Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Authorities Raid Largest Torrent Site

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

May 31, 2006, 2:16 PM

The world's largest BitTorrent site, ThePirateBay.org, was raided and shut down by authorities in Sweden early Wednesday. The site's servers were confiscated, along with those used by Swedish pro-piracy political group Piratbyrån.

The Pirate Bay surged to popularity following the shutdown of SuprNova.org and LokiTorrents, both large repositories and search indexes for torrent files. The site has been spared much of the legal crackdown on illicit file sharing over BitTorrent thanks to lax piracy laws in Sweden.

Although The Pirate Bay, like other torrent sites, hosts no copyrighted material itself, it plays a central role in facilitating the searching for and downloading of such content. Its operators have openly mocked and taunted those who threaten it with legal action.

On Wednesday morning, Sweden's Antipiratbyrån anti-piracy organization and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) apparently had enough. The Swedish National Criminal Police served a search warrant to Rix|Port80, a datacenter that houses The Pirate Bay, and hauled away equipment in a number of server racks.

"The police took down all servers in the racks, including the non-commercial site Piratbyrån, the mission of which is to defend the rights of TPB via public debate," reads a notice on ThePirateBay.org site. "The necessity for securing technical evidence for the existance of a web-service which is fully official, the legality of which has been under public debate for years and whose principals are public persons giving regular press interviews, could not be explained."

"The allegation was breach of copy-right law, alternatively assisting breach of copy-right law," Piratbyrån added.

Three Pirate Bay employees were also taken into custody, according to reports coming out of Sweden.

"The Pirate Bay has damaged the legitimate music industry on an international scale and I am very pleased that the Swedish authorities have taken such decisive action against it," IFPI chairman and chief executive John Kennedy said in a statement.

"Pirate Bay has not committed any crime," retorted Piratbyrån founder Rickard Falkvinge. "It is precisely this sort of raid which the Pirate Party wants to stop."

Add a Comment (177 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By slimy

edited Jun 3, 2006 - 8:07 PM

Gotta love their new logo ;)
http://thepiratebay.org/

Score: 0

By jensb

posted Jun 3, 2006 - 5:00 AM

Pirate Bay is back hehe

http://85.17.40.35/

Score: 0

By jekerdud

edited Jun 2, 2006 - 9:57 AM

ugh the authorites should quit complaining...no matter how many places they bust there will always be a torrent site, so they should worry more about pedophiles and drug dealers.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 11:42 AM

Can't win so they should stop fighting?

Yeah, let's apply that same model of thinking elsewhere, shall we?

Salvery.
Sufferage.
Birth of the US (Founding Fathers)

Sorry. Doesn't, and shouldn't, work that way.

Score: 0

By Pegusis2

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 11:44 PM

GOOD.

That's about it.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 5:22 PM

...

"they are ALREADY in the process of moving
their hardware to a new location, in a
different country, and expect to be back in
days"

...

Yeah, back in jail !
...

The Computer Rodent

...

Score: 0

By dzjepp

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 5:39 PM

Hey, the computer rodent should be happy! Because for a limited time, and only for the computer rodent, tbp is offering 'coupons' for a wide variety of their services, redeem today! =p

http://ciole.net/quake3/bay.jpg

Score: 0

By dzjepp

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 5:12 PM

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=1204

Apparently, they are ALREADY in the process of moving their hardware to a new location, in a different country, and expect to be back in days. :p

Score: 0

By halfhuman

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 4:46 AM

What's up! There will be a beginning, someday, when economy become extinct, everything's free, bye bye oikos, bye bye nomos. The Pirate Bay just a model, a pioneer, an attempt towards economy free community, still far from perfect, still hard to believe with common sense, off course. Many things behind them..millions of things.

http://spaces.msn.com/denverdrift/

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 2, 2006 - 3:00 PM

Oh goodie.

Another "Freedom Fighter".

You guys are fun. Protecting the masses from having to earn or actually do anything to deserve the things they want.

There will be a beginning, someday, when economy become extinct,

I hate to break it to ya, but Star Trek is fiction, man. It's fake. I know, I know...you really wanted to marry Deanna Troy, but I'm sure , after years of therapy, you'll get over the shock and live a nice long life in your mom's basement.

Score: 0

By halfhuman

edited Jun 4, 2006 - 12:02 AM

I'd rather be in your mom's basement actually, if she's free too and if she's still good enough though..(sorry, you brought "mom" word first).
What do you know about Star Trek, PC guy? It is fiction, stupid kids know that. But anyway, I commented the first place to put my side on TPB. Star Trek analogy just one reason out of million other things on this earth, because we are all unique on how we think of something. My mind is very free.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 5, 2006 - 9:12 AM

I'd rather be in your mom's basement actually

Your mom kick ya out? Gotta suck to be you man.

What do I know about StarTrek? Not much. Had better things to do. ;)

Score: 0

By xhalfhuman

edited Jun 6, 2006 - 7:08 PM

Good. You better have one. Learn more about respecting other's opinion, and learn not being a jerk. Don't talk too much about something if you don't know much about something. LOL.
My mom did kick me out, is you mom still free and available? I'd like to try her.
(again you started the "mom" word first, and it sounded like teenager arguing).

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 4:54 PM

If I had all the things I require - I would work for free.

In fact I do a lot of free work as it is.

---

Either singers are paid a huge amount, amase millions - and what do they do with it - just how many homes does a person need???
OR
The record label makes a huge amount, hundreds of times their investment.

Actors and actresses being paid $10,000,000+ for a film(!) - when they are only in front of the camera for (maybe) 10 hours over 3 weeks.

---

Why is it that a nurse, doctor, firefighter, teacher ... only gets paid ~$100,000

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 2:40 PM

Typical rationale for piracy if I've ever seen it.

They have enough money anyway/they over-charge for it.

They have money because honest people buy their products or pay to see their movies. They "over-charge" because people are willing to pay what they charge. Simple economics. You don't get to decide what something should cost. The owner of the product or content does.

I'm glad you'll work for free. You're a rare individual. But it does not imply anyone else must, or even that they *should* if they had the resources.

What they make, or what they charge does nothing to excuse piracy.

No offense, but neither does what you, a doctor, or a nurse make.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Jun 3, 2006 - 9:02 AM

I was NOT defending piracy

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:09 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

It's about time they were taken down. It's sites like that that give BitTorrent a bad name. Maybe this will help the standard take off as at least a *mostly* legitimate technology now.

Score: 0

By xhalfhuman

posted Jun 6, 2006 - 7:34 PM

They're up now.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 1:05 PM

"It's about time they were taken down."

why?
you think tracker sites should screen their users for content?
maybe you think the telephone company should screen you phone calls for illegal activity too?
maybe we should shut the phone companies down right now, because we all know there's illegal activites being set up over the phone all the time.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 1:31 PM

you think tracker sites should screen their users for content?

If they want to be able to operate legally, yes. Running a tracker isn't forced on them. Should they *choose* to do so, they should at *least* do ti responsibly and avoid giving the entire technology a bad name.

maybe you think the telephone company should screen you phone calls for illegal activity too?

Joining a tracker is not a necessity, and no anonymity or privacy laws apply. The comparison is absurd.

maybe we should shut the phone companies down right now, because we all know there's illegal activites being set up over the phone all the time.

...and for all we know, you're a crack-dealer. But since we *don't* know, there ain't much we can do about it.

We *do* know TPB linked warez.

Your comparisons are getting pretty bad. Stretching a bit?

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 1:46 PM

Technically speaking, the telephone is not a necessity either. It is a luxury that people lived without for thousands of years. I see people using cell phones and beepers to arrange various things, and I don't see Varizon or Sprint keeping tabs on those.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:02 PM

lmao.

Okay. Can we *try* and keep things in perspective here?

They are *far* more necessary than a torrent tracker, or membership to one.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 3:38 PM

and why exactly is a telephone a necessity?
i'm pretty sure you could live just fine without one

i think you're loosing the perspective
just because something is used for the wrong purposes, doesn't make it in of itself wrong

tracker sites should not be resonsible for its users activities
just as no other company i can think of is responsible for what the buyer does with their product

the local justice is just looking for the easiest way to deal with the problem, without considering the rights of the honest citizens
if none of the people who ran piratebay were sharing copyrighted meterial themselves, they should not be charged with a crime.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 7:31 PM

just because something is used for the wrong purposes, doesn't make it in of itself wrong

Excatly right. BT is a useful technology. To bas sites such as TPB give it such a horrible stigma.

tracker sites should not be resonsible for its users activities

BS. They control the tracker, it resides on their hardware. They don't sell a product, they offer a service and are responsible for it.

the local justice is just looking for the easiest way to deal with the problem, without considering the rights of the honest citizens

Since when did we have a right to offer links to illegal materials? Don't see that listed in the Bill.

if none of the people who ran piratebay were sharing copyrighted meterial themselves, they should not be charged with a crime.

That's a cop-out and you know it, whether you care to admit it or not. They provide quick and easy access to copyrighted material, admit it, flaunt it, and do nothing to try and legitimize ther "service".

If they truely wanted to offer a legitimate service, there are *plenty* of ways to limit what can and cannot be posted to your tracker. I have run a few, I would know.

Score: 0

By halfhuman

posted Jun 4, 2006 - 12:19 AM

I believe you already enlisted yourself in Cyber Crime Task Force or something, you sound smart. Too bad TBP isn't the only one out there, it might be the biggest, but still many out there. How are we going to shut them all?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 5, 2006 - 9:06 AM

Why do we need to?

So long as there are bigger one's out there that are legit, the little ones that aren't don't matter at all.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 3:49 PM

would you like another analogy?

cab companies
not exactly a necissary service
but we know for a fact that drug dealers, murderers and rapists use them quite often to retain their anonimity
should they screen all their costomers about their identity and their business of the day, just to make sure they're not harboring a criminal
or maybe we should charge the cab driver for accesorizing if found to have taken the criminal to the place of crime

seems like a far fetched example, but they are both services, provided by everyday people, who aren't doing anything illegal themselves

just think you should broaden your perspective a little.
i still don't think piratebay did anything criminal (as long as they didn't archive any copyrighted meterial), they just provided a very LEGAL service that gets abused by criminals

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 7:34 PM

but we know for a fact that drug dealers, murderers and rapists use them quite often to retain their anonimity

Is 90% of their traffic these rapists, drug- dealers and murderers?

No?

You are deluding yourself. Ones' just a *tad* more far-fetched than the other, eh?

i still don't think piratebay did anything criminal (as long as they didn't archive any copyrighted meterial), they just provided a very LEGAL service that gets abused by criminals

The primary use of it was to further the violations of copyright. That is 100% controllable and they chose not to do so.

just think you should broaden your perspective a little.

My perspective is just fine, however, it's my logic and common sense that play the biggest role in my feelings regarding TPB.

Score: 0

By Dmdfreak

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 7:16 PM

Guns are a good example. A person goes into Wal-Mart, buys a pistol, waits the 3 days or whatever the time limit is these days. Goes home and shoots his wife. Does that make Wal-Mart guilty of helping him with the murder since they sold him the gun?

Or what about the provider that sold TPB the banwidth? Are they guilty since it was going through their lines? Or maybe the company that sells the banwidth to the provider? Or Dell for selling them the servers? Or I know, Microsoft for selling them the server program that's installed on the servers! It's their fault! It's always Microsofts fault!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 7:36 PM

Guns are a good example.

Uh.. No, they're not.

A person goes into Wal-Mart, buys a pistol, waits the 3 days or whatever the time limit is these days. Goes home and shoots his wife. Does that make Wal-Mart guilty of helping him with the murder since they sold him the gun?

What percentage of folks go to wal-mart to buy a gun and kill someone?

What percentage of folks go to TPB to download copyrighted material?

BIG difference.

Or what about the provider that sold TPB the banwidth? Are they guilty since it was going through their lines? Or maybe the company that sells the banwidth to the provider? Or Dell for selling them the servers? Or I know, Microsoft for selling them the server program that's installed on the servers! It's their fault! It's always Microsofts fault!

Same deal, repeated over and over. 90% of the ISPs traffic is very likely legit, same with the bandwidth provider, Dell, and MS.

When dealing with liability, it rests on eht eones *most* responsible. Care to take a wild guess who that might be?

Jesus, people, please..try and think before posting.

Score: 0

By Dmdfreak

edited Jun 2, 2006 - 11:24 AM

You know, I've seen you post many many times. Do you EVER agree with anyone? LOL

Its not a matter of how much is legit. Are you saying there is some percentage that is acceptable then?

Another example: There are plenty of sites out there they describe how to build a bomb. Does that make them liable if someone uses those directions? NO. The same thing happens on a torrent site. The torrent themselves are NOT illegal. They are directions on "where" to get the legal and illegal files. THATS IT!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 11:49 AM

You know, I've seen you post many many times. Do you EVER agree with anyone? LOL

frequently, but posting "I agree" seems kinda pointless, doesn't it? It's not like we're going for highest post-count here.

Its not a matter of how much is legit. Are you saying there is some percentage that is acceptable then?

How is it *not* a matter of legitimacy? If they can claim, with *any* confidence at all thet they at least *tried* to combat the illegitimate uses of their service, they might have a leg to stand on. But they did not, in fact, they flaunted it.

he torrent themselves are NOT illegal.

I don't know where you got that idea. Linking to warez has *always* been illegal. .torrent files are merely links, just using an alternative network.

There are plenty of sites out there they describe how to build a bomb. Does that make them liable if someone uses those directions? NO.

You are correct. But there is scientific value to such sites, and they are protected by free speech. They do *not* link to copyrighted material. If they did, they would be shut down. It's a no-brainer.

TPB has no redeeming value, freedom of speech does not protect one's right to link to warez.

Score: 0

By Curious_D

edited Jun 7, 2006 - 6:58 PM

Just curious on peoples thoughts on the take down of all the other legit servers when the attempted to stop TPB? close to 300 I was reading. Whatever TPB did surely this was unwarrented.

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:08 PM

Makes me want to run out, register ThePirateBay2.org, and allow downloads straight from my own servers for nothing but open-source software with open licensing, and independent movies that are openly licensed as well. I wonder who will come knocking at my door???...

Score: 0

By GS5

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 2:59 PM

Before CD's and DVD's there wasn't really any focus on piracy. You hear about it but nobody ever gave a damn not even the RIAA and MPAA if they even existed back then. But who decided to go digital??? Oh, I know the same people now complaining about piracy. No one can tell me that they didn't know this would happen. They just wanted to cut cost by going digital and make more money. And believe me it had nothing to do with the quality of the product. So if you ask me I say they're the ones that started it. And then to make it even easier, behold the blank CD's and DVD's. That's like handing out crack pipes to junkies.

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 3:08 PM

I agree 100%

“That's like handing out crack pipes to junkies” LMAO

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:41 PM

You have a point there, they opened pandoras box. If they wanted to make sure people wouldn't copy stuff then they shouldn't have made blank disks that were compatable with home and car stereo and dvd units. They could have made disks that were only made for computers and didn't work on home and car units. I bet they'll do the same thing with Blue Ray and HD-DVD and when people break the encryption they'll cry about it. They must have known if they make the blank media thats compatible with home and car units that people are going to copy. Maybe they just wanted a reason to sue people so they can make more money? Maybe this was all part of their plan? I doubt it, that would be pretty messed up.

Now if I were to make the first CD and DVD player, I would then make blank media that if you copied a CD or DVD it would only work on your computer. Now at this point though people are putting computer in their car and using them as media centers with their TV's but its less of a % of people. Maybe in another 5 years or so people will be using them more often in this manner, but all these years piracy would have been down and the companies would have had time to think of ways to stop or lessen it in those circumstances. You have to stay ahead of who your selling to and now their ahead of the companies who built the technology in some cases.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 11:31 AM

the recording industry didnt make vcr's, they didnt make cd/dvd burners and they didnt make the blank media, or make it compatible with home units, the hardware corperations made them and it was perfectly legal and sensible to do it, just because it is there doesnt mean you have to do something illegal with it. just because someone invented guns doesnt mean you have to go out and kill someone with them. all the recording industry did was adopt something that was already out there. of course prices and their crap agreements are unfair, but does that justify copyright infringement? no, it justifies boycotts and protests and legal action, notice i didnt say stealing or pirating or theft, as it isnt any of those. piracy is a word that was adopted by the riaa cause it sounds worse.

Score: 0

By GS5

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 8:35 AM

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 6:30 AM

A friend of mine said this "P2P networks are like whack-a-mole. Hit one and another will pop up with better security and annonymity."

Those legal threat retorts were funny as all get out too, I should archive.org the site and save those.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:10 PM

Those legal threat retorts were funny as all get out too

lol. Absolutely.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 10:32 AM

Those legal threat retorts were funny as all get out too, I should archive.org the site and save those.

definately.

Score: 0

By darkxiii_ndp

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:26 AM

We can find crack, warez, music etc... by using google, yahoo, msn, *searching* . So better take down them too.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:21 AM

I'm pretty sure that if you're a software developer, and you type in google "mysoftware crack" and it finds a working crack to it, you can give Google a call and get that site un-indexed. Same as if the same developer typed "fullname-of-my-10-year-old-daughter naked pictures" and found them there...

Score: 0

By bigsexy022870

posted May 31, 2006 - 10:24 PM

It's another sad day in the world. Yeah sure what pirate bay did was wrong. But how many of us really cared. We wanted free stuff no matter what. guess i have to find another favorite torrent site.

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted May 31, 2006 - 10:15 PM

This article makes me shake my head in consternation. This whole approach to piracy is backward and contrary to human nature. While I understand that sharing copyrighted material is illegal, I think the RIAA and MPAA are missing something in their response strategy. They assume that people who download pirated material are potential customers who would buy from them if the material wasn't available. This assumption is flawed because a decent percentage of downloaders lack the tangible assets to be converted into a paying customer. Some are kids, college students, or people with low incomes. Another percentage of this population makes it a policy to avoid paying for things. Finally, there are the thrill-seekers who swop files because it's against the rules. Getting the legal system to go after these people will not improve their financial bottom line very much. Rather than focusing on pleasing its existing customer base and recruiting new customers, corporations are spending a lot of their time, press coverage, and money trying to stop file sharing. Meanwhile, their anti-piracy efforts are causing problems for their paying customers, and that's usually bad for business.

If they were smart, they'd see the built in advantages of these populations and use them as part of their marketing efforts. They're so worried about losing a dime that they're overlooking the chance to make a dollar. Microsoft is starting to get the message. Let's see if the RIAA can get their brains in gear. I'm not holding my breath. :(

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 9:12 AM

[quote]They assume that people who download pirated material are potential customers who would buy from them if the material wasn't available ... [/quote]

With a my 2mbit connection ... I COULD(!) download a DVD every ~5 hours ... ~4 a day ... 28 a week ... 1,456 DVDs a year ...

... but at (say) £20 a DVD thats £29,120 a year

Do the MPAA honestly think they are loosing £29,120 a year from me ???

Do they think if I had £29,120 I would spend it on DVDs ???

You must be joking !!!

---

MOST people will wait until it comes out on TV.

In England a TV licence costs ~£120 a year.
Figure on 4 hours TV a day ... 1,424 hours TV a year ... ~£120 / 1,424 = approximatly £0.08 per hour.

---

If the 1,456 DVDs are 1.5 hours long = 2,184 hours.
2,184 hours x £0.08 per hour = £174.72

so forget overpriced DVD - I will watch TV instead.

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted May 31, 2006 - 7:59 PM

Can someone please explain this to me. (and I'm sure someone will). If piracy is such a big problem then why do both music and movie industry have record profits the last couple of years? Shouldn't their profits be going down instead of up???

Score: 0

By plumlipstick

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:07 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the RIAA is running some of these sharing sites in order to generate press coverage and justify raising prices and planting software on their customers' computers. Once that is achieved, they can go back to business as usual, being in complete control of their music from the store to our ears.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 4:10 AM

Better yet; why does a RIAA member company provide use with the hardware and blank discs, so we can make illegal copies of their own CDs and DVDs? Thieves can rip off their competitors too. What's next? Your crooked police chief sells the best weed in town after work? Nobody cares!

Ever notice how 99% of these radio and TV news reports sound like a press release from the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists. Educated idiot reporters never question anything they say...

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 11:36 AM

are you an idiot? the riaa didnt make invent, market or otherwise create the hardware and/or media that can be used for copyright infringment. matter of fact they opposed it with all thier legal might. must i also remind you of how they acted when vcr's and blank vhs tapes came out? they tried to yank them off the market, same thing for cd's.

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:30 AM

Not sure abt music. But for movies, they have a new "theory" for their slight increase in wealth: price hike of movie tickets.

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:01 PM

Good thought, but that contradicts or is *at least* offset by the fact that there has been a declining trend in the raw number of people frequenting movie theaters...

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:27 PM

Yeah, that's because the movies they put out these days are crap. And nobody want to spend $50 to $75 to watch a $hity movie. That's right a date to the movies will set you back almost $100.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted May 31, 2006 - 9:42 PM

Actually, i think they JUST finally starting levelign off or going down by a slight amount. This despite the huge increase int he video game market, which is a direct competitor for movies and music...

Score: 0

By GS5

posted May 31, 2006 - 11:09 PM

Actually they're still doing pretty damn good. Not to long ago I read an article on the this subject. It said that in the last 5 years the the movie and the record companies have seen record profits. This despite producing mediocre to bad movies and music albums. And I would have to agree, it's been quit some time that I've seen a really good movie. So that means that with all this piracy they say is going on, it isn't really affecting their sales.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

edited May 31, 2006 - 6:55 PM

Just as a shop selling a knife is NOT responsible for how that knife is used...

...how can a site that simply INDEX files, be held responsible for what those files are???

It would be like Google being held responsible for the contents of every website in its index.

Or a phone company being held resposible for the actions of every person who has a phone.

Or a government being held responsible for the action of its citizens.

hmmm well you get the idea :-)

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:02 PM

It's a scare tactic to find a way to rip the IPs off of the P2P servers for it's users, and then go after the users for the 'losses' the industries have taken.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:38 PM

A dynamic IP address is like a public phone box.

Even if they do get a list of IP addresses, they also need a list of when exactly those IP addresses where used.

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 4:24 AM

The US Supreme Court used the same kind of warped logic before. They dropped the hammer on P2P services which DON'T host illegal MP-3 files for download. It's NAPSTER's fault because people downloded music from other third parties.

Let's blame the Marlboro man because some idiot ignored WARNING labels on the package, smoked cigarettes for 30+ years and died of lung cancer. A widow in Oregon just got 80 million out of them

On the other hand, the cell phone companies are NOT responsible, for customers, who use their services to commit a crime - including murder!

This only proves that the US Congress is a Parliament of wh0res. Lobbyists pay a fortune to have federal laws written to suit themselves. Never mind that they're inconsistent in the approach to solving a problem...

Score: 0

By nn123654

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 10:50 PM

uhh, yeah it was napsters fault. They actually STORED the mp3s on their servers.

Score: 0

By tomcom2k

edited May 31, 2006 - 6:35 PM

It should not be illegal to run a bittorrent tracker such as thepiratebay.org, think about all of the free and opensource companies out there who want to get their work out there and would otherwise be hit with huge bandwidth bills. Thepiratebay.org was very useful for downloading iso's for linux distros such as SuSE when their FTP servers ground to a halt. Just because they provided access to copyrighted material does not constitute llegal or harmful activity in my opinion. Btw many canadian artists have spoken out in support of this sort of thing check out the news on the front page of isohunt.com

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted May 31, 2006 - 6:59 PM

I agree.

The BitTorrent system is NOT illegal.
The BitTorrent trackers are NOT illegal.

The copying of copyright material without the copyright owners consent ... thats illegal.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 12:18 PM

Agreed.

Although you have to admit, PirateBay was in business for just that. I mean come on, look at their name...

They openly and purposefully encouraged and facilitated piracy. That's what got them burned.

Score: 0

By JoeU

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 3:50 PM

"They openly and purposefully encouraged and facilitated piracy. That's what got them burned. "

But that isn't illegal.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 7:37 PM

No, but doing nothing while 90+ percent of the traffac on their "service" is illegal... IS.

