Slashdot Mirror


Swedish Court Orders Seizure of Pirate Bay Domains

The Pirate Bay will probably never be the darling of any government; we've seen various Pirate Bay domains cracked down on, and the arrests of site founders. An anonymous reader writes now with the news reported this morning by TorrentFreak that: the Stockholm District Court has ordered two key domains owned by The Pirate Bay to be seized. While the ruling means that the site will lose its famous ThePirateBay.se domain, don't expect the site to simply disappear. TPB informs TorrentFreak that they have plenty more domains left in store. From the point of view of the down-crackers, It's a hard problem, particularly when it's easy for people to spin up their own instances of the site.

13 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Oh bother... by Trracer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this won't make any difference at all.

    --
    English is not my first language, so cut me some slack -: Om du kan lasa det har sa kan du Svenska :-
  2. Wow by Guy+From+V · · Score: 2

    Is it Tuesday already?

  3. And in related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    EZTV was taken over by scammers so careful what you download from there
    http://torrentfreak.com/eztv-s...

    1. Re:And in related news... by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Ah! My bad - apparently the scammers now have the .ch domain too and have locked out the original site operators completely so the original EZTV operators have decided to call it quits. Still, they are currently only pushing torrents to .avi and .mp4 files (ocassionally with ASCII .txt and .nfo files) which are generally pretty safe and the site works fine with NoScript etc. so I suppose with a suitable degree of caution until they either blow it or establish a good reputation it might be safe to use.

      Of course, it could all just be a ruse to add an extra layer of obfuscation to the operators IRL identities of course; "Not us, your honour, we packed it all in back in May '15. Look at all this web coverage!"

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Worst summary ever by smallfries · · Score: 5, Informative

    The domains have not been seized from the Pirate Bay. The domains have been seized from Fredrik Neij because his property was forfeit after his earlier loss in court.

    After two years the court refused to agree that the actions of the Pirate Bay should lead to the seizure of the domains, and instead a shortcut has been found to grab them by another means.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    1. Re:Worst summary ever by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Informative

      It sort of already is, so if the .se domain goes down:

      uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Worst summary ever by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Actually, you couldn't be more wrong.

      It absolutely IS the same as "guilty until proven innocent". MegaUpload is gone permanently, even if Kim Dotcom is ultimately found 100% innocent. Any money he would have made off his potentially legal service (remember, he WAS responding to DMCA requests) is now gone for years and is never coming back, again, even IF he is found innocent.

      And Kent Hovind, head of a Creationist ministry currently on trial for structuring and tax evasion, was found in contempt of court for filing a lis pendens ON HIS OWN PROPERTY to prevent it from being sold by the government despite the fact that his trial is still going on!

      And in the US, cops have seized over $2.5 billion since 9/11 in cases WITH NO SEARCH WARRANT OR INDICTMENT! Only in 7% of those cases was ANY money returned at all.

      So, yeah, you can keep believing that seizures are great if you like, but it's a factually untenable argument.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  5. Unenforceable laws by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's been said before, but: when a law is essentially impossible to enforce, the problem is with the law. The ease with which digitized goods can be copied is an indication that copyright probably should not apply to them.

    I actually believe (naively?) that this would not cost individual authors and musicians anything at all. I choose to by music and books from artists that I like, because I want them to continue creating.

    Likely, it would affect the big companies, like Disney. They would have to find new ways to monetize their assets, and might have to create new mascots more often than every hundred years. The worlds tiniest violin...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Unenforceable laws by netsavior · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Disney realized how much I spend on Iron Man shoes, backpacks, toys, notebooks, Infinity characters, crackers, cookies, drinks, t-shirts, and costumes for my kid; they probably would laugh at me for sweating over a 7 dollar movie ticket. Their core business is brand awareness, piracy is quite nicely aligned with that.

    2. Re:Unenforceable laws by dindi · · Score: 2

      It is more than just the ticket price:

      1. some people don't like the movies - I for one hate sitting in a crowd at a less than perfect audio spot where I cannot pause/rewind the movie. On top of that people lately go there to eat loud and stinky things instead of watching the darn movie

      2. I learned to hate DVDs : I paid for the damn thing, so I don't want to wait through 5 10s green/blue/red notices/warnings, then have to be forced all the trailers.
      Yes, that's right, just want to go to the kids room, put the stupid disk in and press play. This is not possible.

      3. not happy with digital purchases: if you leave abroad, (not in the US) Netflix, Amazon, Apple has various content restrictions.
      That's one thing. The other is the format: can I just have my mkv/mp4 file, not tied to iTunes, a web browser, a Netflix player.

      Also; some people don't have 10-100-1000 Mbit connections - I for one have 3 x 4Mbit lines stitched together (spillover or first load) , because where I live there is no connection available that's faster than 4Mbit. So I can download something overnight, then I can put it on my Raspberry/PC/Mac Mini or my Android tablet and watch it there. If I start to stream a: it is shit quality b: buffering c: ruin the net for other tasks

      But this might be just me. I am more than happy to pay for content. E.g. I would pay 2x the money for a .flac audio file, than buy crappy mp3 from iTunes/Amazon.
      I would also rather download a series episode, than watch it on Sky. So is it piracy? I have the sky sub, with the the actual thing playing, I just cannot make myself sit there at 7pm every Thursday, then watch a 20 minute show in 40 minutes, filled with ads for stuff I am not interested in ...

  6. Re:Uh oh... by halivar · · Score: 2

    Sure it is. Just int he case of Cuba, that corporation happens to be the State.

  7. Re: Darknet.. by dindi · · Score: 2

    I don't think it is as dark as you see it. I tend to search Google and do part of my research (for work) more and more from a TOR browser. Not because I do anything wrong, just because I don't want every search to be registered with my Google account (and who knows who else's cookies are in there anyway).

    The other thing is: if every household would run a full TOR node (not exit, just run TOR or i2P all the time), it would also make traffic a lot less suspicious.

    For Average Joe: call it "TBP secure browser" ... or whatever catchy English name. They can visit their Torrent portal, plus have some pre-bookmarked sites (Duckcuck Go, Risup, etc) to show what else is there.

    To a certain degree I agree with you though: people hear "darknet" and they think you are doing something wrong. Maybe people who understand the idea and the tech behind could do a little better to make them understand, that it is not just illegal stuff there, it is also a tool not to expose them 24/7 to surveillance... I don't even mean NSA, I mean Google/Facebook/Yahoo/MS and their advertisers and the data miners who allow companies to look up your arse 24/7.

    And again: I don't mind Facebook showing me a shoe ad because I searched "Mountain bike shoes" on Amazon. However, I would mind a company not giving me a contract because I searched "drone hacking" on Google.... because they won't understand the difference between "hacking a military drone" or "hacking a $200 quad-rotor to have decent RC control instead of the iphone wifi" ....
    That search attached to your profile would also make any TSA inspector crawl up in your butt in no time too ... but that's just one example ... you only have to get into some kind of investigation, where they find you searched "how to make a body disappear" ... only because you saw Dexter and wondered if the chemical mentioned would really dissolve hair and teeth into liquid....

    Could continue the stupid examples all day to demonstrate how something harmless could turn against you because everything is logged and attached to your accounts instantly, but it is not you I have to convince, it is Average Joe who should be made aware of these.

       

  8. Newsflash! by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Funny

    Newsflash!
    Closing of ThePirateBay top level domains forces millions of users to search two minutes for an alternative bittorrent infosite.

    Next up: Bag of rice falls over in China! Situation unclear!

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca