 100% unemployment, 100% leisure time. If we can enjoy good food and drink and family and have a roof over our heads at no cost to anyone, why would we need a job? If people want to engage in productive behavior, and I'm certain most would as it's in our nature, that's wonderful. But eliminating scarcity would free us from the tyrrany of having to work merely to survive.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Also, if the model LOOKS under 18 and the image is distributed/created with the intention of it looking that way, that's probably illegal too.
In America, this is legal. In the UK, it's not.
The Child Pornography Protection Act was passed in 1996 in America which banned any image that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down the law. The justices wrote: In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers engaged in sexual activity, a "fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages."
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
This is a minor thing, but give credit where it is due: "You might have heard that old quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall; >>I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire was the originator of that quote.
I cannot believe that garbage gets modded up. My dream is nothing close to 100% unemployment, that is disgusting. The world we would live in with your dream realized is my biggest nightmare.
The point of advancement is to answer questions. The more questions we answer, the easier life gets for sure, but you continue the quest to answer questions. We should never be content with where we are as a people. We should strive to advance our species forever and always. Contentment breeds complacence. Complacence gets us nowhere.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Hey, self-censorship is censorship too, man!
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Nobody would also want to make anything new ever again. The advancement of technologies would come to a halt. That is what he is trying to say. You are dodging the real issue here and you know it.
Why wouldn't anything new be made? Why would the ease of the duplication of all items duplication influence negatively on the desire to invent any one new item? Profiteering isn't the only reason to make something new, some people just like to invent stuff. Look at Linux.
With something like this your essentially eliminate the market economy and thus production will cease to exist. People would have little incentive to want to make anything new or improved because they would make no money off of it. They would have lost their job and live in an economy with no money or spare capitol to mess around with.
Why do they need spare capital anymore if everything is free to duplicate? Removing the profiteering perspective would actually encourage quality and pride in invention over marketability. Again, look at Linux.
Answering like you did is juvenile and you know it. I could say that people would replicate huge bombs and kill everyone too. That is not what he is trying to say. He communicated his point just fine to me, why are you so reluctant to see it? Because you know he is right.
I can't see how the GP is being childish; he's just not coming to the conclusion that you want him to come to.
I wash mah-self with a rag on a stick.
Censoring child porn is still censorship. It's just that the line is moved. It's all about the line of acceptability, as people who want to censor more know full well. Those who want to ban all pornography try to conflate child porn with adult porn, because they see no moral distinction. Our efforts to redefine "censorship" to pretend that censoring what we find objectionable isn't censorship undermines our own logic system.
It looks like the site is down right now. It worked for me before, but now I'm getting the 'unable to connect'. Hopefully, this is only a server overload issue.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Or does it need flash?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You're close, TPB wasn't hosting that site. The ISP that hosts TPB hosts the activism website.
So, it is
ISP
- TPB
- Activism Site
not
ISP
- TPB
- Activism Site
My later comment about Page 3 being topless was to make the point that it didn't count as "hardcore" porn; it wasn't a NSFW warning on the article.
I don't know if the parent AC was trolling about it being "porn"- I think that's overreacting a bit. However, although mild, I'll admit that having thought about it, the photo was clearly NSFW by the standards of some more prudish employers, and apologise to anyone who was caught out.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Now go back a thousand years. Ancient greece, rome - yes, books were copied by hand. But we know for a fact that libraries existed, and that literacy was common. There are quite a few copies of Homer, for example.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
However, they can assign a 'removal code' to uploaded images, in case they want to delete the files after a while
Riiiight. And then it will be like it never existed on the net.
Actually has anyone thought of bringing the FBI to court...them having all this p0rn backed up makes it impossible for anyone to get rid of it, and then you have the temptation for someone on the inside to make moeny and pass it off as new stuff......
I wonder if we use the same insight as the RCAA, or thos ebodies in charge of telling us not to play Manhunt because it promotes violence, and therefor the game should never be made, and the ones made be destroyed.......if we destroyed all these p0rn pics, would they not be gone forever, or just new ones take their place?
The real (legal) test will come when someone puts up a PNG containing key Scientology documents or Windows Vista source code.
[Insert pithy quote here]
In the UK, it's not
Note that, according to your link, that seems to cover things which aren't real photos (e.g., manipulated images). I don't see that a real photo of someone who looks too young would fall under this.
Contentment breeds complacence. Complacence gets us nowhere.
If you're content, why do you need to get anywhere? Besides, I don't believe that having our physical needs taken care of would stop us from being a productive society. The need for exploration and understanding is too strong in our species. In fact I think it would make us more productive. We would be free to engage in studies as we see fit, and not limited by the need to survive. If no one had to work to put food on the table, everyone would have time to engage in art and research. These are the real fruits of civilization. Working to survive is just toil.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is the statement to which I was responding. 'Copying' in itself has always existed and always will. Any 'industry' (or whatever we term it), though, would be more analogous to the RIAA members stamping out CDs than to file traders: the monks who spent their lives copying illuminated manuscripts were doing it on behalf of those who controlled the original text.
All of the people that the RIAA sues (100%, not 99%) are accused of copying/trading songs numbering into the thousands. I'm certainly not saying that they actually have, but those are the numbers that are thrown around in those lawsuits (and AFAIK, no one has tried to defend themselves by saying, "Sure I traded songs, just not that many").
If your statement had been "most people" instead of "99% of the people the MP/RIAA sue" it would be better, because nearly everyone makes a few copies. Even then, though, to say that making copies was 'easy' and has been easy for 4000 years is extravagant hyperbole at best.
Probably the most important point that hasn't been made yet is that a very tiny fraction of the people would ever see the original, or even a copy. Architecture and other art permanently located in one spot would only ever be seen by those living close, or those that traveled -- a minuscule number. Only society's elite (a very, very small percentage of the whole, even in ancient Greece) would ever see most paintings and sculptures, hear music compositions, and see or even be able to read books.
To remind us of where we started this discussion, in your original post you imply that copyright is bad since "The entire foundation of our culture was created without the existence of copyright." This may not be strictly false, but it is completely irrelevant: before copyright, there was no copying worth mentioning. Once copying became more practical and widespread, copyright came into being. I'm not arguing for or against copyright, I'm just trying to point out a flawed argument. If you intend to argue against copyright based on history, don't ignore historical context.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
It is one thing to "stick it to the rich RIAA", but it is another matter entirely to post illegal pictures of exploited children. Once ThePirateBay gets associated with illegal pr0n in the minds of the public, it does not matter what the policy states. Even if they employ a huge staff and pull such pics down in a timely manner, it will be such a huge publicity nightmare that I doubt anyone who has to answer to voters will defend ThePirateBay.
In my experience, man seems always to be searching for meaning. I don't think human kind is capable of living in an utopia of endless bounty - we would all end up in an asylum (at least I would).
Personally, I'm not particularly interested in making my life easier. What drives me is the overwhelming desire to be owned by no man. I want freedom of choice, freedom of experience and freedom of thought. My life is the pursuit of these three ideals, literally and philosphically.
Why do you have to be working like a madman to answer questions?
Wouldn't some extremely intelligent people be better off being able to focus on problems and solutions without having to worry about food and shelter?
It's like the renaissance, look what people like da vinci were able to do when the pressures of normal life were removed.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
The point of advancement is to answer questions. The more questions we answer, the easier life gets for sure, but you continue the quest to answer questions. We should never be content with where we are as a people. We should strive to advance our species forever and always. Contentment breeds complacence. Complacence gets us nowhere.
When he says 100% unemployment, he means that noone HAS to work just to live. Does that really horrify you so?
Please realize that not everybody is as lazy as you apparently are, to be motivated only by working to avoid being left starving and homeless. On /. of all places, it should be obvious that the existance of open-source software demonstrates that creative people will continue the progress of innovation, even if not employed to do so.
Your replies are the only childish ones I see here.
Honestly, if I heard someone in a restaurant discussing pedophilia, I would start a fight right then and there. It is worth a few days in jail to kick a pedophile's ass. I have absolutely 0 fucking sympathy for these fucks. That said, I do not like copyright law, and I support what Pirate Bay is doing. I just hope the hell they take this shit down really fast, or they *will* get shut down.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't judge the awfulness of my society by what people do when you hand them anonymity and a global publishing medium at the same time. That's a measurement of the minimum, not the mean, of human virtue.
Or it could be a defect in the argument of the OP? Like how did Mozart manage to live while being an artist? Or how did Da Vinci pay for his tools and raw materials? Why doesn't that system scale?
Or maybe you posted as AC because you knew you were an idiot?
I don't know about you, but I use my leisure time to research, to solve problems, to work on things interesting to me. The entire Open Source movement is about using leisure time to make useful, important things, mostly without pay. Do you seriously think that being able to provide food, shelter, and clothing for the entire world is a bad thing?
Scarcity is a problem. I don't know about "evil," but definitely a problem. Quite a few extremely talented people don't get to work at "furthering the species" because they're busy trying to get by. There are people starving in Africa who could do wonderful things for the human race if only they weren't dying from hunger. There are people working in sweatshops in Asia for pennies a day who could join you in your quest to answer questions if only they weren't using all their time to stitch up a shoe.
What do you think we're advancing for, anyway? If you don't have a goal in mind, how are you supposed to get there? When we get to the point that we can eliminate scarcity, I'd rejoice that I can finally stop working for a paycheck and start working for personal interest -- I can write the book I've wanted to, make another music album, work on the sufficiently smart compiler, and so on.
Scarcity is a barrier to advancement, not the reason for it.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Incidentally, do you know the answer to those questions? I was always under the impression that rich people "sponsored" their works, but I always wondered how that actually worked out - the history books don't talk much about it.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Since you're in a posting mood, maybe you can enlighten me, because I've always wondered - can you see *anything* through the rear window of your pickup truck with all those guns and confederate flags obstructing your view?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Yes, good point.
On the other hand, it can be argued that artists in early times were living on a very different business model - usually work-for-hire (ironically what the RIAA wants to re-introduce).
But while we're at the historical context, let's not forget that the very first copyright laws (in England) were for the protection of publishers, not artists.
Hmmm... Looks like we didn't really advance very much since then.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Those would be my number one and two requested features to make it just a bit more difficult to determine what you are uploading and or browsing. At least the HTTPS might cut down on some of the self censorship that I am sure is still happening.
On top of that, multiple tag search would be nice.
Oh! OK! An unlimited number of files, then?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars