Slashdot Mirror
The Pirate Bay Comes To Facebook
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report I just read in Mashable, Pirate Bay is coming to Facebook. Writer Ben Parr says that The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to 'Share on Facebook.' Once posted to a profile, the Facebook member's friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided he or she already has a torrenting client installed. I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels. No doubt, if their song files were downloaded through this method, the record companies would sit back for awhile, derive profit from the promotional excitement generated for their dying industry, and then — armed with Facebook's data — sue the pants off all the hapless Facebook users who fell for it."
Nothing in the .torrent file itself is illegal. The **AA still needs to actually show that the person was illictly downloading the copyrighted material. If I downloaded every .torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.
I'm not against pirating, just against the drama that goes with it. I really don't want the RIAA on my ass; I'm sure facebook doesn't either.
I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels.
Knowing the Internet community at large, I think there is probably no risk of this happening. :p
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
What the *AAs are losing through piracy, more than sales and such, is control. The buzz "center" is moving from the old media into the piratebay's top100. Essentially. Such a development will eventually kill off the content-for-money industry (though a content-with-sponsoring may rise to take it's place, you'll notice that the TV industry is much more laid back).
This is a step in that direction, so look for a quick and angry reprisal, legally warranted or not.
Fred has sent you a torrent. Download?
Send 20 more torrents to get a "FUCK THE RIAA" gift!
C'mon, gimme your best shot.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
I don't get it. The Pirate Bay launches a cheap, unlogged VPN in order to provide a more private service, but now they're encouraging sharing via Facebook?
You'd think that Facebook is the last place they'd want to be, since it just seems to be the complete antithesis of what I understood the Pirate Bay to be about.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
I know your just trolling, but...
Whenever you download a torrent, you must simultaneously upload it.
No, downloading Metallica_St_Anger.torrent is the same as downloading Ponies_n_kittens_playing.jpg from a website.
If you send the downloaded torrent file to a torrent application and allow it to connect and download files, then you are downloading the (possibly) illegal content, and usually, but not always, uploading the same content to someone else. There are quite a few torrents that I've downloaded where the Upload is 0kb.
> ripping off artists so that leeches don't have to pay for their work.
Dude. Come. Fucking. On. We have 2009. Everybody and their dog has a computer, which is designed to copy stuff. Also we have broadband which is, again, designed to... move stuff around the world. So is what youre actually pointlessly advocating is that we collectively should... actually what? Abstain from using a common technology in order to make absurdly archaic 50's business models of "manufacturing and selling single copies" viable in day and age when everybody _can_ manufacture and distribute those copies themselves? Yawn.
If you and your fellow artists cannot bear the thought of your works becomming part of our culture and shared with other people, then stop producing and publishing them. If you cant manage to make money from the fact that people actually like your works and actively share them with their friends, go flip burgers, maybe thats where your real talent lies. However, wide-scale censorship, which is what you and your likes are proposing all the fucking time, wont work, so forget that idea really fast.
Are you an idiot? Of course this is what it will be used for. It's the primary reason Public Libraries exists, ripping off artists so that leeches don't have to pay for their work.
I'm so tired of the naive facade people put on when talking about Public Libraries. We all know exactly what it's used for. Stop pretending you don't know.
they have been losing money from their lawsuits last time i checked
Yes but is it possible you are giving them credit for something they do not actually possess? The ability to learn.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
please post link to - Ponies_n_kittens_playing.jpg
thanks in advance.
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
> artists still have to make a living to continue to make art.
And its still their job to find out how to do that. Back in the 50s, they were able to sell copies of stuff, since copying was hard. In 2009, neither copying nor distribution is hard any more, so people make their copies themselves and distribute them. If the artist completely used to rely on selling copies to make a living, he now has to adapt. IF he refuses to, he'll have to go flip burgers.
> You seem to think all the people out there illegally copying files are somehow noble
Nope, never implied that.
> and if they liked it, pay the perform(s)
> or if they didn't like it, delete it never view it again.
Also never said that.
> 1) don't have permission to copy
We dont have to ask for a permission to exchange informaiton and share stuff. Everybody who thinks that, like you seem to, is mistaken.
> 2) have not paid
Since i do the copying and the distribution myself, i dont have to pay.
> 3) and are NOT exercising Fair Use
I am excercising Fair Use which _I_ defined.
> Committing a crime
I dont consider it to be a crime.
> Stealing from the artist and those who have invested money in producing/distributing
> the thing you want to copy
Copying stuff and sharing information with other people is not stealing, no matter how much youd like it to be.
> Removing incentive for the producers to renew the artist due to reduced sales
Their problem. (You know, you and they can still go flip burgers if you cant cope with the fact that we have 2009 and practically everybody learned how to use a networked computer.)
> If you think differently,
Which I do
> then you have the ethics of a common thief
But I have the luck that its not you laying out our ethics code.
> and I'd love to see you in jail wedded to Bubba the ass fucker.
Since you have to call for physical violence and violent anal rape of anybody who doesnt agree to your ageing ideology, you lose.
Because it doesn't make any sense to keep library books. Because, by keeping a library book you are depriving someone else of that book. On the other hand, if I share somesong.mp3 and 400 people download it, me and those 400 people have a full, working copy of somesong.mp3, we can all listen to it at once. If I have Harry Potter checked out of the library, 400 people will have to wait for me to finish or return Harry Potter before they can read it. USA copyright law was based on that. In the 1700-1800s when it was written, to make a copy of a work under copyright I would have to have a printing press (or spend an absurd amount of time with paper and pen). When the photocopier was invented, people tried to apply the same law to it, it didn't really work, however, because copiers are not networked, enforcement was low, so the public didn't suffer much. Today though, we have the same ancient laws attempting to be applied to digital works while strictly enforcing them. This does not work, and today the artists who create works are suffering from it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
FYI, if you find yourself agreeing with the parent post, you probably have not ever read a Supreme Court or Appeals Court opinion, or decent law review article.
There are of course a number of frankly idiotic opinions, but on the whole judges (or at least good judges, i.e., the ones whose opinions you read in classes) are a fairly analytical bunch. You kind of have to be.
The impression I get when I ponder the relationship between the judiciary and the legislative branches is that we have a lot of well-educated, well-spoken judges trying to make sense of laws that have been cobbled together by a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at one another. It's a little depressing.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson