Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Pirate Bay Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain

Posted by kdawson on from the heads-will-roll dept.

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."

212 comments

  1. Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm sorry, Mr or Ms clickclickdrone, your name violates my new double-click patent. You shall be hearing from my attorney.

    4. Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well shit, you're 26 days late.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see it now .... The new slashdot Meme .... "First YARRRRRRRRRR!"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Let me be the first to say by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      But it really was offtopic... So I'm not sure that counts. The moderators just think something offtopic is funny today.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    7. Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Far from it

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's hear from the ninjas too:

    9. Re:Let me be the first to say by SnoopJeDi · · Score: 2, Funny

      The moderators just think something offtopic is funny today.


      You must be new here.
  2. Legality? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Legality? by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:Legality? by MoonFog · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    5. Re:Legality? by fastest+fascist · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    6. Re:Legality? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

      --
      My blog
    7. Re:Legality? by gedeco · · Score: 1

      I admire those guys for there sence of humor.
      http://thepiratebay.org/legal

      They are always up for a good laugh.

    8. Re:Legality? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      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! :)

    9. Re:Legality? by ag0ny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      --
      My site
    10. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Legality? by monkeyboythom · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    12. Re:Legality? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Legality? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    14. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "...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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Legality? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

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

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:Legality? by nighty5 · · Score: 1

      No his not, his talking a band from Australia.

      Austria is another place.

    18. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, actually...

      While I'm not a fan of the way U.S. trademark law treats domain names, you might want to go take a look at the written law.

      Trademark holders don't need the court to put corporate interests ahead of written law in this case, because this particular bit of written law has corporate interests well in mind.

      And the local anti-U.S.-government sentiment aside, it's not just a U.S. thing. It seems WIPO thinks that trademark holders have some voice, for example.

    19. Re:Legality? by somersault · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damnit, where am I meant to find my Asian Cutie Drunk Chicks now?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:Legality? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I was wondering where all the surf had gone.. and do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a surfboard booked onto a plane? Grr. Oh well, off back home to good old Great Brittany.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    21. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      terestingly enough, this comes as a porn site was forced to give up acdc.com and give it back to the band.

      Nice reading comprehension there, Chief. No wonder people like Bush can get elected twice.

    22. Re:Legality? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Some companies have whitelisted their domains in their software. I guess the real fun would be if one of those got transfered:

      adobe.com
      microsoft.com
      [any other company with unsigned executable updates].com

      Then they could feed any executable to Flash/Windows users by means of their update mechanisms.

    23. Re:Legality? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      They're easy enough to find. Just look under Colin Farrell.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    24. Re:Legality? by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 5, Informative

      He wasn't without the domain for very long, but just goes to show you that things like this are hard to make bulletproof.


      "Not long"? It took Kremen 5 years to get the domain back and 10 to finally see Cohen in a US prison (for other reasons, granted) where he could no longer escape his dues.
      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    25. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, if you've ever tried to carry a surfboard through the crowded halls at an airport, you could see how it can quickly become a weapon of mass destruction. If you don't, just carry it on your shoulder and turn around once or twice.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Legality? by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1

      3) Under Swedish trademark law, infringement occurs when you do business using someone else's name as your own. Simply putting up a web page to poke fun at some corporate entity doesn't mean you are doing business, though I suppose IFPI will ask the judge to consider whether the domain holder may be doing business without this being evident from the web page in question.

      4) Even if two different companies are doing business using the same trademark, they could be doing it in entirely different branches (say, entertainment and merchant shipping, respectively). If the trademark is registered, its trademark class should be documented with the registration, and then it doesn't apply in the other classes. I believe those classes are defined in international treaties, though I suppose you can find a number of countries that aren't parties to said treaties.

      Here please insert whatever disclaimers are considered appropriate in your jurisdiction.

    27. Re:Legality? by BobGregg · · Score: 1

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

      Tell that to People Eating Tasty Animals....

    28. Re:Legality? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Now you mention it, any good sports or exercise equipment could be legitimately referred to as Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm going to have to start a fitness equipment company with that name..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    29. Re:Legality? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      IFPI is not a trademark, it's an acronym . Even if it was a trademarked acronym, TPB could have trademarked their acronym as well (IFPI: International Federation of Pirates Interests) and since they are not in the same business as IFPI they do not infringe on the trademarks. If TPB would be a protection/racketeering agency too, then they might infringe...

