Slashdot Mirror


Pirate Bay Is Infringing Copyright, European Court of Justice Rules (theguardian.com)

The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay is directly infringing copyright, in a move that could lead to ISPs and governments blocking access to other torrent sites across Europe. From a report: The ruling comes after a seven-year legal battle, which has seen the site, founded in Sweden in 2003, blocked and seized, its offices raided, and its three founders fined and jailed. At the heart of the case is the Pirate Bay's argument that, unlike the previous generation piracy sites like Napster, it doesn't host infringing files, nor link to them. Instead, it hosts "trackers," files which tell users of individual BitTorrent apps which other BitTorrent users to link to in order to download large files -- in the Pirate Bay's case, usually, but not exclusively, copyrighted material.

108 comments

  1. Land of the free, home of the Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah right!

    1. Re:Land of the free, home of the Brave by dugancent · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong continent.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    2. Re:Land of the free, home of the Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love it or leave it!

    3. Re:Land of the free, home of the Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European court, jackass.

      I know reading the summary is hard, but at least read the title?

    4. Re:Land of the free, home of the Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God Bless America!

  2. Reasoning by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is the stated reasoning of the court:

    the ECJ [argued] that the Pirate Bay goes further than a protected site should, by offering not just a search feature, but also categorising files, deleting faulty trackers, and filtering out some types of content. That means, in the court’s eyes: “The operators of the platform play an essential role in making those works available.”

    I still think the primary mistake was naming themselves "The Pirate Bay." They should have followed the practice that politicians use in naming bills. Call it the "Noble Defenders of Copyright Bay" or something.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Reasoning by klingens · · Score: 2

      So if they would have automated all this (deleted torrents without tracker) or let it be purely crowdsourced by the users (tagging), etc. In short, made a site which doesn't do manual intervention by admins, then it would be legal?
      Or would the court find another convoluted reasoning to end up with a judgment they want?

    2. Re:Reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The copyright owners share most of the blame for the stuff being available.

    3. Re:Reasoning by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or would the court find another convoluted reasoning to end up with a judgment they want?

      The question is "what legal reasoning can we proffer that will result in more revenue for the media corporations?". The specific judgements will depend on the circumstances.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Reasoning by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      That sounds like an easy fix.

    5. Re:Reasoning by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or would the court find another convoluted reasoning to end up with a judgment they want?

      I don't have deep understanding of the court process of the ECJ, but it was clearly a judgement call, with heavy discretionary power given to the court. Here's another quote:

      “The Pirate Bay’s own statements on the matter were also held against it, the court said: “The same operators expressly display, on blogs and forums accessible on that platform, their intention of making protected works available to users, and encourage the latter to make copies of those works.”

      So their goal was to convince the court that the primary purpose of the website wasn't piracy. Starting with the name "The Pirate Bay" doesn't help, although it's a great name.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Reasoning by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      The Patriot Bay

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Reasoning by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think they even care about being blocked. It's just another pointless technical road block that barely slows anyone down. In fact they seem to enjoy wasting ISPs' and rights holders' money by changing IP address or domain name frequently.

      All this ruling will do is induce companies to waste money trying to get the site blocked, having exactly 0% effect on copyright infringement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Reasoning by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't live in the EU, so I have no idea what this "blocking" entails. Is it easy to get around? Are they just blocking the domain name or something?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Reasoning by slaker · · Score: 1

      The normal actions are dropping DNS entries and/or eliminating direct links from search results. Neither of those things is any more than a speed bump for someone who wants to use the site or its services.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    10. Re:Reasoning by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Each ISP does it differently. Some just block via DNS, some try to do DPI because they already have the infrastructure for spying on their customers, but all of it fails against VPNs, TOR and simple proxies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Reasoning by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's also important to note that most courts don't actually function like they do in the movies. They consider things like intent, as opposed to technicalities.

      It kinda sucks but, well, here we are. I'm not exactly sure what they think they're going to accomplish. TPB can go offline forever, and people are still gonna pirate stuff. I'm pretty sure it's effectively impossible to prevent it. 'Snot like we weren't pirating stuff before the advent of the WWW.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Reasoning by MrLint · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I'd like to take this 'reasoning' even further.

      If you are an ISP that decides to get brain damage and not act like a common carrier.... and the ISP decides to "categorize downloads, block sites, and filter out certain types of content" for the purposes of protecting the copyright of a 3rd party (or if you are in the UK because your govt just hates pron), do you suddenly become 'directly infringing' if you aren't 100% accurate?

      It would appear that the argument being made is that if you do anything to the data, or even the meta data you are on the hook for its use by a 3rd party.

    13. Re:Reasoning by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      Common carrier is a US concept, not a European concept.

      That said, this wasn't a question of whether you are 100% accurate or not in your filtering. It's a question of what the intentions were. The court here found that the Pirate Bay was telling people to come get protected works. TPB did not manage to make a convincing argument otherwise.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Reasoning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were always going to get beaten by an accusation of facilitation, purely because the intent is clearly there. It was just a matter of time, not that it will stop what's going on from continuing to do so.

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

      If anything it may push some of this stuff to the darknet. We can finally bring back pirate boards

    16. Re:Reasoning by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The great thing about the Pirate Bay is that it introduced me to a world of plenty... and I found out that I did not need or want that plenty. The spell has been broken. I have better things to spend my time and money on now.

      Perhaps THAT is what all the "content creators" are afraid of?

      Linux works fine for me. I have games and creativity software (C compilers, image creation tools, reverse engineering tools, etc). Linux also helps me in my day to day work of network/systems security.

      So explain to me again why I need anything at all from the Pirate Bay? This whole kerfuffle is just absurd. Meh.

      Can someone get rid of SystemD please? It destroyed the EFI partition again and it took me hours to get my installation usable. Again. :(

      (never had a problem with SystemD in my virtual machines but something has to run on the hardware itself and I fail to see why it should not be Linux itself. Am I expected to install Windows to host my Linux systems?!)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    17. Re:Reasoning by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Can someone get rid of SystemD please? It destroyed the EFI partition

      Seriously? Are you sure it wasn't just the installer? :/

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Reasoning by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Can someone get rid of SystemD please? It destroyed the EFI partition

      Seriously? Are you sure it wasn't just the installer? :/

      Definitely not the installer. I installed the latest version of Parrot OS a month or so ago but this is my main Mint (Mate) 17.3 installation. This is the second time within the past 6 months it has done this. The last time it happened, I reinstalled cleanly to ensure it wasn't me mucking about that caused SystemD to fuck with my EFI partition. This time, I tried and managed to repair it. Still not certain *why* it happened. Something to do with audio (mouse passed over an audio file, not unusual, but when I moved the mouse off, the "preview" would not stop.) I eventually just used the "start menu" to reboot the computer. When it came back up, it did not come back up.

      I have yet to see a distro worth its weight in salt that does not have SystemD infecting it at some level so I may be forced to create my own distro. *sigh*

      In theory, this could have happened with Windows 10 as well, but I stopped running any sort of Windows shortly after I tried Windows 10 on its initial release. Now, the only dual booting I do is from one *nix to another.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    19. Re:Reasoning by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see a distro worth its weight in salt that does not have SystemD infecting it at some level so I may be forced to create my own distro. *sigh*

      Slackware.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want free/subsidized entertainment, check your library and state funded TV. Otherwise you must pay for it, or it won't get made at all.

    1. Re:Economic Victory by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ridiculous reasoning. Cavemen painted on the walls without having a DMCA in place, copyright protection, or a mega-corporation offering them exclusive perpetual distribution rights contracts.

      Culture will happen regardless of whatever nonsense motivations you put behind it. An artist doesn't stop being an artist because people that weren't going to buy the art anyway, in fact, don't buy their art.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re: Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are against a free market economy?

    3. Re:Economic Victory by Jzanu · · Score: 2

      Sure.... How do you find it, who pays for channel distribution (broadcast or hosting for electronic media), who pays for storage and display (physical media)? How does the artist eat, pay rent, afford school fees for their kids, etc.? Money is required to function in the economy, and artists are not exempted from that requirement.

    4. Re:Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we could just cut the middlemen's hearts out and get our content straight from the artists.
      There is absolutely no reason in this day that any artist needs the RIAA/MPAA or their global equivelents.
      Totally unnecessary, totally stealing any and all money that should rightfully go to the artists.
      If someone goes under a label, then the label can have 10% after are reasonable fees and costs are removed, where the artist gets 90%.
      Starve the thieves, pay the artists.

      Until that is happening, it's big business being big business.
      You think the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIA'S members give a damn about a single artist, let alone all of the artists?
      The only thing they care about is profit, pure and simple. Greed above all else.
      If they had their way, the Artists would be slaves living on bread and water and 100% rather than the paltry 99.9% of all sales would go into the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIA's member's wallets.

    5. Re:Economic Victory by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of ways to do it like doing work on a commission basis. I'm a programmer and I don't expect people to continue paying me for my services after I've been dead for 80 years.

    6. Re:Economic Victory by klingens · · Score: 2

      Sure.... How do you find it, who pays for channel distribution (broadcast or hosting for electronic media)

      broadcast is actually free: so called "free TV". In fact it even makes much more money via ads than it costs to distribute this way: those freeTV channels pay money for the right to distribute it and earn a profit themselves on top of that.
      Infringing Internet distribution is paid by the infringers: they store it on their own media and use their own bandiwith to distribute. So no money needed either there.

      , who pays for storage and display (physical media)?

      Same. See above: the copyright infringers do that themselves and are happy about it.

      How does the artist eat, pay rent, afford school fees for their kids, etc.? Money is required to function in the economy, and artists are not exempted from that requirement.

      Question: how did the painting caveman eat? How did Shakespeare eat? Both created lots of art before any form of copyright. I think Shakespeare didn't have kids, instead he had a whole acting troupe to feed. No school fees but feeding them all might be worse than schooling the statistical 2,1 kids we have today. Especially when school education is free in all reasonable countries.

    7. Re:Economic Victory by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Culture will happen regardless of whatever nonsense motivations you put behind it.

      We were in a weird place for the past 20 years, where it wasn't clear how the artist could shed the corporate distribution, yet still make money - how to solve the logistical problem of payment, really. But now the evidence is mounting that Patreon and the like will really work for artists.

      But that won't work for billion-dollar film budgets. Movies in particular remain a sticking point. It's not clear that crowdfunding can work for those. However, I'm very hopeful for a surge of indie material once "good enough" 3D animation gets cheap enough. I think crowdfunding will work fine to get competent voice actors on a project.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re: Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny.

    9. Re:Economic Victory by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      Bread AND water?! Don't be so fast to bite the hand that feeds.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    10. Re:Economic Victory by Tom · · Score: 3, Informative

      But that won't work for billion-dollar film budgets. Movies in particular remain a sticking point.

      Copyright infringement is a problem, sure. However, even with all the torrent sites, movie budgets have been constantly increasing, and profits are great (if you ignore the Hollywood account that makes the most successful movies lose money on paper).

      Hollywood is doing great. The focus on the AAA movies is completely misguided. We should turn our eyes to the smaller movies, the indie movies and such and check what the result there is. Hollywood blockbusters, like the five or six times before that they cried and at least one time swore under oath that something needs to be done or they're out of business, Hollywood blockbusters are doing just fine.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this argument falls flat when you consider a country like Japan and its anime products.

      They don't believe that the market is 'worth it' even though their movies are money makers overseas and many 'pirate' sites as well as fan subs are available.

      I want to watch the product, but the idiots that run the show in Japan are, well, to stupid to see anything viable outside of the great nippon shores.

      So it gets pirated. They will not change their minds.. so why grant them copywriter protections when they fail to make it available under the protection of copyright??

    12. Re:Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shakespeare was several people, all of whom had major benefactors.

    13. Re:Economic Victory by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Otherwise you must pay for it, or it won't get made at all.

      So if we all download Disney crap enough, the place will finally shut down and cease to exist? Can Sony be chained to Disney before it walks the plank?

      Yarr.

    14. Re:Economic Victory by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      How do you find it, who pays for channel distribution (broadcast or hosting for electronic media), who pays for storage and display (physical media)?

      Torrents obviously pay for channel distribution. We find it on Pirate Bay.

      Don't be so naive.

    15. Re: Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your logic fails in the beginning for being quite selective ADs generate revenue, the VALUE of that time is based on viewer share. so as content is created and aired it will churn revenue through the tradiinal broadcast market or pay tv...once it becomes free 2 p2p the ad value is diminished. as viewers transition to p2p the content generators are not in the revenue stream, as someone rips content and distributes over torrent the producers dont gain royalty from the number of seeds and leechers.

      of course commercials are sewn between but rips filter thosee out. a relase to disc may get ripped so one purchase may enable 100x views without feeding royalties back from new views.

      i think the best method to capitalize on viewers, regardless of media, is in show ads, where the producers may license coke or pepsi the characters let out a refreshing ahhhh, but that would be annoying.

      all your other points similarly fail, user storage for other non paying isers doesnt leap feed back revenue to producers. i am an unabashed leech, id dont even pay for free tv(reception sucks withoit cable). i do torrent and netflix.

    16. Re: Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does TPB pay the producers who paid to generate the content?

    17. Re:Economic Victory by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      I'm a programmer and I don't expect people to continue paying me for my services after I've been dead for 80 years.

      Apparently you are doing it wrong.

    18. Re:Economic Victory by Xest · · Score: 1

      I think that's the real problem though, the idea the movies even need multi-million dollar budgets.

      Most of those budgets are only so large because of the absurd artificially inflated actors wages. Contrary to popular belief music and acting talent is quite common, what's not is the amount of actors and musicians that get a brand built around them by a large corporation and turned into a billion dollar product of which they get a fraction of the cut.

      In almost every bar across the world you get a few indie bands a week playing, a proportion of which are just as good as the big corporate brands. The Susan Boyles of the world are two a penny, she was just a run of the mill church singer of which there are thousands in the UK alone.

      I had the misfortune of watching War Machine the other day, where Brad Pitt basically spends 2 hours making a really stupid face whilst pretending that's classed as acting. Quite why you would pay anyone that inept many millions of pounds to do such a shoddy job, when you could get a better actor from your local amateur dramatics society I've no fucking idea.

      So the real barrier isn't currently technological, it's to do with the concentration of wealth in the industry caused by music and movie cartels fixing prices, and artificially inflating salaries of what is otherwise be common talent. The cost of movie making will come down when unions and cartels are forced stop artificially inflating salaries of a select few through the inevitable march of market forces.

      You only have to look at what's happened with the newest Star Wars films- they've just picked up a bunch of fresh out of drama school nobodies and proven that they're just as capable as any of the big name multi-million dollar salary actors. The films have been just as successful, but they didn't need any expensive unionised big name Hollywood actors - for many, having fresh faces added to the film, because the problem with having the big names is that they all typically have fairly fixed styles that have been defined and that they stick to as part of their corporate branding, and that style can distract and hence detract from the film itself. The big name actors they did have in the newest Star Wars films were ironically those who were typecast as Star Wars actors because they were themselves picked up as nobodies for the original trilogy back in the 70s. If you'd put someone like Brad Pitt into any of these films he would've absolutely wrecked them because there's no place in films like that for the dunce jock past-it ex-toyboy image.

      The biggest barrier remaining is actually organising a film - there need to be better sites for finding a crew, for finding talent for building sets, for competent producers to find what they need and get the necessary people involved, and to find musicians and people capable of doing special effects. If someone builds a site for this, then there's no reason Hollywood quality films couldn't be done on a fraction of the budget by people working on the projects out of passion for the idea rather than a need to drive profits for shareholders by creating human brands, rather than good films. This isn't massively different to the age old difficulty in putting together a good mod team for a video game mod - I remember back in the 90s it was a nightmare finding people good at 3D modelling and animation for a mod - the barrier to making a good mod was never money, it was about connecting the right people to form great teams.

    19. Re:Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you but Star Wars is a bad example. People are coming to see Star Wars, not big name actors (well of course fans want to see the old guys return). Big name actors pull in crowds, so you can equally well blame consumers for not voting with their money by not just going to see these mindless Hollywood movies with billion dollar budgets and rubbish recycled ideas padded out with CGI and explosions. But thats not going to happen. Ergo, "crowd pulling" big name actors are not going away either. While they keep earning, itll keep happening.

    20. Re:Economic Victory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you have ANY CLUE whatsoever about what it takes to make a Hollywood film. Disney didn't "pick up a bunch of fresh out of drama school nobodies" for Star Wars VII, all the stars had at least a few years experience and were most likely the CREAM OF THE CROP, when it came to people to act in that film.

      It might be easy to throw together an Indie film with no-name nobodies, but try making it good and get people to watch? Good luck.

  4. Killing of the messenger by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is now a precedent.

    If you have *instructions* in your possession to lead you to copyright infringement, you are guilty of infringement.

    Do we have other examples?

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    1. Re:Killing of the messenger by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Have a point.
      If The Pirate Bay is a curated site where the content is actively curated, then any illegal content is clearly their fault.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:Killing of the messenger by cunina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Total amount of illegal content hosted by TPB: 0 bytes.

    3. Re:Killing of the messenger by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      And this is my point.

      What's next:
      Here's how I could high-jack your website.. Now I'm guilty of that.

      Here is how I could hurt/kill you .. Now I'm guilty of that (but you still live.)

      It's close to thought crime.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:Killing of the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is my point.

      What's next:
      Here's how I could high-jack your website.. Now I'm guilty of that.

      Here is how I could hurt/kill you .. Now I'm guilty of that (but you still live.)

      It's close to thought crime.

      None of that is covered by this precedent.

    5. Re:Killing of the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each time a police department makes a list of infringing sites, they should probably arrest themselves now.

    6. Re:Killing of the messenger by ljw1004 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is now a precedent.

      If you have *instructions* in your possession to lead you to copyright infringement, you are guilty of infringement.

      Do we have other examples?

      That's a wildly incorrect interpretation of the ruling. Read the judgment: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/d...

      1. European law says that an author has a "right of communication to the public".
      2. This case was precisely about the definition of "communication to the public".
      3. It has to involve an "act of communication" and a "public".
      4. An "act of communication" (according to prior case law) includes just offering links to your users. However it specifically doesn't include (according to statute) situations when you merely provide facilities that let users communicate between each other.
      5. The operators of the Pirate Bay did provide links, and they did a lot more than "merely provide facilities that let users communicate with each other": they also provided a search service, provided a classification service, they themselves checked to ensure that copyright material had been placed in the appropriate category, they themselves deleted non-functioning links, and they actively filter content. Therefore they were making an act of communciation.

      Your example of "instructions in your possession" fail the two tests that were the sole focus of this judgment: they are not an act of communication, and they're available to the public.

    7. Re: Killing of the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are frighteningly short sighted if you don't see how it could in the future.

    8. Re:Killing of the messenger by idji · · Score: 2

      No, they are not just a messenger - A messenger does not look at the message, they pass it on unknowing of content.
      Piratebay is categorizing, filtering, promoting and checking links, which means they know exactly what they are passing on.

    9. Re:Killing of the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "linking to infringing content is in and of itself a crime" did you not get?????? The "linking" part, or the "crime" part? You are hopeless you worthless doubleplus ungood LINKER!!!! /sarcasm

      You act as if we needed precedent to begin with. The rule is simple: If you learn something, anything, there is a fee to be paid to the proper authorities.

      This is just more BS that we'll all happily accept because we think we are going to be the ones to abuse it at some point. Nevermind that's an unobtainable goal due to the incumbents rigging it so you'll never succeed, and the fact that if everyone did it we'd need a new global resource management system. (All of those IOUs become worthless if everyone is entitled to them.) But silly little things like logic or common sense never stops greed.

    10. Re: Killing of the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so of i stand on a corner with a box that has addresses under panels and take a nickel for every time some one lifts a tab labelled hooker 1, 2 , 3...then the guy comes bavk to me and says, those gorls were ugly or ripped me off and i scratch out that address and another giy comes to me and say, i found some great weed at this place so i write it in...does that make me complicot in the crime?

    11. Re:Killing of the messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is under the "new" notion of "contributory infringement". its basically aiding and abetting, tied directly to copyright infringement. they've converted a civil code violation, into a criminal code violation.

      fuck, the legal system.

    12. Re:Killing of the messenger by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If those instructions are in a computer readable format, pretty much any compressed file of an infringing work pretty much fits the precedent.

  5. Repercussions by Krakadoom · · Score: 0

    So, uhm. Why wouldn't that make google etc. equally illegal? You can find magnet links very easily there to just about anything you could want.

    1. Re:Repercussions by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't profit exclusively from it, and doesn't curate those links based on their internal activity. They do face anti-competitive activity charges though.

    2. Re:Repercussions by Falos · · Score: 1

      There are two envelopes on your desk. They are labeled A and B. Each contains a website.

      Citizens have intentionally used A to commit infringement.
      Citizens have intentionally used B to commit far more infringement.
      Both profit from it.

      Guess which one is youtube.

    3. Re:Repercussions by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Truthful answer: Google has money, and can be leveraged by media whores to make them more money.

    4. Re:Repercussions by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      They've faced copyright lawsuits over similar topics. Although it was in the US, not in Europe. Quote:

      "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement . . . and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it. . . ."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Repercussions by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Google doesn't profit exclusively from it, and doesn't curate those links based on their internal activity"

      You must never scroll to the bottom of a Google Search, where they say they clearly omit results based upon DMCA complaints.

      And if you click the link to show those omitted results, you still get ads on that results page, so yes, they do directly profit from it (it doesn't have to be exclusively.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Repercussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They do face anti-competitive activity charges though."

      That's just retarded.

      Google doesn't control it's place in the ad and search industry, it can't. No entity can control that themselves.

      It's the global population that *CHOOSES* to use Google's services that put them where they are.

      Fuck all the petty whining babies that can't figure out how to get users to use their services instead.
      If you can't compete, you can't compete.

    7. Re:Repercussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one will take down links to copyrighted material if the owner asks them to?

    8. Re:Repercussions by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      "Google doesn't profit exclusively from it, and doesn't curate those links based on their internal activity. They do face anti-competitive activity charges though."

      And Google has deeper pockets and would be much harder to successfully sue than the Pirate Bay people.

    9. Re:Repercussions by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Google take active measures to reduce copyright infringement.

      The vast majority of material indexed by Google is not infringing,

      Their business model would be viable without infringement.

      The Pirate Bay spent a lot of time mocking people who made complaints about copyright infringement.

      The vast majority of material indexed by The Pirate Bay is infringing copyright, and this fact is obvious to most people. (Really, major movies from 2016 and 2017 are very unlikely to be given away for free).

      Their business model relies on a high level of infringement.

  6. Whack-a-mole by bool2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where is the TOR equivalent of these sites? Surely that's where this game of whack-a-mole is headed - the lawless dark web.

    1. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH yes please, I would like an invite to your private tracker.

      Please send information to honey.potts@FlowersByIrene.com

    2. Re:Whack-a-mole by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      A combination of meta-torrents and blockchain methods would eliminate the need for websites entirely.

      A meta-torrent is a file which indexes other torrents. Such files already exist. For example, you can download all the magnet links for the Pirate Bay up to a given point in time as a 90 MB torrent. Since new torrents come out all the time, a blockchain would be useful here. Blocks are verified by a hash for each block's contents, and is linked to the previous block. In this case, the contents would be new information about new torrents.

      So your local program connects to the torrent network, and starts downloading pieces of the meta-torrent. Once you have it all, you can look up other files to download locally, and add them to your program to get from the network.

    3. Re:Whack-a-mole by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How would the blockchain work here? Would people have to buy ASICs just to compute transactions of the tracker?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they would have to burn a trivial about of digital currency, to create an indestructible record in the global ledger. That record contains the details of the transation ($x BTC offered as transaction fee), plus some additional bytes (magnet://asdffdsa "description, title, etc") that contains the necessary info for choosing and downloading the shared content over BitTorrent. To search for torrents / magnet links, you just search the global ledger, which your digital currency daemon maintains a copy of.

      Or something like that, it's all a work in progress and I'm not following too closely. Check out IPFS for a working example, which was easier than expected to set up locally.

    5. Re:Whack-a-mole by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      A combination of meta-torrents and blockchain methods would eliminate the need for websites entirely.

      A meta-torrent is a file which indexes other torrents. Such files already exist. For example, you can download all the magnet links for the Pirate Bay up to a given point in time as a 90 MB torrent. Since new torrents come out all the time, a blockchain would be useful here. Blocks are verified by a hash for each block's contents, and is linked to the previous block. In this case, the contents would be new information about new torrents.

      I see no reason to involve a blockchain. Mainline DHT already exists. Just make it searchable.

      Meta-torrents would be a good way to speed up searches. As part of the update to the DHT protocol that makes it searchable, include a standard to auto-generate meta-torrents for convenient time periods. A maximum granularity of 1 UTC day seems reasonable. Additional options of a week, a month, a year, a decade, and a century also seem reasonable. I'm tempted to suggest just Julian day ranges, but time of release is such useful metadata that generating meta-torrents tied to the Common Era Gregorian calendar seems necessary, just from a usability perspective. Conveniently, no meta-torrent is required for dates prior to 2 July 2001, the release date of the first client. Somewhat inconveniently, meta-torrents for the current century, decade, year, month, week, and day can not exist because they would change all the time, creating a constant stream of mostly redundant new infohashes. The 21st century meta-torrent will not be available until 1 January 2101.

