Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Wants Pirate Bay Logs For Criminal Investigation Into Copyright Trolls

Posted by timothy on from the you-gotta-problem-with-that? dept.

the simurgh writes: It has been revealed today that In the past few months, two of the Pirate Bay co-founders have been repeatedly questioned by Swedish authorities, acting on behalf of the FBI. The internet now has clear evidence that Prenda is indeed being investigated by the U.S. Government for uploading their own copyrighted content in torrents placed onto The Pirate Bay, for the sole purpose of creating a honeypot trap to sue over pirated downloads.

84 comments

  1. of course they do by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    otherwise they will have to beg the NSA.

    1. Re:of course they do by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

      Taps that feed the NSA/CIA are FBI property. So they want the TPB webserver logs? The people wanted the FBI to do something about organized crime back BEFORE it promoted the corruption it has on the scale it is at this point. Subsequently, "There's no such thing as TPB bay logs". -and I doubt that there is any interest in copyright trolls other than FBI shits and giggles and exactly what do they propose to do with these logs if they existed by submission to a 'broken system'?

    2. Re:of course they do by beakerMeep · · Score: 2

      I'm sure they also pinky-swear not to look at any of the other logs for illegal activity.

      --
      meep
    3. Re:of course they do by myowntrueself · · Score: 0

      Taps that feed the NSA/CIA are FBI property. So they want the TPB webserver logs? The people wanted the FBI to do something about organized crime back BEFORE it promoted the corruption it has on the scale it is at this point. Subsequently, "There's no such thing as TPB bay logs". -and I doubt that there is any interest in copyright trolls other than FBI shits and giggles and exactly what do they propose to do with these logs if they existed by submission to a 'broken system'?

      The FBI operate within the USA. The NSA and CIA are supposed to operate outside the USA. So one would assume that either GCHQ, CSIS, NZSIS or ASIS are the ones feeding the data since, due to 5 eyes, these guys are all spying like crazy on 'Murcans and feeding their intel to the NSA/CIA/FBI

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:of course they do by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      I think you might have overlooked the routing of most of the worlds traffic through mainland US. The NSA/CIA are not supposed to have active operations on US soil thus meaning no play firefight on home turf as they are D.O.D. and considered to be military power. Surveillance is a totally different ball game and has been since the 60's analog days.

  2. Logs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would be kind of stupid if Pirate Bay keeps logs

    1. Re:Logs ? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Piratebay keeps track of uploaders. What's stupid about that?

    2. Re:Logs ? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1, Informative

      TPB is a huge money making machine making money off advertising. they weren't doing it for a noble purpose

    3. Re:Logs ? by meerling · · Score: 2

      Honestly, I doubt anyone that has ever downloaded anything they found on TPB gives a rodents donkey.
      Besides, hosting is expensive, especially when you are the top site in the world for something. I don't expect them to be independently wealthy and paying for all that out of their loose change, do you?

    4. Re:Logs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TPB is a huge money making machine making money off advertising. they weren't doing it for a noble purpose

      Yes clearly the TPB founders were rich as hell, living a life of luxury eating pizza and drinking redbull in the basement where they were arrested.

      Perhaps TPB has been commercialized and makes more money now, but I saw statements that they were making a lot of money even before the raid and as the trials have shown there was no money to get from Mr. Warg, Sunde and Neij. That fourth guy that they framed because he was Neijs former boss had some money, but not related to TPB.
      It looks a lot like the claim that they are making a lot of money is BS from the prosecution to be able to motivate the raid by placing it in the legal category related to "commercial scale".

    5. Re:Logs ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much like the movie industry.

  3. Hmmm... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm thinking those shysters running Prenda are in for a world of pain. Let us hope they hire lawyers just as depraved as they are.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Hmmm... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh. Prenda Law, the qunitessential copyright trolls.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Troll

      Where's terrorists when you need them?

      Seriously, people. Am I the only one who can see how they can instantly score a lot of sympathy and good PR if they chose the right targets for their planes?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Hmmm... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm thinking these guys are more worthy of being overrun by the villagers with torches and pitchforks...

    4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the plane manufacturers, the owners of the airline businesses (and industry at large), the city Prenda resides in, their neighbors and the people on board the plane might not see things the way you do in that regard.

    5. Re:Hmmm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking those shysters running Prenda are in for a world of pain. Let us hope they hire lawyers just as depraved as they are.

      The only way that can happen is if they represent themselves, which would be way beyond awesome to watch. I'd buy tickets.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Hmmm... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      See, the problem with terrorists is that they're crazy religious nutjobs. You don't become a "terrorist" by being sane, basically; to get to that state where you're willing to sacrifice your life and well-being for some cause, you have to have a serious mental condition, and religious zealotry is a good way to achieve that. And religious nutjobs don't really care about doing good things like taking out copyright trolls; they mainly care about making their religion more powerful because they think their god wants this, even if it means sacrificing their lives (which they'll of course be rewarded for in the afterlife, according to their religious leaders).

      I don't really see any way of subverting a crazy religious cult to have its followers attack copyright trolls or other corporate misbehavers.

    7. Re:Hmmm... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      That might be true for the suicide type bomber but there are lots of terrorists who are motivated by other reasons such as nationalism, freedom and even just following their parents.
      I've known terrorists who blew up train tracks (in such a way to severely inconvenience people rather then kill), burn empty buildings, often their own property. Blow up power lines. And even take off all their clothes and march through town to court. Bunch of nude old Russian peasants can be scary, especially back in the '50's.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Hmmm... by Megol · · Score: 1

      Terrorists aren't generally crazy nor religious. Were IRA religious? What about Sendero luminoso, Contras, the cocaine cartels, Nazis, AFA, Israel*, France, Hamas etc.?

      Terrorists have to be convinced of an idea that is worth using some kind of terror tactics. Most terrorists are sane and in many cases intelligent.

      (* parts of Israel but as the acts are ordered from the heads of the regime the state is a terrorist group using any sane definition)

    9. Re:Hmmm... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Burning empty buildings and train tracks isn't "terrorism", it's "sabotage" and "arson". Messing up some train tracks to inconvenience people, and then calling it in so the train doesn't go over the tracks and no one gets hurt, isn't "terrorism", by definition, because there's no "terror" involved. This goes even more so for blowing up power lines, which rarely hurts anyone (unless it's in the middle of a heat wave or something, or cuts the power to a hospital).

      This is like calling sit-in protesters "terrorists".

      People taking their clothes off and marching to court? Are you kidding me? There's nothing remotely "terroristic" about that. That's a pure and simple protest. Protesting is not the same as terrorism.

    10. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant qualification applied to 'lawyers.'

    11. Re:Hmmm... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is terrorizing the population for political purposes. Blowing up train tracks in such a way to force the train to make an emergency stop (no pre-announcement) can be terrorizing, especially since it takes timing that can screw up. Burning down buildings can be terrorizing, as people did occasionally die and when it's the court house, there can be a lot of inconvenience. Taking out the power for 10's of thousands of people including hospitals etc can also be considered terrorizing, especially if it becomes a habit. And 70+ odd years ago, nude protests were at least weird.
      Anyways according to my government, at the time it was considered terrorism though now it seems to be more considered extreme protests.
      Of course flying a plane into a building isn't terrorism either, just mass murder and destruction of property.
      Another example is the Air India bombing, which killed 300+ people, which was for mostly nationalism reasons.
      .

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    12. Re:Hmmm... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Inconvenience != terror.
      Weird != terror.

      Basically, you're redefining everything to be "terrorism" if it in any way results in an inconvenience to a government.

    13. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US and other governments have already redefined it, it's just idiots like him that never questioned it.

    14. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since i'm pretty sure you are just trolling (hence the AC badge, if you were really hiding, you wouldn't post to the court of public opinion) I'll say that you are either 1) A foreigner or 2) A republican. When has the US EVER called someone 'a terrorist' AND EXECUTED THEM (for terrorism) for doing stuff that wasn't intended to kill anyone? (I'll save you hours of searching, never.)

    15. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People taking their clothes off and marching to court? Are you kidding me? There's nothing remotely "terroristic" about that.

      Have you seen some of these people? The threat of seeing them naked is the definition of terrorism!

  4. So, what does that mean if it is true? by Derekloffin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does that mean those upload are now legal since they actually uploaded them? Or are they still illegal due to some loophole? Or, as I recall, is it that Prenda didn't have the rights in the first place so they actually committed copyright infringement too in uploading them?

    1. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

      The formula is simple

      if ($hurtslittleguy==TRUE)
          proceedwithassrape($dildolength);

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by pjtp · · Score: 1

      Well, they may have permission from the rights holder, which I guess amounts to authorised distribution. If they didn't, then this is copyright infringement and they could be nailed under a making available argument; though, that assumes that the rights holder would actually pursue the charges, which seems unlikely.

      It is going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

    3. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Usually the companies that hires honey pot makers will have some sort of legal agreement allowing them special privilege to distribute. In short, they're given privilege to upload but you are not given privilege to download. That type of thing. Honeypots themselves are legally questionable, which is probably what the FBI is investigating. That gets into legal territory that I'm not well versed in.

    4. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If you can prove they did it for financial profit, then they would be guilty of willful comercial copyright infringement. I think the fines go way up for that.

    5. Re: So, what does that mean if it is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's tricking funny. I need to refresh my programming skills now...

    6. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by Hylandr · · Score: 0

      if ($hurtslittleguy==TRUE)
              #ButtHurt = this -> proceedwithassrape($dildolength);

      FTFY

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    7. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

      Does that mean those upload are now legal since they actually uploaded them? Or are they still illegal due to some loophole? Or, as I recall, is it that Prenda didn't have the rights in the first place so they actually committed copyright infringement too in uploading them?

      It's what Prenda does, they will of collected IP addresses of those downloading the self uploaded files bring charges against them. But it appears the tables have turned.

    8. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the extent to which everyone gets a six-figure bonus rather than jail, any company publicly associated with this is gonna lose market share. Let's hope there's some kind of mainstream reporting of the details along the lines of 'look what these corrupt fuckers are up to again, *sigh*'

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    9. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually the companies that hires honey pot makers will have some sort of legal agreement allowing them special privilege to distribute. In short, they're given privilege to upload but you are not given privilege to download.

      Sorry, unless the upload is flagged as being copyright and contains instructions that it can not be downloaded, then the uploader did not present this "special" license to the downloader and it's therefore meaningless. If the information is contained in the torrent files it would also not apply since you would only be able to see it after downloading.

      If Prenda was authorized to upload copyrighted content and did not make clear the terms of availability, then they (the copyright holders) lose. If Prenda was not authorized to upload the content, then Prenda broke the law, as as the copyright holder's authorized agents, the downloader should again be free (but I'm sure that nasty legal theory of dirty hands would kick in).

    10. Re:So, what does that mean if it is true? by allo · · Score: 1

      downloading is always no problem, the redistribution of content is. So they have the problem. you still have it, if your client redistributed something. They might have legal backing by the labels, you do not.

  5. Suspected this sort of thing by koan · · Score: 2

    Wouldn't be surprised if some of the many clones of Piratebay were put up by someone trying to do the same thing.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  6. What is this? by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    Did some politicians family member get caught in the honey pot or is this a way to kill the trolls so no precedent is set in court which could stifle media companies from going after uploaders/downloaders.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:What is this? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      They've been butt-reamed in civil court, and at least one judge has said he was referring the Prendanistas to the feds for investigation.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:What is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did some politicians family member get caught in the honey pot or is this a way to kill the trolls so no precedent is set in court which could stifle media companies from going after uploaders/downloaders.

      Might be that they were hired by a non-US company.
      Take for example Sony. It is a non-US company that typically bribes US officials, buys laws and overall overextends into non-legal territory.
      While the constitution is mainly aimed at preventing the British empire from getting control over the US by insidious means like that it is pretty clear that this is because they were the primary threat at the time.
      Tables have turned in a way that wasn't really foreseeable back then and the constitution is a bit outdated in that regard. That doesn't mean that FBI shouldn't have an interest in reducing large foreign companies from dictating what the law in the US should be.

  7. A conundrum by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who do we root for? Prenda, FBI, or PirateBay.

    1. Re:A conundrum by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who do we root for? Prenda, FBI, or PirateBay.

      A strange game, Dr. Falken.
      The only winning move is not to play.
      .
      .
      How about a nice game of chess?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:A conundrum by HiThereImBob · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who do we root for? Prenda, FBI, or PirateBay.

      I believe the appropriate order would be:

      1) Pirate Bay

      2) FBI

      3) Satan

      4) Prenda

    3. Re:A conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty harsh to Satan.

    4. Re: A conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was hoping to apply the "enemy of my enemy" principal, but I'm still not clear for whom to cheer.

