Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Pirate Bay Comes To Facebook

Posted by kdawson on from the sharing-face-to-face dept.

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."

15 of 359 comments (clear)

  1. Not Really by Chlorine+Trifluoride · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not Really by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Enabling" downloading of copyright material is a highly dubious, very unclear "legal" standard. As such, it doesn't exist in the form that you think it does (or that the RIAA think it does) and it isn't present in a great many legal systems. You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

      Thus the legal standard that is required for proof of such actions needs to be substantially higher than "what the RIAA thinks is enabling". Additionally, jurisdictional boundaries greatly interfere here (the RIAA can be as interested in me as they like, but I don't live in America), as do other relevant laws (i.e. the "right" to free speech, fair use, etc.) and the requirement of hard evidence that not only do I have the copyright material in my possession without a licence grant, but also that my *intention* was to then breach copyright by distributing further etc.

      Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

      Also, the legality or otherwise of a torrent file in even a single country has not been legally locked down (roll on April for PirateBay) and thus it's almost 100% certain that any court case would set a precedent in the particular country that hosts it. Until then, the whole thing is just a legal grey area and thus someone could easily do the above mentioned archiving, with a good technical knowledge and an intention of not breaching copyright, and not be breaking ANY existing laws at all, espeically if they can provide good reason (such as the whole "a torrent isn't its contents" argument which SHOULD damn well be correct).

      Don't let every legal threat you ever hear form a legal fact in your mind. 99% of things never go to court and 50% of those that do fail miserably. Otherwise, bank charges in the UK would be in the order of £5, not £50, Linux would be cleared or convicted of breaching several hundred patents, Microsoft would be dead in the water and I'd be able to eat peanuts without having to read "May contain nuts".

    2. Re:Not Really by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry. If the RIAA tries to sue you, just remove them from your friends list. That'll show 'em.

    3. Re:Not Really by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

      I wonder what NewYorkCountryLawyer would say about this..

      NewYorkCountryLawyer? He ain't sayin' nuttin'.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    4. Re:Not Really by jhantin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The crux of the difference between geek-think and law-think here is that typically the legal issues turn not on the assets themselves, but on their provenance -- which is not an intrinsic property of the assets, but rather a sort of implicit metadata that requires extra bookkeeping to track reliably.

      The legality of a song-file depends on how you got it, not the fact that it's a song by a major label artist. Downloaded from a properly licensed online store? No problem. The same exact sequence of bits, downloaded from someplace shady? Problem.

      Similarly, the legality of a stack of $100 notes likewise depends on how you got it. If you got it by, say, making and selling custom cabinetry, you're probably fine, but if you got it by unauthorized sale of controlled substances, and the law catches on, you'll have problems.

      --
      ...when you're writing a game...tweak the difficulty of "Easy" to something [your mother] can cope with. -- onion2k
    5. Re:Not Really by isaac338 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

      Not to mention the most supreme enabler of them all - the artist who created the original copyrighted works. If those works hadn't been created, nobody would download copyrighted material!

    6. Re:Not Really by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Making Facebook a target of the RIAA may actually be a brilliant stroke for TPB, bringing to bear their extensive resources to the fight.

      It is inevitable that the RIAA is going to bump heads with some huge corporations that won't push over as easily as the small-town senior citizens and college students that have been the RIAA's current targets. After all, one could say that AT&T and Verizon also "enable" people to download copyright-"protected" material. You could say that Cisco "enables" people to do the same. You could say that Microsoft and Apple are also culpable.

      All this does is hasten the day when the RIAA is forced to realize they can't win.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Not Really by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

      Don't fuck around. Post that right now. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but since that was a public announcement it could be very well seen as an interpretation of their very own legal contracts with customers. Everybody should have a copy of that to maintain that as a backup as it could be easily used against them in the future.

      There is no other way to say it, that's wonderful :)

      P.S - You just know those representatives got slapped later. You just know it.

    8. Re:Not Really by mrclisdue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not theft, asshat - it's copyright infringement, and that's probably only true in your country, whose citizens seem to think that their rules apply to the whole world.

      We're not criminals, neither, since there is no crime. Copyright infringement is a civil matter.

      So, really, it's you fuckin' people who really continue to piss everyone else off, since you really are the ones who "don't get it."

      You may continue to go fuck yourself, mister AC.

      cheers,

  2. Why is facebook allowing this? by coniferous · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Seriously. If I was in charge of facebook and even got wind of an app like this it would be blocked SO fast.

    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.

    1. Re:Why is facebook allowing this? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I highly doubt that it is illegal to......

      Famous last words.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:Why is facebook allowing this? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are there any laws that protect Facebook from illegal content that a user might post?

      I don't think it's Facebook that would get sued. As a general rule the RIAA prefers to pick on the people who have no ability to fight back, which in this case would be the Facebook customers. Also Facebook would likely have a DMCA defense, which would not be available to the customers themselves.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Facebook funnies thread by taucross · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."
  4. Re:Idiot? by muuh-gnu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.

  5. Re:Idiot? by muuh-gnu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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.