Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links

They haven't ended the relationship... by gillbates · 2009-04-09 03:22 · Score: 5, Funny

They've just changed the status to "complicated".

Of course, we all know what comes next: In a few weeks, their status will go back to "In a relationship", and the day after prom will be suddenly changed to "single".

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.

Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by cellurl · 2009-04-09 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thats like banning craigslist because its nasty.
I encourage people to put legitimate stuff on TPB.
I put good church sermons (occasionally) on TPB.
(I would provide a link, but TPB is blocked at work...)
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 03:47 · Score: 0

And countless people will comment on that or "like" it, flooding their mailboxes. Ah, 21st century.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by scientus · 2009-04-09 04:51 · Score: 4, Informative

(I would provide a link, but TPB is blocked at work...)
try putting in your host file
83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org
or setting you DNS server setting to 4.2.2.3
and then going to https://thepiratebay.org/
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Bearhouse · 2009-04-09 04:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Ah yes, but then the sysadmins, playing with their shiny new Deep Packet Inspection toys, might well pick you up and *wham* you get a nice little interview with Catbert.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by DJGrahamJ · 2009-04-09 05:05 · Score: 0, Redundant

RE status complicated: haha fucking GOLD!

Good one :D
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by scientus · 2009-04-09 05:07 · Score: 0

not if you use the hosts file method. the ip address doesn't reverse resolve.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by scientus · 2009-04-09 05:09 · Score: 1

also there is of course tunneling and the sort..... ...im mainly just pointing out that most "blocking" is nothing of the sort, the internet can't be blocked in the ways people attempt to block it.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Wild+Bill+TX · 2009-04-09 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm not sure I understand what place free content has on The Pirate Bay...

--
Audioscrobbler
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by mmclean · 2009-04-09 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

And just how does a non-resolving reverse IP prevent detection by a Deep Packet inspection toy? I know networking isn't my IT areas of expertise, but maybe I'm missing something here ? Yeah, didn't think so. I award scientus one "you fail at teh inner tubes".
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by The+End+Of+Days · 2009-04-09 05:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Come on, get with the party line - it's not about copyright infringement, it's about openness and sharing. Sure, it's openly sharing copyrighted works, but that's not the important part.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by scientus · 2009-04-09 06:43 · Score: 3, Informative

its SSL, if you all all noticed the s, that means that almost all sniffing is averted.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 07:37 · Score: 0

No, but your use of it is monitored and you will get the talk with Catbert if we detect your tunneling traffic or our IDS hits on torrent files being downloaded.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 08:17 · Score: 0

no, all they know is you are talking on some port with ip, with ssl/tls
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 09:38 · Score: 0

Don't they block the IPs as well as the hostnames? I know at work we have "Smart"Filter but I haven't really been able to test its capabilities due to not wanting to deal with HR should I do something wrong.
At one point, it actually blocked me because I put something related to TPB in a Google search. And it wasn't even the normal block page. So maybe that's just unique to my workplace, but...
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 09:54 · Score: 0

And just how does a non-resolving reverse IP prevent detection by a Deep Packet inspection toy? I know networking isn't my IT areas of expertise, but maybe I'm missing something here ? Yeah, didn't think so. I award scientus one "you fail at teh inner tubes".
Deep inspection means examining the content of a packet. This includes reading the HTTP packet and finding the word piratebay.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by mmclean · 2009-04-09 12:46 · Score: 1

try putting in your host file [wikipedia.org] 83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org or setting you DNS server setting to 4.2.2.3 and then going to https://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]
Wow, they've really made SSL easy. All I have to do is over-ride DNS settings (as you stated) and I automatically get SSL and all sniffing averted. Awesome. I guess I really am behind on this inner tubs stuff. Yeah, right ... again ... I now award you a "you fail at failing teh inner tubes".
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by terbo · 2009-04-09 12:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Pretty interesting.
I just helped a friend post his discography to demonoid-
I wonder if they would block links from them also?

--
If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 14:34 · Score: 0

"good church sermons", now that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Deluding people into superstition can be *good*????
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by icannotthinkofaname · 2009-04-09 14:43 · Score: 1

Define "superstition" and "deluding", and we'll talk. >_>

--
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Re:They haven't ended the relationship... by iveqy · 2009-04-09 20:54 · Score: 1

if you followed the tpb-trial you would have a long explanation about the name.

They can do that? by BabyDuckHat · 2009-04-09 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

But they can't get rid of all the crap quizzes? I call shenanigans.

Re:They can do that? by emocomputerjock · 2009-04-09 03:45 · Score: 5, Funny

You can take the users out of myspace but you can't take the myspace out of the users.
Re:They can do that? by thedonger · 2009-04-09 04:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
- mySpace = profitable
- facebook = wants to be profitable
- therefore, facebook becomes mySpace-like
It is already happening. Look at how much more crap on which there is to click compared with prior to the most recent update.
--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Re:They can do that? by fprintf · 2009-04-09 04:11 · Score: 1

I use a GreaseMonkey script to remove all those freakin' quizzes. It was making Facebook unusable. Now I am back to where I can use it again, unfortunately something in the javascript is causing my browser to slow wayy down. Unfortunately Facebook doesn't work with Javascript disabled via noscript. (you also have to include both facebook.com and some fbscnt-something or another)

--
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Re:They can do that? by CarpetShark · 2009-04-09 04:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

But they can't get rid of all the crap quizzes? I call shenanigans.
Indeed.
I also think it should be illegal to discriminate against people/organisations based on law suits that haven't yet concluded. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing, you know? Not that most courts' conclusions have any bearing on the ethical reality of a situation, of course.
Re:They can do that? by inasity_rules · 2009-04-09 04:30 · Score: 1

This has all the features of facebook I ever use...

--
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Re:They can do that? by _KiTA_ · 2009-04-09 04:43 · Score: 5, Informative

But they can't get rid of all the crap quizzes?
I call shenanigans.
The crap quizzes bring in advertisement dollars. There's a reason you can't filter those stupid things out.
Re:They can do that? by Malevolyn · 2009-04-09 04:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
This works in more than one way:
- Twitter = popular and trendy.
- Facebook = wants to be more popular and trendy (and wants the liveblogging market).
- Therefore, Facebook's new homepage is Twitter.
--
Your ad here.
Re:They can do that? by dontmakemethink · 2009-04-09 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ethical sympathy FAIL

--

War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Re:They can do that? by stephanruby · 2009-04-09 05:59 · Score: 1

I also think it should be illegal to discriminate against people/organisations based on law suits that haven't yet concluded.
Well, if they haven't already, they are probably going to lose their Safe Harbor immunity under the Communications Decency Act.
Let's face it. There will always be companies willing to play the filtering game and pay the penalty for it. Soon enough, every post request made against facebook will be filtered for links and compared against a huge changing list of banned web sites. And if they have the extra processing power and the extra manpower to administrate such a list, while at the same time keeping the number of extra lawsuits down to a minimum, I say all the power to them.
Re:They can do that? by fpophoto · 2009-04-09 07:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, I almost never use facebook on my desktop anymore, the mobile version is much better. It would be nice if Slashdot had one that wasn't coded over ten years ago.
Re:They can do that? by thedonger · 2009-04-09 09:09 · Score: 1

But Twitter doesn't profit. Somehow they will have to monetize all those eyes, or rely on charitable giving. It's only time before a visit to Twitter yields the flashing "You are our one millionth visitor. Claim your free iPod now!" banner ad.
More likely, it may get snatched by a Google, or bring about the next dot-com bubble with a highly-touted IPO.
Either way, users have to realize that the ubiquity of the Internet stops at a web sites ability to handle the traffic it generates. We take for granted that facebook, et al, should be free, not putting much thought in the fact that managing a user base in the tens of millions costs (tens of?) thousands of dollars per month in bandwidth, maintenance, security, etc.

--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Re:They can do that? by silverkniveshotmail. · 2009-04-09 09:11 · Score: 1

It would also be nice if the advert didn't obscure the top few lines of the first article on Opera 8.6
Re:They can do that? by Jabbrwokk · 2009-04-09 10:22 · Score: 1

You deserve some modding up.
The Internet these days is one big Ponzi scheme / information mining operation.
Re:They can do that? by stonewallred · 2009-04-09 11:30 · Score: 1

Dude you are a genius. Thank you for something useful in the land of /.
Re:They can do that? by MozzleyOne · 2009-04-09 12:38 · Score: 1

Check out Brett Stewart, the latest abomination in "Guilty until proven innocent".
A girl accused him of assaulting her and he got suspended for 5 matches and got edited out of the NRL promotion campaign he was in at the time.
It's absolutely disgusting that someone should stand to lose so much of their income on the basis of some girl accusing him of an assault .
Note: I'm not saying it did/did not happen, I don't know all the facts, but I do know he's pleading not guilty and therefore should still be presumed innocent of the crime, not publicly shamed and ridiculed on the strength of some girl's word.

--
Ayjay on Fedang

Sounds fair by houghi · 2009-04-09 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Our company blocks facebook. :-D

And what if they used tinyurl.com or any other that does the same?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:Sounds fair by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 03:27 · Score: 0

tinyurl would just start blocking them then.
Re:Sounds fair by scientus · 2009-04-09 04:54 · Score: 0

try setting your dns to 4.2.2.3 and then going to https://facebook.com/
Re:Sounds fair by Ilgaz · 2009-04-09 05:19 · Score: 3, Informative

If they have advanced "employee watching" technologies, it will get him into major trouble. In fact, in a real business network, he can't even change DNS or even install anything.
Re:Sounds fair by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 05:43 · Score: 1, Informative

On the network I run, even if he COULD change his DNS, it wouldn't get past the firewall. Only our internal DNS server is allowed to get a DNS request out to the internet. In fact, user computers can't get much of anything out the firewall. Only the proxy can get out with HTTP, only the mail relay can use SMTP, etc.
Re:Sounds fair by scientus · 2009-04-09 06:45 · Score: 1

real business network.
such a term is highly subjective
Re:Sounds fair by scientus · 2009-04-09 06:47 · Score: 1

then he can proxy the dns through the only sacred ports--80 and 443
Re:Sounds fair by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 07:59 · Score: 0

Which part of "only the proxy can get out with HTTP" did you miss?
Re:Sounds fair by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 08:19 · Score: 0

they do they completely break ssl? as long as there is ssl security you could tunnel it through port 443 ssl, proxy makes no difference.
Re:Sounds fair by Ilgaz · 2009-04-09 10:39 · Score: 1

On some real BOFH situations, it would let you to do such tricks and silently send an alert to the BOFH Admin guy. It gets into your file to be used in future. They generally watch web proxy usage that way, e.g. vtunnel.
It really depends how much evil they are.
Re:Sounds fair by NastyGnat · 2009-04-09 13:41 · Score: 1

TinyUrl works. I just posted a link to an Ubuntu Torrent hosted by TPB. At least I think "Etchi Tentacle pron" translates to ubuntu, right?

--
-- this space for rent --

The rise of redirect links by davidwr · 2009-04-09 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I predict a sudden increase in "redirect" links like TinyURL and the like and in "human-readable" links that can't be clicked on and can't be automatically scanned for but which humans have no trouble turning into a real link.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:The rise of redirect links by keeegan · 2009-04-09 03:35 · Score: 0

I predict a sudden increase in the clicking of buttons labeled "Pirate Search"
Re:The rise of redirect links by canix · 2009-04-09 03:48 · Score: 1

I think you'll find that because most people are idiots, these links will be able to be spotted automatically. You can't make it too difficult for humans that fail the Turing test ....
Re:The rise of redirect links by tjonnyc999 · 2009-04-09 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny

I predict a sudden increase in Slashdot predictions.
Re:The rise of redirect links by Whacky · 2009-04-09 04:03 · Score: 1

Yup the link shorteners often help in disguising the source and even annoymysers helps too... I guess thats the option available for the TPB guys to implement it without being blocked by FB guys
Re:The rise of redirect links by oodaloop · 2009-04-09 04:06 · Score: 1, Redundant

I predict a sudden increase in semi-witty recursive slashdot posts.

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:The rise of redirect links by scientus · 2009-04-09 04:58 · Score: 1

POSTS syndrome
POSTS On SlashdoT Syndrome syndrome
POSTS On SlashdoT Syndrome On SlashdoT Syndrome syndrome
POS...
Re:The rise of redirect links by dontmakemethink · 2009-04-09 05:25 · Score: 2, Funny

74.4% of all predictions are just made up, and 83.7% are based on randomly generated statistics.

--

War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines

/. is not surprised by furby076 · 2009-04-09 03:30 · Score: 1

Really when they posted the relationship story here on /. many people said "huh?" and "this can't last"...and it didn't. This is no surprise to us.

--

I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity

Re:/. is not surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 04:47 · Score: 0

We are Slashdot. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

And the funny thing is... by dancingmad · 2009-04-09 03:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's funny, because I am more trusting (I originally wrote trust, but there are no websites I trust implicitly) of the Pirate Bay not to screw around with my computer or be dicks, while I don't trust Facebook at all with my photos or private information.

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)

Re:And the funny thing is... by slyn · 2009-04-09 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

That might have something to do with the fact that you don't give anything but your IP address to TPB, whereas you are giving Facebook your email address, your location, your interests (activities, tv, movies, books, music, games, sexual preference, religion, etc.), your friends, your relationships, your plans (events), your schools, your jobs, your birthday, and a plethora of pictures of yourself.
TPB has barely any information to "be dicks" with. Facebook on the other hand probably knows more about the real you than your parents do.
As far as I'm concerned, if you put your information on the web, you sacrifice your privacy, period. For me the benefits of having my cell number and email address in a place where any of my friends can see it, as well as a medium to easily communicate, share, and plan publicly outweighs the potential danger of Facebook using or selling my information.
Re:And the funny thing is... by Mister+Whirly · 2009-04-09 05:36 · Score: 1

Then you had better avoid downloading any "keygens" from TPB.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:And the funny thing is... by xaxa · 2009-04-09 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then you had better avoid downloading any "keygens" from TPB.
You don't download any keygens from TPB. TPB just tells you where to look.
Re:And the funny thing is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 07:40 · Score: 2, Funny

+5 annoyingly semantic
Re:And the funny thing is... by stonewallred · 2009-04-09 11:35 · Score: 1

It took me three tries to come up with a last name Facebook would accept. Flintstone and Rubble were my first and second choices. I list my school, but the majority of my info is completely bogus. No pictures of me, my friends or my family are posted. Im fact there are two pictures of me on the tubes and one I have my face blacked out, and the other I am in the background, and if you needed to ID me you couldn't. Fact is that anyone that posts all the crap the social sites wants you to post, is either not thinking about the possible consequences or is dumb.

Damn it by b0ttle · 2009-04-09 03:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Where am I going to get pirate bay links now?

"419" scams and compromised accounts? by crf00 · 2009-04-09 03:37 · Score: 1

I followed the TPB I posted in my Facebook and it redirects me to this page:

http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=420

"419" scams and compromised accounts

If you believe your account has been hacked or compromised, please follow this link.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2009-04-09 03:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

As if they didn't know by Len · 2009-04-09 03:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sunde said he received an e-mail from Facebook justifying the action because of the legal proceedings against Sunde and three others.

The trial and the circus surrounding it was big news worldwide, but Zuckerberg & co. didn't notice? Really?

Re:As if they didn't know by mrbene · 2009-04-09 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not only did Facebook take two weeks to act, but when they did choose to act they acted with the presumption of guilt.
Bravo.

slashdot topics these days by Lord+Ender · 2009-04-09 03:54 · Score: 0, Offtopic

The articles I see on the front page are file sharing, file sharing, global warming, file sharing, file sharing... you get the idea. The pattern seems to be the norm these days.

Surely there must be something going on in the wide world that is both topical to Slashdot and not related to file sharing or global warming?

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.

Re:slashdot topics these days by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 04:07 · Score: 1, Informative

The articles I see on the front page are file sharing, file sharing, global warming, file sharing, file sharing... you get the idea. The pattern seems to be the norm these days.
Surely there must be something going on in the wide world that is both topical to Slashdot and not related to file sharing or global warming?
I don't know what you've done to your frontpage, but this is what I see right now (default frontpage as I'm not logged in). I see two filesharing and one global warming article, out of a total 15 articles.

Technology: Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links
Science: Sunspot Activity Continues to Drop
Your Rights Online: Privacy In BitTorrent By Hiding In the Crowd
News: French Assembly Rejects Three Strikes Bill
IT: Conficker Downloads Payload
News: AP Harasses Own Member Over AP Youtube Videos
Your Rights Online: Microsoft Ordered To Pay $388 Million In Patent Case
Science: Cracking the Code of Bacterial Communication
Entertainment: South Park Creators Given Signed Photo of Saddam Hussein
Technology: Can Mobile Broadband Solve the UK Digital Divide?
News: Climate Engineering As US Policy?
Science: Chimpanzees Exchange Meat For Sex
News: Pentagon Cyber Defense Bill Comes To $100M For 6 Months
Games: Will Wright Leaves EA/Maxis For Stupid Fun Club
Hardware: Disassembling the US Nintendo DSi
Re:slashdot topics these days by drinkypoo · 2009-04-09 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Surely there must be something going on in the wide world that is both topical to Slashdot and not related to file sharing or global warming?
Perhaps you should submit some of those stories, and perhaps visit the Firehose and vote up some of the kind of stories you want to see, and vote down some of the things you don't?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:slashdot topics these days by DeskLazer · 2009-04-09 04:27 · Score: 5, Funny

it's because filesharing is LINKED to global warming! the more we do it, the more global warming, the more the terrorists win, the more we welcome our robotic overlords!
Re:slashdot topics these days by ferrgle · 2009-04-09 05:00 · Score: 1

Oh well, at least Slashdot has stopped me from posting stories about System Administrator Appreciation Day

Try as I might, I can't get the latest exciting news about this awsome event as a story on /.

(I think most /.ers are happy about that!)

--

Because you always need a smart fox!
Re:slashdot topics these days by Lord+Ender · 2009-04-09 05:17 · Score: 0, Redundant

Quoting you:

Technology: Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links - file sharing
Science: Sunspot Activity Continues to Drop - global warming
Your Rights Online: Privacy In BitTorrent By Hiding In the Crowd - file sharing
News: French Assembly Rejects Three Strikes Bill - file sharing
One of the older stories is about global warming, too.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:slashdot topics these days by funkatron · 2009-04-09 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

I love the way they have swallowed the digg/torrentfreak bullshit of calling it 'file sharing' rather than theft or piracy. What next? is care jacking just 'car sharing'?
The term filesharing covers sharing of any file, not just slightly dodgy files.

What a joke. this site is practically an off-shoot of torrentfrek now. Its laughable to read this at the bottom:
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest Â© 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc. "
I thought the /. hippies thought copyright was teh evil?
Copyright might be teh evil but it is the kind of teh evil that could pay a lot of lawyers at slashdot's expense.

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:slashdot topics these days by Endo13 · 2009-04-09 05:40 · Score: 1

We're in ur brainz, stealin ur ipz.

--
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Re:slashdot topics these days by master811 · 2009-04-09 05:50 · Score: 2, Funny

That's where you are wrong ;)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/881/piracyglobalwarmingd.jpg
"Instead of driving to get CDs, buying pre-packaged software from megacorporations and wasting energy, you can help fight Global Warming by using P2P. Help save resources, fight pollution and save the environment. - It's what Jesus would do."
Re:slashdot topics these days by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 07:34 · Score: 0

Yes, I should have said 3 and 1, not 2 and 1. Regardless, there are clearly fewer filesharing/global warming stories than you've implied.
Re:slashdot topics these days by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 08:16 · Score: 0

I'll reply once I'm done running Google searches to increase atmospheric CO2. It's cold where I live, where's global warming when you need it?
Re:slashdot topics these days by espamo · 2009-04-09 09:41 · Score: 2, Informative

indeed. http://punxter.com/pic/Piracy_Up,_Global_Warming_Down
Re:slashdot topics these days by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 21:31 · Score: 0

But when you compare to real pirates... http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

What about Google? by kimvette · 2009-04-09 03:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's compare:

Piratebay:

* links to public domain content
* links to legal "copyrighted content"
* links to unauthorised "copyrighted content"
* links to open source content
* links to creative commons-licensed content

Google:

* links to public domain content
* links to legal "copyrighted content"
* links to unauthorised "copyrighted content"
* links to open source content
* links to creative commons-licensed content

Yahoo:

* links to public domain content
* links to legal "copyrighted content"
* links to unauthorised "copyrighted content"
* links to open source content
* links to creative commons-licensed content

So, facebook ought to ban both Google and Yahoo.

As an aside: if you draw, photograph, type, speak & record, or write it, it's copyrighted automatically so "linking to copyrighted material" is a BS cop-out, not to mention an attempt at social engineering to get people to accept that sharing "copyrighted material" is bad. It's not. In fact many forms of copying is legal - AND COMPENSATED. Ever download an .mp3 and burn it to an audio CD disk? Years ago, did you ever record radio to an audiocassette? Do you ever store ANYTHING on DAT? If so, the RIAA has been compensated the price they agreed to for those works, because those media have levies associated with them.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Re:What about Google? by stuckinarut · 2009-04-09 04:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Years ago, did you ever record radio to an audiocassette? Do you ever store ANYTHING on DAT? If so, the RIAA has been compensated the price they agreed to for those works, because those media have levies associated with them.
Home Taping was apparently killing music back in the days of the vinyl LP 20 years ago. I distinctly remember the skull and cross bones tape logo. I'm not sure the RIAA has already been compensated except by the licence fee the broadcasters pay. Canada has a blank media tax aimed at compensating the RIAA for CDs burnt but I doubt they think it's sufficient.
Both these mechanisms for copying are limited by the ammount of blank media you can obtain and the time involved in creating copies with the media.
What scares the beejeebus out of the RIAA is that bits and bytes have an almost limitless supply for everyone aside from the almost negligble initial cost (approx Â£70 for 1 terrabyte == 1000's albums, way more than you can listen to in a whole years listening). The other thing is our fat internet connections can fill this limitless storage while we sleep with the products they used to be able to strictly control the supply of.
Once they wake up and realise the days of skimming a fat profit out the music industry by simply playing the middle man are over and get back to promoting artists and recouping costs by finding good acts that sell out big tours and flog merchandise that can't easily be replicated, say T-Shirts the better.
The genie is already out the bottle and isn't going back in however much they keep their corporate heads in the sand.
Re:What about Google? by Fallingcow · 2009-04-09 04:25 · Score: 1

Right. Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there.
Yep.
Re:What about Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 04:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Every file TPB has is a .torrent with no illegal content, yes.
Re:What about Google? by Quato · 2009-04-09 04:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I bet Google and Yahoo would have the PR issues of The Pirate Bay if they put a big-ass pirate flag on their site, and the majority of their search engine content was designed to point you to illegal or grey-legal content.
You can't compare Yahoo and Google to The Pirate Bay. They are not even in the same ballpark. Yahoo and Google are trying to run a search engine, and it would be impossible to filter every link they encounter for the possibility of linking illegal content.
Simply, the Pirate Bay's focus is to provide links to large files. A good portion of those large files probably shouldn't be distributed without a license. Google and Yahoo by lack of exclusion to link to copyrighted content. The Pirate Bay was designed to link to copyrighted content, and does it by inclusion. As evidence... the big-ass pirate flag.
Re:What about Google? by kimvette · 2009-04-09 04:39 · Score: 1

Right. Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there.

US law is not international law, and even as an American I thank God for that because our patent and copyright laws (and our entire legal system in general for that matter) is now rooted in insanity, and completely ignores the guidelines the Constitution establishes for intellectual property laws. Intellectual property is public domain, but the creator is granted a temporary monopoly on that property as an incentive to create more intellectual property (sciences and useful arts) for the public good. It was never intended to provide an eternal gravy train from a shitty drawing of a mouse.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:What about Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 04:53 · Score: 1, Interesting

It's illegal to read this comment.
now what?
Re:What about Google? by Ontheotherhand · 2009-04-09 04:59 · Score: 1

Well, Piracy is a criminal activity. Incest is too. and chances are, if your sister is not cooperative, it might also be rape.

The fact that you are conflating copyright infringement, and a printed instruction on a disc, at that, to the equivalent of the above offences, suggests you are an RIAA lawyer?
Re:What about Google? by Kjella · 2009-04-09 05:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, and a postal worker and a drug mule is doing the same - delivering packages.
I think the weakest point in your comparison is that google pretty much indexes everything it comes across. The Pirate Bay got icons with "Trusted" or "VIP", they got moderators that remove viruses/spam/fake torrents/whatever and there's quite clearly certain criteria people are being reviewed against. They also manually create indexes for tv shows that clearly are being shared without consent from the copyright holder. The replies they've given to threatning letters is more of the same, it's not copyright infringing until a court says so.
Imagine if a drug mule used the same defense: "I did not know it was drugs, no DEA agent ever told me it was drugs so I continued to assume it was a legal package no matter what."
I think they might still get away with it because the standard of accessory is pretty high, and there's no real laws against creating an arena for copyright infringement or anything like that. But pretending at TPB is a random selection of torrents is optimistic at best. And that's not covering the tracker, which is like a middleman that never does anything directly illegal himself but puts everyone in touch with everyone else. Fortunately for them, Sweden don't have as many conspiracy charges as the US does.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:What about Google? by kimvette · 2009-04-09 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

TPB is not based in the US. US law does not apply. The laws which apply are the laws in the country it resides, just as Russian law drives allofmp3/mp3sparks, not US law.
It may not be legal for us to set up such a service in the US and encourage posting of links to torrents of "pirated" content, but TPB is not in the US.
When it is legal there, why SHOULD they be concerned about the "what if we were operating in the USA" scenario?

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:What about Google? by dontmakemethink · 2009-04-09 05:32 · Score: 1

Ever download an .mp3 and burn it to an audio CD disk? ... If so, the RIAA has been compensated the price they agreed to for those works, because those media have levies associated with them.
There is no levy on blank CD media intended for data storage, which everyone knows works fine for audio. I've never even heard of someone who buys the levied audio CD media, and I'm an audio engineer.

--

War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
Re:What about Google? by funkatron · 2009-04-09 05:32 · Score: 1

Isn't piracy an act of war?

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:What about Google? by Shagg · 2009-04-09 05:36 · Score: 1

Because every file TPB has is legally able to be there.
Actually, every file TPB has is completely legal.

blatantly offering items which they know they have no right to be distributing
TPB doesn't distribute anything.
It sounds like you don't really know what TPB does.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:What about Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 05:38 · Score: 0, Interesting

No. TPB merely links to people blatantly making such content available without any compensation to the original artists, provides a neatly-sorted directory of same, encourages people to take said content without compensating the original copyright owners, directs people to tools by which they can do this, and doesn't provide any content of their own, ever. This is so clearly obviously horribly significantly different from just handing you the information that it makes it perfectly legal and moral.
Owing to a loophole in a law not designed for the internet age, we geeks will fight tooth and nail to assert that getting movies, music, and video games for free are a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT OF EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH (if not an outright responsibility), and besides somebody sometimes uploads something legal already offered on other trackers so the entire site is legal and you can't do anything about it blah blah Betamax international law WHAT I'M DOING IS PERFECTLY LEGAL DON'T TAKE MY FREE MOVIES FROM ME DOWN WITH THE MAN!!!!!!!!
Re:What about Google? by master811 · 2009-04-09 05:43 · Score: 1

