The Pirate Bay Founders Go Legit With BayFiles

An anonymous reader writes "The founders of The Pirate Bay, possibly the best-known BitTorrent tracking service in existence, are going legit with a new file-sharing site which they claim will adhere to all copyright rules and takedown requests. BayFiles, as the new service is named, isn't BitTorrent powered. Instead, the site borrows its method of operation from the likes of Megaupload and RapidShare: a user selects a file and uploads it to the site via their web browser, after which it becomes available for anyone to download, assuming they have the link."

Comments

So same thing really

[Haedrian]

Just that instead of torrents they use filesharing. I wonder why. Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

Re:So same thing really

[TarMil]

Just that instead of torrents they use filesharing.

I suppose you mean "direct downloading".

Re:So same thing really

[cpghost]

Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

How about, you know, TPB?

Re:So same thing really

[lm2s]

Just that instead of torrents they use filesharing. I wonder why. Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

Why? Because with BayFiles they will make money off the files being shared. Simple. But of course that is not their true intent. Truly they just believe there is the need of, yet, another file sharing service, because the hundreds that exist just aren't good enough :)

Re:So same thing really

[fbjon]

I'd say most of those hundreds really aren't good enough.

Re:So same thing really

[Haedrian]

Never used it for my uploads. Is it as simple as uploading the file and getting a link to share with your buddies?

For a start you'd probably have to seed it, so not really the same thing.

Re:So same thing really

[Hatta]

There's nothing stopping you from using The Pirate Bay to host torrents of your own files if you want.

Re:So same thing really

[hldn]

so really, you don't want a torrent site at all..

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

because the hundreds that exist just aren't good enough :)

That's why there's already a waiting time and you can't use download managers?

Re:So same thing really

[JohnnyBGod]

...or he wants a torrent site he pays for doing the seeding. Which is actually a neat idea.

Re:So same thing really

[91degrees]

Would have been interesting to have a torrent site which lets you share your own files without any problems.

There are several torrent sites that actively prevent copyright infringing torrents, but allow you to upload your own files or those where sharing is permitted by the copyright holder. Google for "legal bittorrent sites"

Re:So same thing really

[gnick]

This is a step further though.

1) Upload a pirated file to BayFiles and tell everyone you can.
2) It gets downloaded and a torrent posted to TPB.
3) Take-down notice is issued to Bayfiles and they immediately remove the content.
4) It lives on as long as people are interested enough to seed.

Plus, TPB has done due diligence by immediately and without question removing all infringing content from their sites.

Re:So same thing really

[spazdor]

Cosigned. If I have to twiddle thumbs at another jinkety-ass homescript "countdown before I'll give you your download link" page I'm going to gore myself to death with a Jolt can.

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

This is for maximum trolling.
They'll comply with any take-down notice so the IP owners will just have to spend trillions of dollars monitoring the *whole* internet and provide them these links.
You gotta love the DMCA.

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No, they haven't. They've taken it off this ludicrous BayFiles place. They haven't, however, taken it off Pirate Bay. If they had, your stupid scheme wouldn't work now, would it?

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the idea is that people download THEN post a torrent. At that point they're seeding from their own computers. BayFiles is just the original seed and isn't needed for very long. New to torrent are we?

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I understood that, chiefly because I've got a 3-figure IQ. Read it again.

"Plus, TPB has done due diligence by immediately and without question removing all infringing content from their sites."

No. No, they haven't. They've taken it off this ludicrous BayFiles place. They haven't, however, taken it off Pirate Bay. If they had, your stupid scheme wouldn't work now, would it?

Let me add the explanatory point: a torrent is useless if it's not indexed. If they take it off Pirate Bay as soon as they get a notification, it doesn't get indexed, unless you believe that isohunt and the rest of the sites that will die in about two months are updating their databases in real time, in which case you're a bigger moron than I already think you are.

Unless "TPB" has suddenly changed meaning from "The Pirate Bay" to "BayFiles" in which case it qualifies for world's fucking shittiest acronym award.

Go back to remedial school because you really fucking need it.

Re:So same thing really

[logjon]

I'd much rather, deal with yet another file sharing service, than have to read through, many, superfluous, commas.

Re:So same thing really

[BenoitRen]

Plus, TPB has done due diligence by immediately and without question removing all infringing content from their sites.

Really? I thought The Pirate Bay didn't care about whether the content that was shared was infringing or not. They aren't hosting the content in the first place.

Re:So same thing really

[gnick]

But in this case, BayFiles WILL be sharing the content. But they only really need to post it long enough for one person to post a torrent and seed.

Re:So same thing really

[mywhitewolf]

A torrent isn't infringing content, what it downloads is though. a torrent is "just a link", so his point is still accurate.

Re:So same thing really

[Wandering Idiot]

Yes, I understood that, chiefly because I've got a 3-figure IQ.

And the emotional maturity of a 10-year-old, apparently. Just sayin'.

Re:So same thing really

[RoFLKOPTr]

I'm going to gore myself to death with a Jolt can.

If you do end up doing that, can you please record video and have your closest friend upload it to the site you gored yourself to death waiting for?

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

There's big money in the upload sites, that's why. Websites like Filesonic make millions. I doubt Pirate Bay's ads come even close. I haven't checked BayFiles policies, but its competitors pay uploaders for each download. Then charge downloaders for fast access. It's a clever though shady model.

Re:So same thing really

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's a stupid idea. The whole point to using torrents is that the bandwidth burden is shared among everyone who is part of the swarm.

April 1st?

[choongiri]

> The Pirate Bay Founders Go Legit

Bwahahahahahaha

Re:April 1st?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, that's an incredibly misleading tagline. it's not like they're taking down the pirate bay, they're just adding a new service. big deal.

Re:April 1st?

[Anonymous Coward]

How more legit does it get:

"you agree that we may apply that policy to your account or subscription in our sole judgment based upon a suspicion on our part or a notification we receive regardless of proof of infringement. "

The TOS document doesn't appear to have been written by a native English speaker, so the MAFIAA is off the hook, but it's clearly inspired by them

Re:April 1st?

[shentino]

If by inspiration you mean subtle legal threats then you bet.

Re:April 1st?

[bonch]

My favorite part is describing PirateBay as "possibly the best-known BitTorrent tracking service in existence." It's the best-known piracy site.

Re:April 1st?

[icebraining]

It's the best-known piracy site.

No, I'm pretty sure that's the Coast of Somalia.

By the way, their description is wrong too, TPB doesn't run a tracker anymore.

Re:April 1st?

[Snaller]

Except few people think they are doing this to go legit, but rather to try and avoid getting sued.

Re:April 1st?

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve mod points. Not sure if they should be taken or given however...

Re:April 1st?

[Kalriath]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that TPB gets nowhere near the hits of tracker.worldofwarcraft.com. That BT tracker gets the mega-usage.

Hey, worked for Napster

[elrous0]

Anyone remember back when Napster only dealt with pirated files?

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[vivaoporto]

Anyone remember(...) Napster (...)?

FTFY

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[SebZero]

Who? ;-)

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Opportunist]

Nap... whatnow?

Face it, no filesharing service survives "going legit".

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember Napster after they went legit? Me neither.

The TPB founders can start their own ice cream stand, for all I care. As long as the original Pirate Bay is left intact with all its cost-free, educational goodness. I'll wait and see how things turn out before I buy one of their T-shirts.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[isorox]

Nap... whatnow?

Face it, no filesharing service survives "going legit".

Napster was that company founded by Justin Timberlake

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[deckitbruiseit]

Thank you for that laugh :)

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

NapSter i think was a site dedicated to sharing your siesta experiences with other people like twitter.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[SuricouRaven]

I remember, from when the relaunched Napster legal-download site was closed down. Taking with it the DRM licence servers, and thus destroying the music collections of all those who had purchased music from the service. I remember, because that was when I felt the feeling of smug 'I told you this would happen' satisfaction.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[d.the.duck]

Because it's not "filesharing" then.... it's filepaying (like Napster) or "(some)filesharing" where you can only share "some" things.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[brit74]

Napster (http://www.napster.com) shut down?

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[crispylinetta]

Some people (well one person) would argue that Napster was that company that Justin Timberlake STOLE from Seth Green.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Rinikusu]

Yeah, news to me, as well. I'm, *gasp*, even a subscriber. Android and iApp, browser-based interface... it has it's issues, but it's still going strong. And better than Spotify, IMO.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[treeves]

You will never shut down the real Napster.

-from "The Italian Job" (2008 remake)

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see the Pirate Bay founders dragged back into custody and pumped for information on who's running it these days since it's sure as fuck not them, and I don't buy that they don't know. Refuse to pass on information = extra 10 million krone fine, which will be collected as 20% of income from now until all is paid off. They'd fucking squeal then.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[SuricouRaven]

My mistake. I was confusing it with another service, the MSN Music Store. I was right about the service shutting down, loss of servers and subsequent rendering useless of customers' purchases. I was just wrong about the name of the service.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they take you into custody and waterboard the living fuck out of you until squeal like you did at the gloryhole last night.