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    30. Re:Legality? by ubrgeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean something like this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/06/microsoft_forgets_to_renew_hotmail/

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    31. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd call it "Shock and Awe", with some overweight guy as the "shock" and the steroid poster boy as the "awe". Between them an unidirectional vector.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Legality? by somersault · · Score: 1

      You mean an arrow? :P

      --
      which is totally what she said
    33. Re:Legality? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Even as we speak, I'm working hard to register a domain for my "Foundation for Unattributable Common Knowledge".

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    34. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Arrrr-Aye-Eh-Eh, mate!

    35. Re:Legality? by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      If the RBN takes over riaa.com I say let them battle. 2 birds with one stone, sort of- if the RBN wins rest assured that their definition of winning means that Dan Glickman will bother us no longer, while if the RIAA wins that will be the end of a large part of spam and botnets.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    36. Re:Legality? by quanticle · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a similar case in the US. Look up the World-Wildlife-Fund vs. World-Wrestling-Federation. Both organizations have WWF as their initials, and as I remember, World Wrestling Federation was forced to give up the WWF trademark.

      Not too clear on the details of the case, but maybe someone else can fill in more details.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    37. Re:Legality? by mpe · · Score: 1

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

      Trademarks are specific to both geography and type of business.

      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.

      .at is actually Austria, even though German is a common language there it isn't Germany.

    38. Re:Legality? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Well, the acronym is taken (man, it would be nice to have the Italian domain for that organization), but have you ever considered foundationforunattributablecommonknowledge.org? I believe it's still available. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    39. Re:Legality? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Well, if you've ever tried to carry a surfboard through the crowded halls at an airport, you could see how it can quickly become a weapon of mass destruction. If you don't, just carry it on your shoulder and turn around once or twice.

      Well, whatever you do, do not start talking about it to another surfer and describe it as "my gun".

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    40. Re:Legality? by THESuperShawn · · Score: 1

      Well, surfing through archive.org shows that IFPI.com has been home to not only the real IFPI (briefly), but also to several cybersquatters and a few bloggers. They (the real IFPI) didn't do much about it then. Of course they may make a little more noise about TPB hosting pro-piracy material on it.

      Honestly, I don't see the big deal about this...several other similar sites come to mind...whitehouse.com for example. I understood when this story hit the front page of Digg, but Slashdot?

      --
      Repant. Thy end is sheer.
    41. Re:Legality? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Actually, trademark holders only own the rights to a trademark in a specific area of commerce. If I wanted to trademark McDonald's as a manufacturer of condoms, I could. Why? Because McDonald's only has that trademark in the restaurant services industry, the apparel industry, the Christmas decorations industry, the "small promotional toys associated with the restaurant's business" industry, the "restaurant replica and toy uniform set" industry, for various specific types of foods (with missing apostrophe), charitable promotions, franchise services, hotel services, butter, transportation services, retail gift shop services, cigarette lighters, sporting goods, belt buckles, glassware, luggage, annual reports/prospectus, newsletters, brochures, comic books, coloring books, paper party hats, calendars, pens, pencils, playing cards, ice chests, beverage trays and holders, jewelry, clocks, flashlights, video and audio tapes and films, radios, cameras, calculators, key chains, technical services in setting up a restaurant, key tags and fobs not of precious metal, and toys... oh, yeah, and a trademark on mcdonalds.com. Yeah. They trademarked their domain name. Lame.

      (A presumably unrelated company has that trademark for manufacturing gas valves for cooking stoves, water valves, etc., and a Canadian company has a tobacco products trademark on it without the apostrophe or final 's'.)

      The point is that none of those would appear to cover any sort of personal hygiene products whatsoever. McDonald's soap? Nope. McDonald's Towels? Nope. Could I make a car and call it the McDouble? Probably. Note: the fact that it would technically be legal doesn't mean you wouldn't get sued if you tried it. It just means that the case would have no merit. Few would be crazy enough to attempt it, of course.

      The issue of domain names, however, is such that mcdonalds.com could probably be snatched by McDonald's towels legally, though the mcdonalds.com trademark might preclude that. Unless IFPI has a trademark on IFPI.com, though, that doesn't seem to apply here. Oddly enough, I searched and it appears that IFPI isn't a registered trademark in the U.S. database....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    42. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right next to your Ass Cheek Dick Crunchers.

    43. Re:Legality? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd be wary calling it that in today's climate. Call it an arrow and someone will certainly create link some shooting of an abs enthusiast by some meaty guy with your shop, and claim that you gave him the idea.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:Legality? by jonathan_the_ninja · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally, I thought that the article said "a domain once owned by the International Federation of the Pornographic Industry" at first.

      --
      I love NetHack.
    45. Re:Legality? by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      .at is actually Austria, even though German is a common language there it isn't Germany.
      Just think of Austria as Germany's Canada.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    46. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i admire the way they make a fortune in advertising of a site that distributes other peoples work for free, all while pretending to be some kind of fucking rebel anti-copyright site. its a website for criminals to rake it ad revenue. one day their arrogant swedish asses will get the serious jail time they deserve.

    47. Re:Legality? by Methlin · · Score: 1

      You just need to register it in the Cook Islands.

    48. Re:Legality? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      McDonald's is a FAMOUS mark (which have specially additional rules), and you could get sued and lose, even if you did only do business in an unrelated field.

      Dilution, damaging to reputation, etc.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    49. Re:Legality? by JLennox · · Score: 1

      RTFA -- get it from The Pirate Bay.

    50. Re:Legality? by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      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?

      Probably none in this case. It seems the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry stopped using IFPI.com nearly a year ago...

      October 2006: http://web.archive.org/web/20061019060329/http://www.ifpi.com/index.html
      March 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070313223830/http://www.ifpi.com/

      Source: http://web.archive.org/web/*/ifpi.com

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    51. Re:Legality? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      You're a Canadian pirate?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    52. Re:Legality? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but maybe not. If the trademark has been used in more than one industry, it is pretty hard to show dilution. As I pointed out, there are already at least two companies doing business as McDonald's, the second of which is a manufacturer of water and gas valves and related accessories. It isn't even the only McDonald's restaurant....

      I'm not saying it won't be held up as a famous mark, but it certainly isn't a slam dunk.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    53. Re:Legality? by debest · · Score: 1

      Here's a brief note from 2002...

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    54. Re:Legality? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Now you mention it, any good sports or exercise equipment could be legitimately referred to as Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm going to have to start a fitness equipment company with that name..

      Implements of Fat Destruction ? War on Fat ? Gadgets of Ass Construction ?

      Or, to get back on the topic of trademarks, and since staying fit might help prolong your life, Die Another Day ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:Legality? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Probably didn't want the hassle of dealing with the ostensibly corrupt legal system.

      Or maybe it would have just been bad publicity to even be involved in a lawsuit.

      If ACDC were to actually sue to get it back, it is questionable whether they would have succeeded.

      Perhaps greenmail was cheaper than gavelmail.

    56. Re:Legality? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      It's funny, but this doesn't surprise me. The band has always seemed rather laid back. I don't think we're going to see those guys going around like the whiners in Metallica, bitching about how the internet is costing them money.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    57. Re:Legality? by hyades1 · · Score: 0

      I'm not so selfish that I require its use myself. I'd just hate to see such a lovely acronym go to waste.

      It really tickles my funny bone to see these guys put one over on a group that typically has a slime of lawyers looking after that kind of thing.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  3. So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by snipingkills · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by Sirch · · Score: 1, Funny

      Pirates are better than ninjas.

      Fact.

      --
      We Build Beautiful Websites
    2. Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by tygerstripes · · Score: 4, Funny
      There are actually over 250 ninja-coalition domain names on the Interweb.

      You just can't see them.

      --
      Meta will eat itself
    3. Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by daeg · · Score: 5, Funny

      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).

    4. Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by Opportunist · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It does exist. You just can't see it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      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...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:So Pirates have their Interests Protected... by deviceb · · Score: 1

      maybe us leechez should unionize with the ninjas?

      --
      Kill your TV
  4. dotcom by Klaidas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:dotcom by Aladrin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:dotcom by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      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! :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Let's face the facts... by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    [ think ]
    1. Re:Let's face the facts... by l0cust · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.
      --
      Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
    2. Re:Let's face the facts... by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      Ninja can and sometimes do have associations...

      Ninjas just don't need associations.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Let's face the facts... by SuluSulu · · Score: 1

      Arrrrr.... I be a pirate you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:Let's face the facts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:Let's face the facts... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Ninja can and sometimes do have associations.

      Don't forget, they also have burgers. See how they deliver, ninja-style.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    6. Re:Let's face the facts... by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 1

      Not true. Ninjas belong to clans and have to do what they're told. Pirates on the other hand are free!

    7. Re:Let's face the facts... by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Hey! What the hell are you talkin about there! Watch yer tongue ya scallywag!
      These "associations" you mention are our associations with rum and sailing! Pirates have bloodbaths also! They are usually preceded with the spell of powder and a rape frenzy. While ninjas are pussies and kill then vanish, pirates take their time because there is nothing to worry about, anyone that bothers our 'fun time' will be either put in the rape pile or the pillage pile. And they all end up in the dead pile. uh..Yarrrrrr! >PD

      --
      Balderdash!
    8. Re:Let's face the facts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pirates party hardy

  6. Sweet RIAA Defense by Cryophallion · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    1. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    3. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Cryophallion · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was illegal music... I just wanted an easy explanation

    4. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by aliquis · · Score: 1

      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.."