    5. Re:A conundrum by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Who do we root for? Prenda, FBI, or PirateBay.

      Sadly, it's probably a moot point. Haven't we already read the stories of how PirateBay, in their zeal to become untouchable, keeps no logs? The FBI will come away disappointed that they can neither do what they were sent for, nor troll the logs for evidence of other illegal activity, and Prenda will skate on federal charges for lack of evidence. Truly a crying shame.

    6. Re:A conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honeypots like this is the equivalence of placing out free stuff on your front lawn claiming that you were cleaning out your garage and then reporting said stuff as stolen. The taker acted in good faith and now owns the stuff they took.

      I think the ideal situation would be that a court decides that Prenda haven't done anything illegal since they had the record/movie companies allowance to distribute said media, but also that since that it was distributed freely with that allowance in a setting where further redistribution was assumed (A necessity for torrents to work.) it would now be legal for anyone to keep redistributing said works freely since this is implied in the same allowance.

      Not only would that mean that it would be up to the record/movie companies to try to punish Prenda in a suitable manner. It would also put an end to anyone else trying to set up honeypots in the future since they know that they no longer have control over the media they put in the honeypot.

    7. Re:A conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... What's it like?

    8. Re:A conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually you run out and have to find some more.

    9. Re:A conundrum by zeiche · · Score: 1

      Strangely, it seems the FBI should prevail since they are asking for very specific things that are relevant to a particular case. No?

    10. Re: A conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the illegal part of them THEN filing lawsuits against those who they gave the work to.

  8. and you better stop using Kodi Pirate feeds too by ZippyTheChicken · · Score: 0

    I am in preparation for cutting the cord .. only to keep my broadband here because the cable company is the only provider in my area... So I started recording TV Shows and Movies with a Tuner Card hooked to CableTV .. its legal .. just as legal as a VCR was back in the 1990's ... Once i get to the point i just cant justify paying for basic cable I will have a ton of shows that can supplement my Antenna but because I am so far from the City getting Antenna TV is really difficult. No one in my neighborhood has an Antenna and only people in older neighborhoods have them.. some do have dish but you can't even record that on your computer... Anyway I looked into Kodi.tv its good for playing back what I record.. but my buddy tells me install this plugin and you can get any movie or TV show and you don't need to record all those shows ... well you know what.. all those Kodi shows are on torrents.. those torrents not only are downloading but your computer is uploading.. I just don't do torrents .. its such a bad idea today because people are cordcutting and cable companies are not only cable providers they also own big TV and Movie Production companies .. Comcast Universal is Comcast, NBC, Universal and a bunch of cable tv stations ... BAD DEAL MAN .. people are going to start losing their broadband accounts and everyone knows there is NO COMPETITION IN BROADBAND ... first you are lucky to get broadband to your house about 30% of america doesn't .. and if you do you will NEVER see FIOS and Comcast offering service to the same home.. back room deals.. they are like drug dealers on street corners.. DON'T TORRENT.. DON'T USE PIRATE TV IN KODI OR OTHER MEDIA CENTER SOFTWARE.. they are losing hundreds of thousands of people every quarter.. they will eventually come after people... DONT BE ONE OF THEM.. get a tuner card .. get one used.. $50 i paid for a CETON 4 tuner.. it can record 4 shows at a time .. $7 i pay for the cable card from the cable company.. you can record THOUSANDS of shows and put them on a hard drive.. watch them on your computer or use a device to play them on your TV... JUST DON'T SHARE THEM WITH ANYONE.. not your friends.. not on the internet.. keep them just for your use... and you're golden

    1. Re:and you better stop using Kodi Pirate feeds too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well you know what.. all those Kodi shows are on torrents..

      Most kodi feeds are HTTP.

      get one used.. $50 i paid for a CETON 4 tuner.. it can record 4 shows at a time

      If you have digital cable, a 4 tuner card should be able to record 4 muxes, rather than 4 shows. That's more like 30 or 40 programs. If you have digital cable and you can't do that, you have a shitty tuner card, or you're using shitty tuner software. Get something like tvheadend or mumudvb that can record and decode the entire mux.

      I don't have cable (or live in a country with cable), but my quad tuner DVB setup can record every DVB-T channel broadcast in my city, that's about 25 channels plus 10 radio stations.

    2. Re:and you better stop using Kodi Pirate feeds too by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't like in a place where they have:
      1. Switched Digital Video
      2. DRM EVERY show and lock it to the PC into which it was recorded

      I personally LOVE my Media Center based PC using a Centon 4 channel Tuner with a Cable Card that I have used for about 6 or so years now but would LOVE to be able to use something else if it would work with my Tuner and Cable card setup. But there is NOT.

    3. Re:and you better stop using Kodi Pirate feeds too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I use Kodi (I still call it XBMC) to play media I have licensed. It's by far the best media player out there. I do not have any idea what you're talking about torrents and shit. I assume you're talking about plugins/addons or whatever. You don't have to run that stuff. It's good solid software and has nothing to do with piracy unless you make it that way.

    4. Re:and you better stop using Kodi Pirate feeds too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a moron.
      bit-torrent was invented because all the cool tv shows aired on sunday evening when kids had to move back to boarding school, enabling to watch all the missed "deep space 9", "enterprise", "babylon 5" and "seaquest" episodes 20 years later ...

    5. Re:and you better stop using Kodi Pirate feeds too by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Good advice, but some of us just don't give a shit what's on television. The last thing I watched (I mean really watched) that actually interested me was Breaking Bad.

      If you're that into consuming TV shows and movies, great, more power to ya, but for me it has almost no appeal anymore.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  9. Great way to celebrate July 4th by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Send a crooked (redundant ?) lawyer to jail.

    1. Re:Great way to celebrate July 4th by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Send a crooked (redundant ?) lawyer to jail.

      Yes, all lawyers but two are redundant. You only need two to "shoot all the lawyers".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. WTF by quonsar · · Score: 1

    define "copyright troll". a guy in a boat fishing for juicy copyrights?

    --

    Sacred cows make the best burgers.

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once upon a time, a lawyer came up with a wonderful idea. What if they got ahold of the copyright of some bad porn movie, then uploaded it somewhere, and then badgered ISPs for the logs of anyone who downloaded it. Then they could send scary sounding letters to the (supposed) copyright violators, threatening ENORMOUS penalties ($150k+ statutory for copyright violation, perhaps more). Alternatively, the accused could pay a simple settlement of only a few thousand to resolve the matter rather than going to court where (of course) the name of the accused and the pornographic movie they downloaded would be a matter of public record.

      I think "copyright troll" is too mild. These guys are a bunch of extortionists. In fact, that's exactly what one of the judges who caught on to the scheme called the money. "Extortion payments".

      Plenty of detail on the wikipedia page.

    2. Re:WTF by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      A company on the Internet fishing for juicy copyright lawsuits.

      --
      Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
    3. Re:WTF by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      define "copyright troll". a guy in a boat fishing for juicy copyrights?

      you must be new

      ...and not just "here"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. jail time must be had by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if you want to discourage this behavior, it seems that the guys at Prenda Law need some jail time. Failure to do this makes all this merely a business expense.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: jail time must be had by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think the Feds are looking for sufficient evidence to convict?

  12. it's nonsense by kimvette · · Score: 1

    Stupid.

    If you offer your copyrighted work for download for free what possible complaint can you have against anyone who takes you up on that offer unless they redistribute via other methods or sites? Peer-peer nature of torrents excluded of course, since they knowingly uploaded knowing full well that peer-peer partial transfers would occur from each torrent downloader...

    They should lose all exclusive right and the holdings of the copyright to any of the content they willfully made available for download.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:it's nonsense by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I don't think Prenda Law holds any copyrights. The interesting question is whether they had permission to publish the things they published.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:it's nonsense by Andy_R · · Score: 2

      If the FBI 'joins the dots' by connecting Pirate Bay uploader 'sharkmp4' and porn producer Ingenuity13 to Prenda (which seems pretty likely), then Prenda's whole business model looks very different.

      They claim to be acting on behalf of Ingenuity13 to defend Ingenuity13 against copyright infringement started by sharkmp4... which would be legal, if they were not taking a blunderbuss approach to sending out accusations to people who are innocent but would rather pay up than go to court.

      If however, Prenda, Ingenuity13 and sharkmp4 are one entity, they actually set just up a honeypot on their own behalf, and all the downloads were actually legal (because the copyright holder chose to share the files), all the accusations were false (and actionable), every penny of revenue they made was fraud, and they have been lying to more courts than most other corrupt or racketeering organisations even get to see the inside of. This is so illegal on so many levels that they'll pretty much end up not being sentenced by a court to life imprisonment, but simply dying of old age standing in the dock while the list of charges is still being read out.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:it's nonsense by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you offer your copyrighted work for download for free what possible complaint can you have against anyone who takes you up on that offer unless they redistribute via other methods or sites? Peer-peer nature of torrents excluded of course, since they knowingly uploaded knowing full well that peer-peer partial transfers would occur from each torrent downloader...

      Actually... With theft, there is an interesting situation:In US law, if someone sells stuff cheaply (for example a tiny company dissolving), and you think wrongly the goods on offer are stolen goods, and you buy them under the assumption that the are cheap because they are stolen goods, you are committing a crime (attempt to buy stolen goods). However, I don't think that attempted copyright infringement is a crime, and in a civil case there would be no damage done.

  13. Why would TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bother, or even want, to cooperate with the very folks who wanted to bury them for so many years ?

    1. Re: Why would TPB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's evidence to convict Prenda. Prenda has been one of the most harmful groups towards TPB end users in the USA.

  14. Moving by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    To protect Pirate Bay and file sharing, or help crush patent trolls.

    I imagine for those guys it's like Peter Griffin trying to decide between Ernest Goes Out and Ernest Stays In.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  15. interesting case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an interesting act from the FBI.

    First, and foremost, they don't have jurisdiction in Sweden (nor anywhere outside the USA), but here I have to side with the FBI for doing the right thing; or at least trying to; patent trolls are cancer for any major US corporation; worse, they just cost a fortune to the taxpayers because they just slow down the entire judicial process.

    Thank you FBI.

  16. Someone legit instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is like Penguin wanting to bring Joker to justice.
    Sure, we could all do with a little bit more of Joker being off the streets, but we both know it's just one criminal trying to look good publicly, and you have to worry there's some angle you haven't yet noticed.

    Could we have a not-entirely-corrupt organization demand the logs and send those assholes to the great rapé-farm of cells and barbed-wires upstate, instead of the FBI? Just so that it doesn't go all horribly horribly wrong?

    Like, I dunno, what do we even have left?

    NASA?

  17. New ecomony by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    1. Create stuff no one wants to buy.
    2. Upload to TPB.
    3. Sue downloaders
    4. PROFIT!

  18. TPB legal answers by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

    Any particular reason why they should get different answers than their usual ones? (sorry, can't find the official responses published on their website atm, but they used to have a full list of snarky answers like these).

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:TPB legal answers by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 1

      Found them!

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

  19. This is hilarious! by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    So someone wants to search Pirate Bay logs. Slashdotters up in arms!
    The search requests come from the FBI! Slashdotters even more up in arms!
    And the FBI is looking for criminal evidence against Prenda! All of Slashdot wants to applaud!

    Surely, if the FBI finds evidence that Prenda uploaded copyrighted files to the Pirate Bay, and then sued others for this, and throws the Prenda guys into jail for that, we can only be happy.

  20. Stupid stupid crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the 1960's, the favorite meme of the US government in trying to be overlords of something was drugs. The war on drugs cost billions, was 'seen to be doing something', really did nothing except incarcerate a lot of people and employ a lot of cops, and play to a mostly republican agenda. Post 2000 and the "war on drugs" is partially replaced with "war on infringement" except the call it piracy. Now copyright started as the right to copy, but its morphed into the right to never copy. Extension limits have gone out to infinity. Big media are writing legislation, and they have politicians on the company payroll. I wouldn't even be surprised if the names of elected public officials show up as line items on corporate balance sheets and financial statements. And with this article, we see the crap show. The thing is: music you might listen to more than once, but films you usually only ever want to see once. Streaming is so much better than hard media. At some point, someone will devise a way of sharing without the public internet (sneaker net is one way, but we can do better than that), and any network that isn't centrally controlled and has no records of where things come from will allow mass distribution without oversight by the government or big media. The day it becomes available, big media will reap what it has sewn with the shit storm it keeps spreading all over its customers. The day is coming.

  21. FBI concerned about copywrite trolls? ?? ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is it I don't believe the narrow focus of their expressed interest?