Re:Hey, worked for Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

gimme some more, big boy

Adhere to takedown requests

[Baloroth]

So, basically, if the copyright holder complains, the file will be removed. But, if Rapidshare et al. are any instance, it'll promptly be reuploaded under a different name. Encrypted and password locked so the RIAA won't know it's there unless they manually go out and search all the sites linking to it. Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced. Perfectly legally, of course.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[CastrTroy]

I agree. If they want to go truly legit, files should be unencrypted and pre-screened by a human prior to the file being made available to the public. If they aren't doing that, then they really can't claim they are going legit. Not that I'm saying anybody wants a service like that, but it's really the only way to make sure things are "legit"

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[QuasiSteve]

less chance of downloaders being traced

yes/no

Will Bayfiles pass information about uploaders on to third parties?
If we are legally obliged to turn over information about the origin of a file, we will fulfill that obligation. The legal circumstancees will be evaluated individually in each case. Without a legal basis, no information will be given to third parties.

Of course, they'll point out that they adhere to the DMCA and that anybody complaining should really just go through its steps (which, as you point out, is what offers a lot of protection for 'pirates', despite the flak it gets for abuse). And if the uploader was in some random internet café, then that information won't be of any use either.

Also from your list you forgot the easier monetization. This seems to be set up like many other such services, with premium accounts for those wanting immediate / faster downloads, etc.

Honestly, most people over here (NL) are either stuck in the world of Shareaza and the like, or have moved on to 'news' servers (where for $10/month the 'news' is the latest album/movie/game/application/ebook releases).

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Yvanhoe]

You not only need a human but also a way to identify copyrighted material. Such a way doesn't exist. Copyright proponents have never bothered to give a way for honest people to go legit. There are no computer-exploitable catalog of copyrighted works, there is not even a coherent definition of what constitutes an infrigement or a copyrighted work.

Going legit has been made as impossible as going legal.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[interval1066]

Actually, if the RIAA wants to make file sharing as painful as possible then they couldn't have done any better than to encourage the use of site like rapidshare... these pay to play sites are a serious pain in my ass and whenever I see a link to one I run away is if it were the plague. Painful, useless, and annoying. Bit torrent will never die, bastards!

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

I think physical mail companies are legit even if they don't open all mail to make sure that the mail doesn't contain any copyrighted material. If you tell them that some particular mail actually contains a bomb, they'll deal with it, but otherwise they don't screen the mail you send. I don't think there is a difference in that principle when sending digital goods.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess banks aren't legit because when you open up a safety deposit box, they don't have someone from the bank watching your every move and tallying everything you put in the box. Because, who knows, maybe you put some pirated software in there?

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

Legit = Legal, No law mandates human inspection.
And quit giving them damn Ideas OK.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA? Who cares, that's a US law and last time I checked the guys that founded TPB were Swedes and a Finn. I'm pretty sure they weren't dumb enough to host it in the US. Let's try it again, US law applies on US soil not everywhere.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[grumbel]

Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced.

You forgot the best part: BayFiles cost you $5 a month or else you get a nasty 30 second wait and have to enter a CAPTCA before you can download a file. It's a perfectly way to make lots of money from copyright violation while staying outside of the reach of the law. So it's not so much that they are going legit, it's just that they are using a different (and rather successful) loophole.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called JDownloader, it simulates all activities required to download a file, and prompts you for capthcas. Just enqueue, and forget about waiting for 45 seconds.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[icebraining]

There is, Youtube has one. It's far from complete, but any copyright owner can add their works, as far as I know.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[cheekyjohnson]

And how does it know what is and isn't copyrighted material?

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

Only on Slashdot would someone saying that the Pirate Bay is LEGITIMATE get modded as informative. Useful, yeah. Heavily used, including by me? Yeah. Legitimate? Fuck off.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ. Read that again. You just compared a website called the PIRATE bay, used almost entirely for uploading pirated software and which hosted a collection of letters mocking people who made legal attacks (something they stopped at about the time the legal attacks started being successful, thank fuck; that wiped some of the smug fucking smiles off their faces, didn't it?), to a bank. Fucking hell. No wonder the Western world is going to fucking shit if half the "intelligent" people in it are posting bollocks like this on the internet.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Yvanhoe]

It's far from complete

any copyright owner can add their works

These are two big flaws : it brings false positives and false negatives. Also, anyone can claim to be a copyright owner and force someone to remove a content. Wasn't it Lady Gaga who recently saw her official channel closed because of a request (quite possibly from her own lawyers ?)

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[icebraining]

It has, to quote GP, a "computer-exploitable catalog of copyrighted works", and each and every video is matched against all of them.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[icebraining]

By the way, the following algorithm has probably over 99.9% chances of getting it right:

def is_copyrighted(work):
        return true

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[mywhitewolf]

Seeings though Copyright infringement has some pretty serious problems of scope creep, i think he brings in a valid argument. where do we draw the line? at the name? at what some entity decides its purpose was? or should we be even treating internet service providers as the same as all other types of service providers (ie, pawn shops, headshops etc.)

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[mywhitewolf]

if only that was actually true, but you might be shocked to find how much US law has perverted the rest of the world in regards to copyright infringement and patent law.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[Jonner]

So, basically, if the copyright holder complains, the file will be removed. But, if Rapidshare et al. are any instance, it'll promptly be reuploaded under a different name. Encrypted and password locked so the RIAA won't know it's there unless they manually go out and search all the sites linking to it. Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced. Perfectly legally, of course.

But since it doesn't use bittorrrent, the performance will probably suck.

Re:Adhere to takedown requests

[AP31R0N]

No need to pre-screen them, just screen them.

RIAA/MPAA FAIL

[Ryyuajnin]

Oh! this must be what the Masters of the Media-verse had in mind... ROFL XD

Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[eldavojohn]

Here's what I got from the article. It's registered in South America from Hong Kong company. Once you upload a file, you get a link but there is no way to search across uploaded files. So basically you can share that link out with only your close friends and no one else could possibly know about it and there was no mention of Bayfiles inspecting or fingerprinting these files actively -- only when issued a DMCA from a copyright holder.

I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.

Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.

How is the RIAA (or anybody else) supposed to find files on here that violate their copyright? Sure, you can't post your link in a forum that will be found via Google but for close knit meshes of sharers, this is a dream come true (just like Usenet or even the Dropbox accounts my friends share).

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Opportunist]

Allow me to be the one to say it:

Well, DUH!

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

nice exec summary :)

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[The MAZZTer]

You could say the same for any upload site; the problem is when links to copywritten content are shared publicly. Of course then it makes it possible to find and send in a DMCA takedown request.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[d4fseeker]

In other words: you just described how sites like RapidShare, MegaUpload, and the like have been doing it for years now ;)

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[tepples]

How is the RIAA (or anybody else) supposed to find files on here that violate their copyright?

The same way they find files shared on LANs and sneakernets in college dorms: Moles. Lots of moles.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on how you name the file, other people could access what you upload by searching on google. If it's available to anyone then you could potentially find it. Especially if the person shares the link on another site.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[StripedCow]

If only slashdot articles were written in this style in the first place, we wouldn't have to RTFA.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[TubeSteak]

Since when does the DMCA apply to a South America registered via Hong Kong?

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Hatta]

I'm guessing their DMCA officers just wait for requests and then investigate the files and then delete them. Are there even any negative repercussions for the offending uploader? If so, just do it anonymously.

The DMCA allows copyright holders to subpoena the personal information of the uploader from the ISP. The copyright holder then has every remedy available to him by law.

Sure, it's not possible for everybody to come and get whatever they want but it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.

Exactly how it should be. A free transaction between two willing parties. There's no reason to get any third parties involved.

This is one of the reasons why copyright is impossible to enforce. You literally have to inspect every communication between everyone.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Artifakt]

OK, I'm picturing Keanu Reeves saying "Moles. Lots of Moles." and then all these shelves full of blind burrowing rodents come flying past. You did that - hope you're happy now.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[dada21]

I run a print shop and we constantly need to snag installers for old software that is no longer supported by the manufacturers. One example RIP program that we use (and paid over $5000 for, mind you) no longer works with the dongle key that came with it.

So we traveled over to the dark side of the software world and snagged a great cracked copy. Works wonders. A year later our install was corrupted and we lost the installer, so I went back and downloaded it again (thanks, MegaUpload!). No issues.

Today, we lost our install again, went back to the forum to grab the link and MegaUpload had nuked it because the copyright owner asked to remove it. Thankfully I found a USB key from a year ago with the installer and we're back in service -- "pirating" software I've already paid $5000 for plus around $3000 for all the annual support subscriptions. The copyright owner, who has little reason to actively attack this old software, still spends time trolling the bootleg forums to specifically find these links.

And that's how it will continue to be -- companies with high cost software definitely troll the many bootleg forums to report to the content sharing hosts and have the ISOs removed. This said software is probably 10 years old (older?), and is sub-par compared to all the modern apps available. Yeah, I should probably get a new license and upgrade, but we're using it on a 12 year old printer that we run maybe twice a month, and it works just fine with the old software I paid for and want to run.

Hopefully, TPB does a better job at UX/UI versus MegaUpload and RapidShare, who have some of the most annoying interfaces imaginable.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

A dream come true?

Warez groups and forums have been using filesharing sites(rapidshare, megaupload, etc) to do this for years.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[SuricouRaven]

Your fourth paragraph explains: If people can keep on using the old software via pirate source, and it does what they need, why would they pay for upgrades? In many cases, a software companies greatest competitor is themselves from five years ago.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

criminal!

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like you care about the RIAA, or even MPAA. Do you work for them? Have they done anything for you lately other than use their money to abuse the freedom of the Internet by means of Government enforcement, to serve their own monopolistic and monetary goals?

I've seen you on here before, so I'm wondering why you ended your post as if, in the scheme of content online, the **AA have the largest stake in it all.

Just an observation.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it's legit.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

it's quite simple for me to upload a few albums and sent the links over to my friends to get a zip download.

Even better: Upload files, create a torrent using this as a web seed. You won't need to seed it yourself (granting better anonymity) and by the time the file has become popular enough to be noticed and targeted by DMCA, it's probably already propagated too far for the web seed to be necessary anyway.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[mmcuh]

Good, that will encourage them to actually write new and interesting programs instead of regurgitating the same things over and over.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[mmcuh]

In most legislations it's perfectly legal to let your friends make copies of your music or movies or whatever. That doesn't change because you're doing it over the net. It's when you make it available to the public that it becomes illegal.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[TangoMargarine]

Or some third party could start some sort of site that indexes the files that are uploaded...you could call it, I dunno...deluge...flood...

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[hitmark]

This also applies to media companies of all kinds. Just look at how Disney keeps rotating their classic films in and out of sale at a annual basis. Now if those movies where public domain they would be faced with having to compete with their own creations, now freely distributable.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[sqrt(2)]

The links can be shared publicly, as long as the encryption keys aren't. A blank file with the name of a copyrighted movie or song isn't a copyright violation. So with encryption there's no way to prove that what's inside the file has anything to do with the file's name. Without the key, you have no way of knowing what's inside, and no way of knowing if a copyright violation has occurred...and thus no legal recourse to get the file taken down.

But then the system isn't as useful, you're always trading off convenience for security. I can imagine some sort of "gray-net" where the links are shared publicly on a board for all to see, but the encryption keys are shared among a more elite group. To get the keys you have to become a trusted member (perhaps by offering up a certain amount of material yourself, and waiting a probationary period). And the keys could be changed often for new files.

Hmm...sounds like I have an idea for a site. Bayfiles already provided me with a back end system :p

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

"pirating" software I've already paid $5000 for plus around $3000 for all the annual support subscriptions

If you're paying for support, then call the company and get a new dongle key.

There is no excuse for pirating.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[tepples]

Since when does the DMCA apply [outside the United States]

Technically it doesn't, but the DMCA is a national implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, meaning other countries are likely to have counterpart legislation.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[mounthood]

If you go to the contact page and click "Copyright/DMCA" you'll see these requirements:

Copyright/DMCA takedown requests are only processed if the following requirements are met:

• Identify yourself as an owner of the copyrighted work or exclusive rights that you believe were infringed, or a person acting on behalf of such owner
• Provide us with your name, your address and your telephone number. We reserve the right to check the information supplied. We also reserve the right to pass this information on to the customer being reported should he or she request us to do so
• State that you have "a good faith belief that use of the aforementioned material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agents, or the law"
• State that the information in the notice is accurate, under penalty of perjury
• Explain which copyright protected work is in question
• Supply the exact and complete link to all files in question
• Use english language

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

Your expectation that developers should constantly develop "new and interesting programs" is simply unrealistic. There is no industry that does that. There are no developers that do that. Even innovative developers tend to innovate within a fairly narrow range.

So naturally they will look for other ways to make money. Software-as-a-service is one: expect a lot of these expensive products to move as much of their processing as possible to the cloud on a subscription basis. Another, of course, is patent trolling.