    5. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      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?

    6. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

      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!

    7. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    8. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      I see. This is why I usually don't post before my coffee has kicked in.

    9. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloody vikings. Give us back our gold! (Ancient history, but sounds like the sort of self-justifying law the vikings would come up with. "Oh we didn't steal it, it was sold to us by Olaf and it's ours now under our law. Nyah. Go away, you Irish keniggits")

    10. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by muuh-gnu · · Score: 1

      >Sadly not, you have to either give the backup to the person you give the CD to with it, or
      >destroy it.

      You... actually dont. Neither of the two. Its perfectly legit to make copies of a copyrighted work and give them to your gf, friends, relatives, co-workers and so on. Until you start spreading them in high numbers to random starangers, its considered for personal use, and thus falls under "fair use" and not distibution.

    11. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      I believe you lose your rights to the archival copy when you pass on the original copy. I don't know if you're supposed to get rid of it or just not access the data anymore, but either way you can't legally continue using it.

    12. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You... actually dont. Neither of the two. Its perfectly legit to make copies of a copyrighted work and give them to your gf, friends, relatives, co-workers and so on. Until you start spreading them in high numbers to random starangers, its considered for personal use, and thus falls under "fair use" and not distibution.
      In which country? Not in any WIPO country. "Fair use" has a MUCH narrower scope in WIPO-ratified countries (except Canada).
    13. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Can I use that to explain the music on my computer? Only if you're in Sweden.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    14. Re:Sweet RIAA Defense by AdamKG · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, you never have to "explain" music on your computer to anyone. It can certainly be used as evidence that you distributed (which has now been expanded to "made available"), either by showing that the music was present on your HDD, or by inspecting logfiles on the disk, but the crime is not possession (yet): it's distribution that violates copyright law.

      What (generally) gets people in trouble is when RIAA&co see their IP addy on a P2P network, and choose (I'd imagine it's largely random) to investigate further that IP addy instead of one of the thousands of others.

      --
      groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
  7. Ill gotten gain? by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

    1. Re:Ill gotten gain? by will_die · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Ill gotten gain? by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      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".

    3. Re:Ill gotten gain? by jratcliffe · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Ill gotten gain? by vertinox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yarrr! As long as ye follow the laws of ye Admiralty any salvage by ye shall be yours by right of cutlass!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      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". No no, according to this article, the analogy would be:

      "yes, we were given this shipment of cigarettes, so we figured we'd keep 'em"

      The domain was transferred to them.
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No no no - if they're stolen then it's possession whether you know it or not. The difference is that if you can convince the police (or a court) that you didn't know, then you don't get prosecuted (or fined/imprisoned).

      Other than that, I agree - just because someone gives you something it doesn't necessarily mean that you get to keep it. Even assuming there are no laws preventing you from owning the thing in the first place (eg endangered or dangerous animals), the person who gave it to you had to have the legal right to do so.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    7. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Durindana · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down: -1, Uninformed.

      As usual, uninformed speculation modded up by the similarly uninformed.

      Since I don't work for you and this isn't legal advice, I'll leave it at that.

    8. Re:Ill gotten gain? by funkatron · · Score: 1

      In the UK there's a law that says you can keep stuff that's sent to you without you ordering it. I'd imagine Sweden is similar (EU and all that).

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    9. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Joe+Jay+Bee · · Score: 0

      In the UK there's a law that says you can keep stuff that's sent to you without you ordering it.

      Only if the people who sent it didn't ask for it back.

      (As an aside, I got a copy of Office 2000 Premium that way... just got home one day and found a fully boxed, shrinkwrapped copy of Office. Was a nice surprise, at least... :)

      --
      I write bullshit
    10. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      In the UK the law, the last time I looked, was that for unsolicied goods you can: 1) contact the people who sent them and they have a certain length of time to colledt them, at their cost, or else the goods become legally yours; 2) wait to be contacted, if the senders don't contact you after a longer length of time the goods are yours.

      In both cases you have to keep the goods untouched, so if it was a case of cigarettes you couldn't smoke them, though you could play a CD.

    11. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Monsterdog · · Score: 1

      Misdelivery doesn't grant a right to possession; if you don't arrange for return or correct delivery (by simply giving it back to the delivering agency) then legally is can be seen as common theft. In cases where a mailman leaves an item with a neighbor for the correct recipient to pick up, it could be seen as interfering with the mail. In real-world practice, of course, 70% of the people who get something misdelivered to them keep the item.