      As new versions of torrent clients are deployed, the new meta-torrents are generated. Clients then have the option to automatically or manually download them in order to accelerate searches. A well implemented client should have options to define the size of the search cache and/or its beginning date. Judging by Mainline DHT support, deployment of search capability would be extremely rapid and availability of the meta-torrents guaranteed, with swarm sizes nearing the total deployed Bittorrent network, which would make bootstrapping a local search cache exceedingly fast, limited only by local download bandwidth.

      None of this requires mucking about with the mainnet blockchain, and doing so would only hamper it.

    6. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the TOR equivalent of these sites?

      uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion is a start

  7. The european court of justice infringing copyright by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    By the same reasoning, the european court of justice is infringing copyright too, assuming they mentioned a functioning URL to the TPB website.
    Or are URL's on paper somehow legally different from URL's on a website?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  8. It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by sqorbit · · Score: 2

    It is quite clear that The Pirate Bay is violating copyright laws. The debate should be whether or not the laws are correct or not. I take neither side in this battle publicly. I don't think the fact they are providing copyright software is up for debate though.

    --
    Sent from my TARDIS
    1. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      How is it clear? None of the files they hosted were copyrighted AFAIK?

    2. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it clear? None of the files they hosted were copyrighted AFAIK?

      In essence, the question is whether someone standing on the sidewalk saying "Get your illegal drugs over there ----> (points to someone in the alley with the actual drugs)" is guilty of any crime. Some will argue no, some will argue yes, but the ECJ has decided the answer is yes.

    3. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      To me, it's quite clear they aren't infringing copyright. You might call it conspiracy to infringe copyright at best.

    4. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      The Pirate Bay hosted torrent files which basically contain filenames and checksums for file blocks. These don't contain the actual data anywhere.

      Later they switched to Magnet links which basically only have the torrent checksum and the filename.

    5. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The surprise was not that The Pirate Bay was guilty of some crime, but that it was guilty of violating copyright laws, as opposed to guilty of abetting crime or similar.

      In your analogy, the ECJ decided that someone pointing to someone in the alley is guilty of selling drugs.

    6. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tenuous. TPB exists to provide copyrighted works available for free. It facilitates search and enables distribution of content.

      And, yes, so does Google. But - and this is quite a big but - Google takes stuff down. Ignoring the use and misuse of the DCMA this is not something TPB did.

    7. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      This raises an interesting question. Can someone be convicted of abetting a crime if nobody is convicted of the actual crime.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This raises an interesting question. Can someone be convicted of abetting a crime if nobody is convicted of the actual crime.

      In the US up until recent court decisions, there were many people jailed with "resisting arrest" the only charge. Resisting arrest for what? For resisting? Many were beaten by police for things like walking too slow, walking too fast, making eye contact, not making eye contact, sitting/standing/leaning, talking, not talking, smiling, not smiling, frowning, crying, being expressionless, recording video/audio, etc etc.

    9. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite clear that The Pirate Bay is violating copyright laws.

      I'm glad I don't live in your alternate universe. Over here, it's far from clear that TPB is violating any copyrights. It's just a few no-good-niks with deep pockets who have been buying politicians and influencing enforcement officers in distant countries that make it seem so.

      TPB hosts nothing infringing. They provide direct links to nothing infringing. They provide a service not significantly different from a communal bulletin board, helping people with similar interests find one another but not associating with any of them themselves.

      You might as well complain that a community bulletin board is infringing on copyrights because people post notices of when and where the local quilting club or reading group or model railroad club gets together.

    10. Re:It's obvious they are breaking laws.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is pretty close to what the owners got convicted of in Swedish court.

      Let's face it, technicalities doesn't mean anything. Google will go free and Youtube will go free, just like a hardware store selling break in tools will go free. The laws state that copyright infringement is illegal and the courts have drawn the line of what constitutes intent (kind blurry, but still a line) in a way where torrent sites that links to a majority of copy-righted materials on the wrong side, and general purpose forums/hostingsites/search engines on the "right" side.

      Only way to change this now is to go underground or lobby to change that laws (around the world).

  9. Re:The european court of justice infringing copyri by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

    It was the torrent files and the fact that they curated them that got TPB into trouble. Not that they had links to files.

  10. Pi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im happy to finally know the truth about my husband infidelities all these yearsand promised Mich to share his contact to anyone in need of same help after getting all the evidence and proofs on my husband’s phone.contact michackersolution@ gmailcom for any real Hacking job has my experience online with hackers have really been frustrating until i met Mich..within some few hours he was able to reveal all the real truth of his infidelities and lies on fb,whatsap, emails and instagr without touching the phone you can call, text or whatsap him on his contact +16282043675
    tell him Lille referred you jj

  11. NONE of this shit is going to the 'Dark Web' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just based off anecdotal evidence:

    There is less Tor darknet activity than 5 years ago. I2P activity doubled when Vuze implemented I2P support, but has stagnated since. The majority of new users have been Russian with a minor trickle of everybody else. I2P and Tor are both banned in China, and it is very difficult for either to reach nodelist servers to update available nodes in their region.

    While there are a few virtual currency exchanges up, there is very little activity on them compared to clearnet exchanges, even when they are reputable and established (in terms of uptime/time existing, not usage) within the community.

    The same has gone for both legitimate and pirated content: Both have dwindled in availability on 'public' darknet sites. If there are non-public sites, people aren't discussing them on the darknet IRC channels/forums.

    What this means for the future I do not know, but in the short term at least, unless there is a huge recruitment drive, both Tor and I2P seem to be dwindling in hidden service availability and usage.

    1. Re:NONE of this shit is going to the 'Dark Web' by luther349 · · Score: 1

      and nobody has marked this interesting.

  12. If you think 2 steps further, it's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a seemingly bizarre conclusion, i dare to claim that this is good for the average user and for the internet as a whole.

    If sites like TPB gets blocked by ISP's, the average user will be more tempted to use a VPN service. This has, besides the primary goal of accessing blocked content, the effect of educating users into protecting data, bypassing arbitrary blocks put up by ISP's, and eventually protecting more if not all of their internet traffic.

    The ones less pleased will be intelligence agencies, that suddenly watch an increase in encrypted and untraceable network traffic.

    So, in effect it's a win for privacy. And for companies selling VPN services.

  13. the tyranny never stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    long live the pirate bay!

    1. Re:the tyranny never stops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      misread that as tranny

  14. Customers pay for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because there's a fair value offered. But if your customers don't exist and are "pirating" it, then there was no fair value offered and without piracy, you have no customers and will die off anyway.

  15. Re:The european court of justice infringing copyri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tons of infighting URLs are published every day, in the form of DMCA complains. (and they are all guaranteed to not be fake sites, and actually contain the content you are looking for. very helpful.)

  16. Making available theory by exabrial · · Score: 1

    "Making available theory" I guess if you have enough money, you can convince a court of anything. Sad to see noble country of Sweden fall to this.

  17. You can't stop the signal, Mal. by Samurai+Nigel · · Score: 1

    Everything goes somewhere, and digital data go everywhere. (Or something...)

  18. not so clear by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    I don't know everybody's laws, but by providing a dating service which matches people up... they are a facilitator, an accomplice of some sort. They are quite clearly NOT directly or literally violating copyright, they are closer to drug dealers than to drug chemists... more like a advertiser, pusher, informer--- "hey you asked me where to get the good stuff? Well, here is the phone number(ID hash) to some people I think you will want to talk to."

    Prosecute them for being an accomplice... and apply laws designed for that purpose.

  19. Patriot Bay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I still think the primary mistake was naming themselves "The Pirate Bay." They should have followed the practice that politicians use in naming bills. Call it the "Noble Defenders of Copyright Bay" or something.

    Patriot Bay?

    Sounds good. Sounds legit. Evil lurks. Similar to other "Patriot" themed things.

  20. Re:The european court of justice infringing copyri by camperdave · · Score: 1

    The Pirate Bay doesn't have any torrent files on it, do they? I thought they got rid of them.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  21. juarez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    piraterz, warezpupz, millenialz, grabazzez, this is why we can't have nice things.

  22. Use DHT indexers instead...no problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are tons of DHT indexing sites. These do the thankless job of making the info hashes and magnet links for every torrent imaginable available to anyone. The only problem I can think of is that links for totally dead torrents can persist this way.

  23. It is settled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Europe says so, it must be so. Because, Europe.

  24. "trackers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Instead, it hosts "trackers," files which tell users of individual BitTorrent apps"

    Inconceivable!

  25. But it still moves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was downloading stuff offa TPB just last week. It's had a pretty good run seeing as how it's been supposedly killed off a dozen times by now in about as many years.