Or they will get out of the business altogether, and this will leave niche markets completely unserved: markets that already don't interest free software developers will stop interesting commercial developers too.

None of these consequences is good; none of them is what you or anyone else wants. The alternative is for you to man up and buy a fucking upgrade from time to time. Choose your poison.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Kalriath]

It's not pirating if you have a license.

Re:Totally Legit, Easily Abused

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB, welcome to 2006! Nothing new to see here, really.

Huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

the site borrows its method of operation from the likes of Megaupload and RapidShare

Yeah, it's called HTTP, you may have heard of it.

Re:Huh...

[TarMil]

Nah, that's the protocol. The method is GET.

No torrent, no download

[Taibhsear]

Which no one will use.

People (legitimate uploads at least) put their files on Pirate Bay because it offloads the server work and increases their customer base. Almost like free advertising for their software. You go to TPB, see what files are popular and download them. You might download software you could never have heard of since you have no other contact with that company. Can't go download something from a website you never heard of. And since it was torrents, popular files you could get in no time vs going to the company's main website for a direct download which could take way longer if they didn't invest in their servers/connections. Going rapidshare style almost blows the whole point of going to TPB.

Re:No torrent, no download

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you run MD5 checks on the files you get from TB. otherwise already ice a nice zombie name for your computer.

Re:No torrent, no download

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow people actually use tpb for things like that?
I just google for "MOVIE_OR_FILM_NAME pirate bay" or "SOFTWARE_NAME pirate bay".
Didn't realize people actually browse through all the crap to find anything.

Re:No torrent, no download

[bonch]

Trying to portray PirateBay as a legitimate software listing or server offload service is hilarious. It's a piracy site--its main function is as a piracy site, and the majority of its users are using it to pirate so they don't have to pay the creators of the material for their work. That's the "whole point of going to TPB," not browsing the popular downloads section to look for legitimate, unknown software to download (that would be a nice way to get your computer infected).

Re:No torrent, no download

[Taibhsear]

I never said it didn't have piracy on it. But it does have legitimate users from legitimate companies with legitimately free software uploading to it as well. My point was pertaining to that topic. Reasons why legitimate traffic would or would not go to the new website verses the old Pirate Bay.

Re:No torrent, no download

[Cito]

Piratebay guys aren't doing this to be legit.

it's easier to pirate and no worry of antip2p scraping the torrent for ip's

now it's like megaupload who is huge in the pirate business

for example

Icefilms moved over to an all megaupload solution http://www.icefilms.info/

Thor http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IUBDT2GZ

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K3VZ3O80

Whistleblower http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JV45BJ01

Now using megaupload it's harder and no 3rd party antip2p scraper is going to get your ip address. Megaupload supposedly doesn't keep their logs of what ip downloads what. So if they get a dmca request, they remove the file. But there is a script called RapidLeech: http://www.rapidleech.com/

Rapidleech automatically puts the file back in place from remote sites as a link dies.

usually much handier for pirates since don't have to worry with peerblock, antip2p lists keeping updated and 3rd party antip2p companies sniffing ip's from torrent swarms.

So as they mention in the http://suprbay.org/ linked off piratebay's site. This way it's safer for the pirates, and since it's a direct download it will become a hell of a lot more safer. Since megaupload has been offering pirates the same thing for many years now. And rapidleech puts the files back as soon as they are removed.

Always check http://icefilms.info/ for link updates

Re:No torrent, no download

[MischaNix]

More importantly, the download speed limit on this site is atrocious. The non-premium access path is entirely reminiscent of RapidShare. Nothing about this site seems useful other than the fact that there's no (apparent) extension filtering. And there are competitor sites that don't do extension filtering and don't make you wait 15s / fill in a captcha to download a file. Torrenting is only useful (in my opinion) for files where the life of a potential downloader (which is a full download + seeding to 150%) is going to be long enough to have a healthy swarm. In the case of files under 100 MB, torrents are not useful, and we can turn to those filesharing services which don't make you wait.

Re:No torrent, no download

[supersloshy]

According to TorrentFreak, the top 10 file-sharing sites are almost entirely "legit" sites like this. What does that tell you?

Viacom v. YouTube

[tepples]

Even YouTube, Google's video sharing service, doesn't go to that length. It does what the law (17 USC 512) requires, namely taking down a file in response to a notice of claimed infringement, even if it appears to take longer than legally allowed to put files back after a counter-notice. A U.S. district court in New York affirmed the legitimacy of YouTube's processes last year.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, but youtube has a couple of limitations that make it different than a site such as this. First, all the files it hosts are videos. So that changes the type of content they have to deal with. Second, all the files uploaded to Youtube are not encrypted. This makes it possible for Youtube to see if the content is actually infringing. The way these file sharing sites usually work, is that encrypted rars are uploaded with non-descript file names. This way the authorities have no way to discover which files are pirated unless they scour the forums, looking for the passphrase. Thirdly, Youtube's content is completely searchable and discoverable by any user. This site on the other hand, the only way to find any content is to already have the link. Again making it really difficult for copyright holders to track down who is sharing their content. Since these sites have completely different service models, I would have to say that we should wait until it goes to court (if it ever does) before we decide just how legit it is. Just from an outside perspective, it seems like it will be just like any other rapidshare/megaupload/whatever site where 99.9% will be pirated content, and the rest will be homework assignments from people who forget their USB stick.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube

[tepples]

Second, all the files uploaded to Youtube are not encrypted. This makes it possible for Youtube to see if the content is actually infringing.

Does the holding in Viacom v. YouTube require a service provider to perform proactive policing analogous to Content ID in order to qualify for the safe harbor protection of section 512?

Thirdly, Youtube's content is completely searchable and discoverable by any user.

Not if a video's title and description are encrypted.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube

[Jafafa Hots]

You could probably come up with a way of encrypting the whole file and keeping it as video (static).

Post it to youtube, link in your whatever to the tool to decrypt it. Use a youtube downloader, etc.

Probably could even automate grabbing the 15 minute segments and restoring them into say, the length of a feature film, if you had some home video of that length. ;)

Re:Viacom v. YouTube

[grumbel]

Even YouTube, Google's video sharing service, doesn't go to that length.

Youtube doesn't do human screening, but they go much further then just reacting to infringement claims, they actively scan and fingerprint all content and then automatically block it before the rights holder even notices it. They are also in contractual relationship with the publishers to allow certain things to be available on Youtube. Or in the case of Germany, not available, as a videos containing copyrighted music are blocked aggressively, due to failure to reach an agreement with the local music rights management organization.

Re:Viacom v. YouTube

[icebraining]

You could put a QR Code in each frame ;) Use dd to read a block, pipe it to qrencode to create the frame, use ffmpeg to create the video from the frames.

Some fast calculations estimate 24 minutes of video at 25fps for each 100MB.

obedience is not starting the new site

[bzipitidoo]

Is it possible to run a user supplied file sharing site without eventually if not immediately being accused of aiding copyright infringement? What will they do after they are inundated with DMCA takedown notices? After they are sued?

Seems likely the whole thing is some kind of ploy. Appeasing the music industry doesn't sound possible. Perhaps they aim for appeasement of the courts?

Re:obedience is not starting the new site

[grumbel]

Is it possible to run a user supplied file sharing site without eventually if not immediately being accused of aiding copyright infringement?

There are numerous filehosters (Rapidshare, Megaupload, Hotfile, etc.) around with exactly the same business model and user interface (nag the user with CAPTCA and 30sec wait into buying premium accounts) and while some of them had a little bit of legal trouble, I don't think any of them ever had to close down or even pay damages. So yes, that business models seems to work quite well.

Premium membership

[johnny_and1]

If you don't get the premium membership your download speed will be xyz kb/s. Can somebody translate that to me ? That's written on the page of the bayfiles premium membership .

Re:Premium membership

[Haedrian]

$Placeholder

Re:Premium membership

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't get the premium membership your download speed will be xyz kb/s. Can somebody translate that to me ?

It's obviously base 36. Converting to decimal gives you 44027 kb/s

Re:Premium membership

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how they say "Only your connection speed will dictate your download speed" and then go on to (attempt to) quote a figure in kb/s.

If the Studios were smart....

[Panaflex]

They'd include a link to buy a copyright license right next to the download. Might as well earn their buck or two where the people get their shows. Sell a reloadable card at 7-11 for people that want to be anonymous. It's about timing and convenience. Let the download service keep 15 cents.

They'd double their profits.... duh.

Cite Viacom v. YouTube

[tepples]

What will they do after they are inundated with DMCA takedown notices?

Presumably the same thing YouTube does: take stuff down, forward the notice to the uploader, and wait for the uploader to file a counter-notification.

After they are sued? Cite Viacom v. YouTube and get a summary judgment in favor of BayFiles.

BayFiles

[The Living Fractal]

Then I shall have to make a webcrawler for it, and I shall have to call it BayWatch. Surely that name is available?

Re:BayFiles

[Anonymous Coward]

The Pirate Bay opens a 'legitimate' site and you're still finding ways to infringe on copyrights, for shame!

Re:BayFiles

[TheFakeMcCoy]

Damn beat me to it, I was thinking Baywatch would have been a new team assembled by the Motion Picuture Industry to monitor and send takedown notices.

Re:BayFiles

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already taken by an ebay sniping tool.

HTTP seeding

[tepples]

Then buy web hosting, upload your file, and start a torrent with an HTTP seed.

BayFiles? Really?

[Torodung]

That name brought mayflies to mind first time I read it. And if the takedown rules are for real, that may be a telling descriptor of how this thing will work.

Bayfile: n. A transient stored file that is taken down quickly. Usage: "It was here and gone like a Bayfile."

...I'm the mole.

[tepples]

That or Tom Cruise voice-acting a furry Ethan Hunt in a funny-animal version of Mission: Impossible.

bayfiles?

[circletimessquare]

so it will only be michael bay movies?

Re:bayfiles?

[gknoy]

And Baywatch. Must appease Bun-Bun.

Re:bayfiles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could make a movie about michael bay zombies. That would be great.

Why not Amazon S3 ?

[DalDei]

What purpose does this serve that Amazon S3 doesnt ? Is it the "free" part or is there a category/search/index to help find your "legitimate" files ? Amazon S3 even supports torrents. No takedowns required. Push files, make them public. Sit back. Oh you pay some $ ... but very little.

checksum collisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Their privacy policy says they will delete previously removed files solely based on the SHA-1 checksum of the file. So what happens when there's checksum collisions?

Re:checksum collisions

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically the same thing you already do to get around checksum-based blacklisting: change the RAR comment field, add a password, change the part size by 1 byte, add a .nfo file at the top of it, etc...

Re:checksum collisions

[grumbel]

Unless somebody finds a hole in SHA-1, you won't see checksum collisions, they are simply to unlikely to ever happen (i.e. chance that their datacenter gets hit by a meteorite are bigger then getting a collision of hashes).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Legit my ass

[edelholz]

- uploads possible without registration
- the bare minimum of logs saved
- after a complaint they keep files online for an "inspection period" of 14 days
- company in Hong Kong and registered in South America... for what reason but make lawsuits more difficult?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud their efforts. But this doesn't look legit, it looks like "let's make lawsuits very hard".

So-so interface

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from the hundreds of free one click hosts we already have? To judge from the source it also juses recaptchas and waiting countdowns, the only apparent difference is the absence of ads. It could at least give me a link that I can share while I'm still uploading. Other hosts even allow for downloads to start while it's still uploading. And why can't I queue uploads?

doesn't work with download managers

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to download a file (that I had uploaded) with DownThemAll, after solving the recaptcha of course. DownThemAll downloaded an html file saying that "This IP has already downloaded a file", which it didn't say moments before. Maybe it's a DownThemAll-specific issue, but I don't have that problem with other one click hosts.
On the bright side, a jdownloader plugin is in the pipeline.

Re:doesn't work with download managers

[_0xd0ad]

DownThemAll might have triggered that by trying to open 2 or more simultaneous connections. Try setting it to use only one connection per download for that site.

I guess that conclusively proves it

[petrus4]

There is no one...literally no one alive, who is indefinitely immune to the corrupting influence of the suits.

The suits seduced John Carmack. They got to Will Wright. They persuaded James Cameron to give us the TL;DR version of Avatar. Ask some people, and they'll tell you that the reason why Britney Spears cracked up in the end, was because she couldn't stand the pressure from the suits. Now they've corrupted the founders of the Pirate Bay, something I thought could never happen.

One way or another, the suits sink their demonic claws into everyone, in the end.

One day, they'll even come for you.

Re:I guess that conclusively proves it

[Em Adespoton]

Try wearing a suit sometime; it does wonders for self esteem and personal presence :)

Plus, a good suit is actually more comfy than jeans and a T-shirt.

I grew up with a bunch of hippies; by the time they hit their 40's, most of them converted to yuppieism. It's not corruption, it's just growing older and viewing your ideals in the light of experience. Instead of thinking of people as corrupted, think of them as having made a positive contribution to society, and now headed off to do something for themselves. The original work still stands (usually).