    12. Re:Ill gotten gain? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Fully agree - for it to be a crime, there has to be knowledge (or reasonable expectation of knowledge) that the goods didn't belong to whomever you got them from.

    13. Re:Ill gotten gain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Misdelivery doesn't but mistaken delivery does. To clarify: if you live at 123 Main St. and you get a package addressed to 132 Main St. and you keep it, you are legally in the wrong. However, if you live at 123 Main St. and you get a package addressed to 123 Main St. but the company claims that they put the wrong address on the package, you have no legal obligation to return the package.

  8. Pity they announced it by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Pity they announced it by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Pity they announced it by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:Pity they announced it by tokul · · Score: 1

      1. copy the content of IFPI.org
      1.1. Get sued for copyright violation or forgery.
    4. Re:Pity they announced it by tao · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Pity they announced it by Nossie · · Score: 0

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

      case closed!

    6. Re:Pity they announced it by dapyx · · Score: 1

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

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    7. Re:Pity they announced it by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      The Pirate Bay could have been rather more subtle about it:

      It would appear that you have never been to the site because subtlety isn't what The Pirate Bay is all about. I've found their email responses to takedown letters to be very humorous, but The Pirate Bay is about as subtle as a jackhammer.

    8. Re:Pity they announced it by tepples · · Score: 1

      You can do it without it being a violation of copyright: Parody is excepted from those copyright laws. In which countries? And how much does it cost to get a work declared a parody?
    9. Re:Pity they announced it by funkatron · · Score: 1

      It would look pretty dodgy in court if they claimed to be Swedish for their torrent operations to make them legal and then claimed to be using an exception to copyright from American law

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    10. Re:Pity they announced it by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      It's sister site, run by the same people, bayimg does. (Unless the copyright laws that apply to it make an absolute exemption for user-submitted content.)

    11. Re:Pity they announced it by rs79 · · Score: 1

      By doing that they'd lose the domain in a hearbeat via the UDRP process. Domains are ruled by trademark issues (never mind there are laws as well) by contract with the registrar/registry - read the fine print when you register a domain and copyright doesn't enter into it. You'd need to go to court for that, but fuck with somebody's trademark and you don't need to go to court. WIPO will take your domain away.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    12. Re:Pity they announced it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Most countries. 2) Nothing, you don't declare anything a parody it is up to the court to decide if it is or not.

    13. Re:Pity they announced it by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Yea but in Soviet Russia copyright law violate you!

      --
      Balderdash!
  9. And let me be the first to reply... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  10. At least they can call it theft now. by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    1. Re:At least they can call it theft now. by MoonFog · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:At least they can call it theft now. by PenGun · · Score: 1

      Considering the current state of the US government and it's apparent direction ... anarchy is a quality choice, at least there is some semblance of fairness. Go ... Pirates ... Go.

  11. GO, PIRATES GO! by eiapoce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

  12. peta.org by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    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.

  13. Nononono by themusicgod1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    (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.

    --
    GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    1. Re:Nononono by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Nononono by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Of course they will keep it, why would they return it?

    3. Re:Nononono by MPolo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Nononono by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Nononono by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Nononono by steelfood · · Score: 1

      You just have to wait 'til they sue, and then make an offer to settle out of court. Say, $224,000 for starters.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    7. Re:Nononono by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While asking for an outrageous amount is likely to kill your claim to the domain, simply making it known that you WOULD sell the domain will count against you if your right to the domain name is challenged. Back in 1996, peta.org was the People Eating Tasty Animals website. PETA sued, and the courts said that the fact that the domain owner made it known he'd be willing to sell the domain to PETA if they made an offer indicated it wasn't really a parody, just a play for money.

    8. Re:Nononono by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Laws don't get involved initially. When you buy a domain (lease actually) you agree to be bound by the UDRP (Uniforum Dispute Resolution Protocol) by contract. This is handled by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Associaiton) in Geneve. This is courtesy of ICANN to give a fast track, cheap out of court settlement to domain disputes.

      DO NOT offer a price as that deomstrates "bad faith" one of the 3 criteria that must be met for yo to lose your domain. Not using it and being confusingly similar are the other two. Use an attorney. He'll take a cut, but is familair with the process. If you're still reading this, you aren't.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    9. Re:Nononono by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      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?
      This raises an interesting question: What's the difference between a hijacker and a pirate?
    10. Re:Nononono by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Domains don't expire any more. The registrAR holding the domain uses it by putting up a parking page with ads. There's a (two week?) grace period whereby the registrar doesn't have to pay and the domain still works. If it makes enough money to reasonably believe it'll make the $6 wholesale price they keep the domain. Otherwise they dump it.