WRONG, piracy (in the form of copyright infringement) is not strictly a criminal activity in most places (unless you profit from it), and ends up only being civil case, not criminal.
Re:What about Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 05:48 · Score: 0

The fact that you are defending copyright infringement by taking issue with a joke stolen from hot shots suggests you are douchebag.
Re:What about Google? by Microlith · 2009-04-09 06:58 · Score: 1

Remember the short lived release of standalone cd-recorders intended for music purposes? I guess they intended for those to be the tape decks replacement. Anyway, they would reject any CD-R without certain data markings on the inner rings of the disc. All music CD-Rs had these and were kept separate from the data CD-Rs. These music CD-Rs were more expensive by virtue of the RIAA tax on them, yet had no appreciable advantage over regular data CD-Rs except for working in the standalone recorders that no one bought.
Re:What about Google? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 07:18 · Score: 0

You do realize that google too has trusted, VIP servers, moderators that remove viruses/spam/fake pages/whatever, and a fairly clear bit of criteria being reviewed against. And in other countries, even whole topics are moderated against.
There is much less of a distinction than one might realize. Rather, one often works with governments for the government's agendas, and one does not.
Re:What about Google? by DarthVain · 2009-04-09 07:29 · Score: 1

The problem is perception. If they didn't shove it in everyones face probably a lot less people would care.
So change your Name from "PirateBay" to "FuzzyKittens" and it will all work itself out.
Because really, who wants to ban fuzzy kittens.
Re:What about Google? by Voyager529 · 2009-04-09 09:14 · Score: 1

So change your Name from "PirateBay" to "FuzzyKittens" and it will all work itself out.
Because really, who wants to ban fuzzy kittens.
The Kitty Klux Klan?
Re:What about Google? by Cheapy · 2009-04-09 09:29 · Score: 1

"Why cant people see this? Its posted again and again, and the pro-piracy kids just don't want to hear it."
I think you answered your own question.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Re:What about Google? by stonewallred · 2009-04-09 11:43 · Score: 1

I don't have the right to download over priced and crappy movies for free? You mean it is illegal for me to download a movie and if it is good, go buy a copy, and if it sucks, don't? Even when the same movie, with some editing is broadcast over the air on network TV? Or I can't download music that I could legally tape from radio? That is what is retarded and stupid about copyright. I will say programs and games are a different thing, but music, books and movies, along with TV shows are freely available via radio, TV and libraries, so what is the problem or difference between me taping a song from my digital radio and downloading a copy from the intertubes? Please explain that since you seem to be all-knowledgeable and smart and all.
Re:What about Google? by Hal_Porter · 2009-04-09 23:00 · Score: 1

Actually the odd thing about Pirate Bay is that you can find most torrents with Google too. So why doesn't the RIAA sue them?
http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-trial-day-8-090225/
"Kennedy was asked why they haven't sued Google the same way as TPB. He said that Google said they would partner IFPI in fighting piracy and he has a team of 10 people working with Google every day, and if Google hadn't announced they were a partner, IFPI would have sued them too."
Kennedy is the CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. So if the Pirate Bay had announced they would 'partner' with the IFPI and have ten people making a best effort to remove links to pirated content everything would have been ok, even if like Google their database still had pirated material. Which makes you wonder if their 'legal threats' page was such a good idea.

--
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;

Facebook + random courts - decision by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 03:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

So Facebook recognizes the courts of Europe? What about Iranian judges? What if they contradict each other? Notice I referred only to activity before a judge. I can't say that Facebook recognizes random legal decisions because the case is still under way. There is no conviction which Facebook is using as a basis for their action. Who got a traffic ticket this morning? Has Facebook blocked you because you're involved with an officer of the court?

Re:Facebook + random courts - decision by xaxa · 2009-04-09 07:10 · Score: 2, Informative

So Facebook recognizes the courts of Europe?
There are about 50 countries in Europe.
27 of them belong to the European Union.
Facebook seem to have offices in Ireland, the UK, France and Germany. Since they're all EU countries, Facebook should (presumably) recognise EU courts (IANAL).

uh by Lueseiseki · 2009-04-09 04:11 · Score: 1

So? Wasn't this going to invariably happen anyway? There's no way Facebook was going to let this kind of publicity continue.

Draw the line? by uffe_nordholm · 2009-04-09 04:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Granted, Facebook is owned (I assume) by some company, group of companies, individual or group of individuals, and as owner of Facebook it/he/she/they can decide what rules apply to material posted on Facebook. For the rest of us, we are left with two mutually exclusive choices: live by the rules, or leave Facebook.

