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."

53 of 212 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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 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

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

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

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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
    13. 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.
    14. 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
  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 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
    2. 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).

    3. 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.
  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.

  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.
  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!

  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 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.

    3. 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)
  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
  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. 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!

  11. 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 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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?

  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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