      So, names like dhkhwhf98.com might expire by anything even remotely meaningul (or short, no matter how random) will never go back into the free pool.

      I'd love to know how a "good" name like this was aquired. Being short it's actually a REALLY good name and worth between 10 and 100K depending.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  14. huh? it looks like it's still for sale by metroplex · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    --
    "Words of wisdom: drop that zero and get with the hero" -- Vanilla Ice
    1. Re:huh? it looks like it's still for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:huh? it looks like it's still for sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:huh? it looks like it's still for sale by geantvert · · Score: 0

      Humm! doesn't work! Your link is borken.

  15. I wonder how they got it... by neokushan · · Score: 1

    Did they pirate the domain through bit torrent?

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  16. Time for a name change perhaps? by Ilex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Time for a name change perhaps? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.'

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Time for a name change perhaps? by clonmult · · Score: 1

      Yesterday?

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

    3. Re:Time for a name change perhaps? by the_womble · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.
    4. Re:Time for a name change perhaps? by S3D · · Score: 1

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

      You mean Pornograph ?
    5. Re:Time for a name change perhaps? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Not that long ago. But then I do have a pornographic memory.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  17. Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sort of like the Crimson Permanent Assurance?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome by Dunbal · · Score: 1

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

            Still makes me laugh today.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      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.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    4. Re:Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Pirate Bay having the wind gauge,

      That's "weather" gauge, landlubber clod.

      Or, in proper pirate: "Pirate Bay be having the weather-rrr gauge"

  18. IPFI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  19. You bastards !!! by unity100 · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Read radical news here
  20. They didn't steal anything by DaveCar · · Score: 1


    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 ...

  21. Where's the theft? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Where's the theft? by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

      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.

    2. Re:Where's the theft? by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

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

    3. Re:Where's the theft? by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 1

      There are actually only 26^4 ways to create four letter acronyms, and some (like ANAL or FUCK) ain't really useful.
      Oh, I'd say the words "anal" and "fuck" are pretty damn useful in relation to the IFPI.
      --
      [ think ]
    4. Re:Where's the theft? by dafradu · · Score: 1

      http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ifpi.com/

      Looks like it really was owned by the IFPI.

    5. Re:Where's the theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and some (like ANAL or FUCK) ain't really useful. At least to most businesses.

      This UK company has made millions if not billions of pounds out of bad spelling: www.fcuk.com.

    6. Re:Where's the theft? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      French Connection, UK - no misspelling at all.

    7. Re:Where's the theft? by Undergrid · · Score: 1

      I think this would prove the point.

    8. Re:Where's the theft? by jack455 · · Score: 1

      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. Yeah, well I'm starting a business called "Am Not A Lawyer" and I need anal.com. Can I sue?
  22. Makes me laugh by Procasinator · · Score: 1

    "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!
    1. Re:Makes me laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Where?

    2. Re:Makes me laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    3. Re:Makes me laugh by Procasinator · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Makes me laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't care about anything but making money (9 million a year) ->
      http://rixstep.com/1/20060708,00.shtml
      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.

    5. Re:Makes me laugh by lahvak · · Score: 1

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

      So if I rent a billboard on a side of a road, and the billboard still has the previous renter's sign on it, and I replace it with my own sign, you would accuse me of censorship?

      There is no reason for Pirate Bay to maintain the content created by any previous owner of the domain.

      They are taking away traffic intended to be for IFPI.

      IFPI did not pay for the traffic. Imagine you rent a business property, then stop paying the rent. You get evicted, and somebody else moves in and opens a store there. Would you say they are taking away customers that were intended for you?

      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 don't see anything unethical here. One site let their domain registration expire, somebody else registered the domain, and gave it to Pirate Bay. It's probably not even like IFPI simply forgot to renew their registration. Typically, your web hosting provider will give you plenty of warning before they let the domain expire. I usually start getting emails on a domain I maintain for somebody that expires at the end of January sometimes in the mid December. Last year there was some confusion as to who should pay for the registration, and so I left it till the last day, and the week before the registration was to expire, I was receiving daily emails from them, reminding me to renew. I think IFPI had their own reason to keep the .org and let the .com go.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:Makes me laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Bingo.

    7. Re:Makes me laugh by Procasinator · · Score: 1
      I noticed that it was mostly likely acquired legitly (from whomever gave it too TPB) after posting my prior posts.

      I just went on what the article said:

      Software pirates have launched an astonishing smash 'n' grab raid on the music biz, stealing the domain name of one of its foremost anti-piracy bodies.


