Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pirate Bay Launches Uncensored Image Hosting

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-imagine-what-will-get-uploaded dept.

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."

28 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Bob Goatse must be thrilled by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 5, Funny

    To be immortalized thusly..

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  2. well... by wpegden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are going to like them a whole lot less if this turns into a big child porn site.

    1. Re:well... by swingkid · · Score: 5, Informative

      But since you can't just browse the images, the only people who would see the child porn are child porn enthusiasts, and the feds who investigate them. So it's unlikely that you'd hear about it, unless you were into that stuff. In which case, ew, you perv...

    2. Re:well... by Liselle · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the damned front page of the site:

      bayimg.com is a place where you can host all your images. We do not censor them. We believe in freedom of speech, it's of utter importance to us. As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here, but we reserve the right to remove images due to technical reasons though.
      Did I miss the memo where child porn became legal in Sweden?
      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    3. Re:well... by Amouth · · Score: 4, Informative

      no but they do state right at the front page

      "As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here"

      so sence child porn is illigal it will be taken down if noticed

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:well... by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, so by "uncensored" they meant "just about as censored as always"?

      Well, I guess they might survive a little longer, then.

    5. Re:well... by computational+super · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here

      Isn't that, er, the definition of censorship? Censorship = Banned by such-and-such government, ergo illegal? By this logic, over-the-air radio and television is "censorship free", even in China, since they're broadcasting anything they want as long as it's legal.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    6. Re:well... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depends.

      In England 17 is legal. The legal age varies a lot. In some countries it is higher- in some countries it is lower.

      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?

      And it just needs to be enough to get them into court so they have to spend money defending themselves. Heck, in some cases you can arrest them and force them to post bail and can hold them for months if they can't post bail.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re:well... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would rather be able to see the filth of society clearly

      Take a nice, hard look. (You'll want the "Random" board. Totally NSFW.)

      As far as I can tell, 7chan seems to be made up of people who got banned from 4chan, which in itself is remarkable, since 4chan's moderation is...minimal...at best.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    8. Re:well... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Did I miss the memo where child porn became legal in Sweden?

      I know nothing about Swedish law, but it's entirely possible that they define both "child" and "pornography" differently than in the U.S., creating a space where something is legal if it's on a Swedish webserver, but not if it's in one in the U.S. (Actually, I think there are a number of respected, non-pornographic films that contain nudity that fall into this area.)

      Anyway, if they want to avoid getting constantly raided by the local gendarmes, they should probably create some sort of "Foreigner's Guide to Swedish Obscenity Law" so that people can at least have a shot at knowing what's illegal before they upload it.

      In particular, aside from pornography which is the obvious one, I wonder about extreme animal cruelty (there is some downright disgusting stuff out there, and to be honest I find it more offensive than most of the run-of-the-mill CP). I kinda hope the Swedes make that illegal, since I think its presence does encourage its creation -- some dickhead sees another dickhead gain some sort of minor notoriety online by setting a kitten on fire and decides to emulate them. Since animals are more easily available and even more vulnerable than children, and the disincentives against hurting them are less, it doesn't take much.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    9. Re:well... by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Restricting images for legality is different than censoship in the common parlance. censored for appropriateness of content, or type of image, or anything else that the various previously existing hosting site censor for is an invasive filtering that goes a level above simply saying, "hey please dont upload anything illegal." And given what the pirate bay does, i think we can safely assume that they're concerned less with the minutae of libelous or offensive images than not going to jail as part of a kiddie-porn ring.
      saying "we're going to censor your images so we dont go to jail" is totally ok in a way that saying "we're going to censor your images for things we dont like" is not.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    10. Re:well... by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but that kinda defeats the point.

      As another poster mentioned would this mean much if "The Chinese Pirate Bay" opened it's "uncensored" and couldn't show a picture of the Taiwanese flag?

      Or if "The Iranian Pirate Bay" opened the "uncensored" site that couldn't show a boob?