However, I wonder how far they are willing to take this. If providing a link to a link to (possibly) 'illegal'(*) material is against FB rules, is a link to a link to a link OK? Or what about a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link to a link?

For rest assured, no matter where FB draws the line, it can be gotten around. And _will_ be gotten around!

And what about posting links to Google search result pages, with searches like "mp3 Madonna filetype:torrent"? If they are to treat all equally, even a link like that should be blocked.

* I write 'illegal', knowing full well that it is most likely not the material itself that is illegal, but making it accessible to others without the copyright owner's permission.

Re:Draw the line? by DJGrahamJ · 2009-04-09 05:10 · Score: 2, Informative

It's already gotten around. Just replace the domain name in the URL with 83.140.176.200 or use something like tinyurl.

right.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 05:25 · Score: 0

How about start posting here? http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3806944/MediaDefender.Mail.200612.200709-MDD They'll go against /. as well =)?

Shitface-Book by flibuste · 2009-04-09 05:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Facebook has a serious censorship problem:

They happily keep violent/nazi/negationists sites up and running, but will censor a breast-feeding site or a site from people who have YET to be proven guilty of any wrongdoing (let's remind everyone that being on trial doesn't make you guilty).

Seriously, people using Facebook should consider why they're doing this. It's funny to see how M$ gets easily bashed each time they move a finger, but Facebook gets away with pretty much everything.

I must be missing something by Presto+Vivace · 2009-04-09 05:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

But Pirate Bay seems to take the view that because something is technically possible it is acceptable, or at least no one can stop us. I just don't have much sympathy for that point of view. I watched their agit-prop Steal this Film and it seems to me that Pirate Bay is unable to distinguish between Free Speech and Free Beer.

Re:I must be missing something by anonieuweling · 2009-04-09 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Local Law is what you are missing.
Your context is non-Swedish.
Re:I must be missing something by Presto+Vivace · 2009-04-09 07:15 · Score: 1

True, but isn't the Swedish legislature considering legislation that would cramp Pirate Bay's business model?
Re:I must be missing something by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 09:18 · Score: 0

I think their view is more like "connecting people" or "let's enable people to communicate or share things".
It's just a logical continuation of a process that has been going on since we started talking hundreds of thousand years ago and has led to civilization in general.
Re:I must be missing something by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-09 10:05 · Score: 0

There is good deal of overlap between what can't be controlled and what shouldn't be controlled. Prohibiting beer, for example, is stupid because it occurs naturally. But as an individual you are free to choose how/if you imbibe.
Re:I must be missing something by pimpimpim · 2009-04-10 00:15 · Score: 1

It seems to me that you are unable to distinguish between the makers of the movie and the pirate bay,

--
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Re:I must be missing something by Heddahenrik · 2009-04-10 06:20 · Score: 1

Free speech means that you should be able to send data to others without being stopped by the government. When the government says "You can't share that data because you have to buy it from somewhere instead." then it's killing the free speech.
Free speech is not only about the right to discuss politics, but also to share information of all kinds. And the value for the individuals and society is immense.
So if you want to enforce a copy monopoly, then you're right out evil and I honestly hope you'll die a painful death.
Or maybe you're just very stupid and can't figure out that there are way better ways to sponsor content producers than strangling such a basic right as using our own products to copy data!

Re:CUUUUUUUNNNNTTT by Ragzouken · 2009-04-09 06:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Gurney Halleck, is that you?

Brilliant by DesScorp · 2009-04-09 06:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

(I would provide a link, but TPB is blocked at work...)

try putting in your host file

83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org

or setting you DNS server setting to 4.2.2.3

and then going to https://thepiratebay.org/

Yeah, have him violate his workplace policy so he can get to the Pirate Bay.

He deserves whatever he gets if he actually listens to you.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel

Verdict isn't even out yet by danheretic · 2009-04-09 06:53 · Score: 1

Sunde said he received an e-mail from Facebook justifying the action because of the legal proceedings against Sunde and three others. The men are awaiting return of a verdict on April 17 from a trial that concluded early last month in Stockholm.

Don't you just love guilt by accusation?

what is the value of a law by circletimessquare · 2009-04-09 07:08 · Score: 1

that can't be enforced?

mevermind the ideological argument about whether it SHOULD be enforced

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Proxy link it by zoftie · 2009-04-09 08:32 · Score: 1

Tinyurl it. It works!(tm)

...charged with helping to make available... by peipas · 2009-04-09 12:55 · Score: 1

Nike and Reebok were unavailable for comment.

Where is the Facebook Group to protest about this? by Heddahenrik · 2009-04-10 06:36 · Score: 1

There must be a couple already.

Slashdot Mirror

Facebook Cuts Off Pirate Bay Links

137 comments