      From other comments here, this appears to be sensationalism. If the domain was sitting around idly doing nothing, then it is fair game.

      I couldn't read the interview due to filtering in place at place of work. Sure, I could put in the effort and get around it, but this is Slashdot: most don't even RTFS! ;)

      If it is the case that IPFI.com just let their domain expire, allowed someone else to register it (most registars give a grace period onto of the expiration date, there is little excuse) then nothing unethical has happened.

      In fact, nothing even really newsworthy has happened. They didn't loot any treasure, they just picked up the scraps floating by.
    8. Re:Makes me laugh by mmcuh · · Score: 1

      Really, they should just give the domain name back. It's not theirs.

      What do you mean "it's not theirs"? If they've registered it and paid for it (or if someone else has and then transferred it to them), it is theirs. It may have belonged to the owners of ifpi.org at some point but if they have let it lapse it is up for grabs.

      Is it the fact that the domain contains the text "IFPI", which among other things is an abbreviation for "International Federation of the Phonographic Industry", that bothers you? Are you aware of the fact that there are many, many organisations and persons that share names?

      There is a company whose name is the same as my last name. They own that domain under virtually every TLD. I was a bit annoyed when I found out since I would have liked to register one of those domains myself. Do you think that they should give one of their domains to me, since it is mine? Or, if I had managed to register it first, should I have given it to them since it was not mine?

      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 don't even understand what you mean by this. Who is censoring anything?

    9. Re:Makes me laugh by Procasinator · · Score: 1
      My comment is based off the article:

      Software pirates have launched an astonishing smash 'n' grab raid on the music biz, stealing the domain name of one of its foremost anti-piracy bodies.

      It latter became apparent that what probably happened was the domain name simply expired and was re-registered.

      Of course, saying that in the article/interview would have been boring - everyone loves sensationalism.

      But I'm just repeating myself - if you look through the replies before you, and my responses, I've already explained my rationale at the time.

  23. And from the other ifpi site... by N+Monkey · · Score: 2, Funny
    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
    1. Re:And from the other ifpi site... by GNious · · Score: 1

      Only if them be Britney Spears CDs

  24. It looks like it expired, not stolen by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:It looks like it expired, not stolen by imadork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Furthermore, if this is the way the domain was obtained, it may make it harder for the IFPI folks to take back. Since the domain was at one time legally owned by them, and then abandoned, the domain name arbitrator could rule that they relinquished any claim to the name when they abandoned it. After all, if they really wanted the domain name, wouldn't they have renewed it?

  25. Re: sig fixed by giafly · · Score: 1, Funny

    A pirate of radius r and thickness te, where r=a, has a volume of pi r a te

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  26. PETA.org by shking · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reminds me of the mid-90's when "People Eating Tasty Animals" registered peta.org

    --
    -- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
  27. Archive of ifpi.com throughout the years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://ifpi.com

    1. Re:Archive of ifpi.com throughout the years by jaimegarcia · · Score: 0
      Seems like this is not the first time this domain has caused trouble to the IFPI ;)

      IFPI.com is for sale. Asking price = $2000. Serious offers only to domain@hiosilver.com http://web.archive.org/web/20030128103702/http://ifpi.com/
      --
      Cinépatas.com - Locos por el CINE
  28. Being a pirate... by sageres · · Score: 1

    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...)

  29. Irony by RomulusNR · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shouldn't it be TPB that has the .org (non-profit) and IFPI that has the .com (money-leeching corporate union)?

    --
    Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
  30. Oh piss off. by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

    is not just silly but shows how resistant to change the recording industry really is
    Boy even I want an edit button now. Purely for your sake, ya know? I just feel kinda sorry for you. "Phonograph" has some ancient origins. I understand that you (and, understandably many other nerds) would render it "pornographic", but who cares? This is a serious company, not one that tries to associate with youth with catchy slogans, endorsements from skateboarders and advertisements that use the feel good hit of the summer (pun intended, !!! fans)

    These people deal with courts and big business. Using a technically correct name doesn't add a damper on anything; they need to be taken seriously in their trade. Feel free to laugh. Did you also know that 8008135 renders "BOOBIES" when turned upside-down on your calculator? Oh the fun to be had.

    I mean when was the last time you actually saw let alone played a Phonograph?
    Most recorded music is regarded as phonographic. Anyway, I have a turntable and do use it for the odd record. Some records just sound better on vinyl.