      Uncensored generally means unrestricted. If you're doing it as a way of promoting freedom from an oppressive government, then saying "We're only gonna leave uncensored what the government will let us." doesn't really do much. I could have done that without the help of a new and nifty website.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    11. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By "uncensored", they mean "we don't care if it's copyrighted by someone else", of course. It's The Pirate Bay, not hard to figure this one out.

    12. Re:well... by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Grandparent: In England 17 is legal.

      Parent: actually its 16

      It depends what you're talking about; the age of consent in England *is* 16, but I believe that to appear in adult material you have to be at least 18. (I remember hearing that apparently Samantha Fox - a 1980s "page 3" star- was 16 when she did her first shoots, and they commented that this would not be legal nowadays. Note that page three is topless, and no more).

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    13. Re:well... by coaxial · · Score: 4, Interesting

      [Ed. Note. For full effect, you should imagine this being read by the always helpful June Thomas]

      Actually the age criteria for nude photography is a bit more complicated than a simple inequality. You can photograph anyone regardless of age (assuming of course you have his/her and/or his/her parrent/guardian's informed consent), as long as it's not in a "sexually explicit or lude and lascivious manner." This why you can have pictures of naked babies, children's genetalia in medical or sex-ed books, even in art. If the photographs or video are in sexual manner, then you have to 18.

      How do you know where to draw the line when prosecuting child porn cases? In practice you don't have to define the exactly where the line is. A video of a grown man ejaculating on a nude 5 year old's face is pretty good indication, of that video being on the wrong side of the law. Same for a photo of 10 year old spreading her labia for the camera.

      So how do investigators know that the individidual in the photograph or video is a real person that is under 18 years of age at the time of recording? Easy. The FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have an incredibly large collection of child porn. Like all porn, child porn is shared widely and has a very long life time. Investigators look for previously identified bonafied child porn, and prosecute on those instances. New suspected child porn is identified by medical doctors, who examine the material an give an expert opinion of whether the individual is underage. (Yes, they also maintain a database of false positives.)

      When it comes to possession, posession is illegal. While it may be a dubious comfort, the US Attorney probably won't prosecute you for each individual photo or video in your 100 GB pr0n collection, but rather for just a two or three photos or videos. I say it's dubious, because you'll still be going to jail for a long long time.

      And before anyone gets the wrong idea. I recently served on a federal grand jury. The Assistant US Attorney explained the law to us.

      In an unrelated case, he ran a DEA video explaining -- in detail -- three methods used to manufacture methamphetamines. Yes. You could take notes. ;)

    14. Re:well... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everything in Texas is bigger! Even our mistakes.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. TOR by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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").
  5. Re:Image files 100MB? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Image files with 100MB? Seriously? That seems quite large, even for packing some images in one archive.

    But quite handy for steganography, which is probably what this is really for.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. I don't get it by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!"
    1. Re:I don't get it by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Could someone please indulge me as to why there is such a dire focus on child pornography?

      When people have children something hormonal happens to their brains that makes them lose all perspective when children are involved. Think of how irrational your parents were? I remember one time when my younger brother got a ride home and didn't call. He was less than an hour late, and my dad made me drive around with him looking for my brothers body in ditches at the side of the road.

      It's the Helena Lovejoy effect. Saying "think of the children" makes people revert to emotional thinking and makes them easier to manipulate. So it follows that if you're trying to grab power, appealing to the safety of children will make people fall in line.

      Personally it works the other way on me. Any proposal put forth "for the children", I automatically assume is bullshit. After all, if it had real merit they wouldn't need to manipulate us into going along with it. If someone involved in neuropsychology is looking for a good thesis, pinpointing exactly what is causing this effect would be wonderful.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  7. Re:TPB Are Theives by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Woot! Online backups! by dannycim · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) Backup to file.
    2) Encrypt file.
    3) Inject data stream into lossless image format.
    4) Upload image.
    5) Retrieve anywhere.

  10. Illegal stock tips by drx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.bayimg.com/album/GaacoaAaA

  11. Re:TPB Are Theives by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You mean replicators? That would be fantastic. No one would ever have to work again.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  12. Legal == permission from copyright holder? by zigamorph · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

  13. Re:TPB Are Theives by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!