    Quoth wikipedia:

    The phonograph was the first device for recording and replaying sound. The term phonograph ("sound writer") is derived from the Greek words (meaning "sound" or "voice" and transliterated as phone) and (meaning "writing" and transliterated as graphe). Similar related terms gramophone and graphophone have similar root meanings. The coinage, particularly the use of the -graph root, may have been influenced by the then-existing words phonographic and phonography, which referred to a system of phonetic shorthand; in 1852 The New York Times carried an advertisement for "Professor Webster's phonographic class", and in 1859 the New York State Teachers' Association tabled a motion to "employ a phonographic recorder" to record its meetings.

    F. B. Fenby was the original author of the word phonograph. An inventor in Worcester, Massachusetts, he was granted a patent in 1863 for an unsuccessful device called the "Electro-Magnetic Phonograph".[1] His concept detailed a system that would record a sequence of keyboard strokes onto paper tape. Although no model or workable device was ever made, it is often seen as a link to the concept of punched paper for player piano rolls (1880s), as well as Herman Hollerith's punch card tabulator (used in the 1890 census), a distant precursor of the modern computer.
  31. I hate to point this out... by Sirch · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... but www.nissan.com is still owned and operated by Nissan Computer Corporation. As approved by the USSC - a little light reading for you.

    --
    We Build Beautiful Websites
  32. Delivery Truck by Zancarius · · Score: 1

    Or "He told me it fell off the back of a delivery truck."

    I guess that applies to this domain as well.

    --
    He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  33. How about... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    ...just hosting some torrent files that don't point to broken torrents? I've given up on trying to watch some pay channel shows and just wait to rent the DVDs. If the video file doesn't generate countless errors, it's in some bugfuck "new and improved" video format or conatianer where the current player is at version 0.0.1 alpha. Is simple MPEG not esoteric enough for a stupid TV show?

    Yeah, I know, it's not their responsibility, but I gotta rant somewhere.

    Hey, Showtime and HBO and others. I'll happily pay a buck or two per show if you can make them available a week after initial airing. One engineer a few hours a week could do this. Or just ship it over to iTunes. I am not buying your channels to watch one show, so get a buck or two, or whatever fraction of a penny comes from my Netflix rentals.

  34. Legal representation is still expensive by tepples · · Score: 1

    And how much does it cost to get a work declared a parody? Nothing, you don't declare anything a parody it is up to the court to decide if it is or not. Perhaps you misunderstood my question. How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to convince a judge to declare a work a parody?
  35. The pirates were just recovering their treasure! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    According to the Wayback Machine, back in January 28th, 2003 it was up for sale: "IFPI.com is for sale. Asking price = $2000. Serious offers only to domain@hiosilver.com". By March 30th the phonographers had picked it up. (Don't be fooled by the March 19th 2003 anachronism--it's loading current frames.) And then by February 2007, they'd let it expire and it was picked up.

    March 2003: owned by domain@hiosilver.com! "Hi Ho Silver"? Them be pirates!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  36. Re:The pirates were just recovering their treasure by dwye · · Score: 1

    > March 2003: owned by domain@hiosilver.com! "Hi Ho Silver"? Them be pirates!

    The Lone Ranger is a pirate?

    So, I guess that you used the Wayback Machine to "return with us now, to those thrilling days of yesteryear" ?

  37. noob by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Well my id is almost 1/7th the size of yours (and it's not even particularly low), so in my mind you are new here.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:noob by SnoopJeDi · · Score: 1

      Maybe you bought it.

      Oh that's gonna be a great addition to the /. salvo of replies.

  38. Unfortunately, you're wrong by Rix · · Score: 1

    Just ask the People Eating Tasty Animals.

  39. About the calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be 5318008? At least, that is what works on my HP45. (OK, I am old)

    OK, I also have a real wind up phonograph in the corner of my lounge.....

  40. IFPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that read this as "International Federation of the Pornographic Industry"

  41. How Sweden usually treats domain names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweden treats the Internet as a domain, like any IRL domain, and on such, trademark and copyright apply.
    In the early days of the Internet as we see it today (i.e. dial-up about 15 years ago), a couple of people registered saab.com, volvo.com etc. All these have been forced to give the domain names to the corresponding companies (for a very small fee, iirc).

    So, TPB might have to give this back, but only depending on the situation on how they got it in the first place.
    Did IFPI "give away" / let go of their domain name, or was it more or less "stolen"? If they gave it away, well, then it's TPB's, since you need to take care of your trademarks. But if it was somehow unlawfully pulled from IFPI, they can probably get it back.

  42. .org address makes more sense anyway by dtobias · · Score: 1

    Given that it's a noncommercial organization, the .org address makes more logical sense for it than the .com address anyway.

    --
    --Dan
    Web Tips