:) Pretty simple stuff, when you think about it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 31, 2006 - 11:53 PM

*sigh*

At least someone gets it.

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:03 PM

Much agreed. It's not the system used, it's the person using it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Score: 0

By spiked

posted May 31, 2006 - 5:59 PM

Ummm...regardless of how you feel about the cost of movies/music/software/etc and the tactics of RIAA/MPAA/BSA/etc. there has never been any ambiguity about blatant piracy being illegal.

And here comes a site which CALLS ITSELF "THE PIRATE BAY"! Can you imagine a crack house with a big neon signs on the roof blinking "CRACK HOUSE"?

They should be locked up for sheer stupidity. Don't even try to argue satirical or facetious usage; these folks were as brazen as it gets.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 31, 2006 - 4:48 PM

Lets not forget, Napster.. they were allowed to continue for a time *IF* they could filter out certain types of content.. well they couldn't satisfy the authorities enough to PROVE they could keep people from attaining illegal software, thus they were shut down.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted May 31, 2006 - 2:59 PM

"Although The Pirate Bay...hosts no copyrighted material itself, it plays a central role in facilitating the searching for and downloading of such content. Its operators have openly mocked and taunted those who threaten it with legal action...

On Wednesday morning, Sweden's Antipiratbyrån anti-piracy organization and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) apparently had enough."

Maybe the next doofus that decides to taunt any regulatory commission or anti-monopoly agency or whatever may think twice before doing it again. This is not RIAA/MPAA people, this is a much more clear-cut issue when it comes to international law.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited May 31, 2006 - 3:22 PM

did you ever go to the site and read the letters?
they were funny. :-)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted May 31, 2006 - 11:52 PM

highly amusing stuff.

I hope they keep those around, even if they go down.

Many of the responses were hillarious.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:19 PM

yup. I went back and read them a couple times when I needed a laugh.

High quality stuff.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:27 PM

when I needed a laugh.

I though that was when you read *my* comments. ;'(

Score: 0

By Noremacam

posted May 31, 2006 - 2:49 PM

I was just thinking yesterday that the pirate bay was so popular it was going to be the next to go down...

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 31, 2006 - 2:58 PM

Yeah, sure you did.. karnac .. sure you did.. you watch too much Oprah.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted May 31, 2006 - 2:57 PM

In that case do us all a favor and stop thinking.

Score: 0

By The Man

posted May 31, 2006 - 3:20 PM

i second that

Score: 0

By GS5

posted May 31, 2006 - 2:48 PM

The police there must have way to much free time on their hands. What ever happend to the war on drugs! Is it over? And who won?

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:44 AM

the war on drugs never existed. come on people, use that grey matter between your ears... lets look at the so called combatants in this war:

[1] the government, who has to follow laws and rules and regulations and must conduct a war in such a way soas not to piss off their constituancy.

[2] the drug lords, who have unlimited funds, dont have to follow any rules and regulations, and who - if they decided to go to war against someone, would do so in a quick and ruthless manner as possible. They would be cunning, they would be fearsome, and most of all, they would be ruthless.

so you tell me.... you have ganghis kahn on one side and a defenseless baby on the other... who would win if there was really a war?> lol

Score: 0

By xprizex

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 8:21 AM

Right on, but the government sure is spending a lot of money on a war that does not exist.
And as for ganghis kahn and the defenseless baby. If that baby had the bird flu he could bring that mother ****er down.:-) LOL

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 8:37 AM

LOL

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 31, 2006 - 2:56 PM

You know everytime someone makes a comment like this, I have to wonder, are they serious?

You think they should just ignore everything else, and JUST go after dangerous criminals, meanwhile back at the ranch, a kids bike stolen ISN'T impportant? Yeah.. cause it isn't YOUR kid.

These comments are totally stupid. Of course the war on drugs, terror, murder, etc.. are important and they continue, but breaking the law is STILL illegal, so until its NOT legal they need to punish the law breakers.

Selling a small amount of crack or marijuana may seem small time, when there are serial murderers on the loose, but that doesn't make it any LESS legal.. you still need to be brought to justice. What you think people should be able to just do whatever they want because its just a "small" infraction? Give me a break!

I think you are distributing illegal software, and you are upset they are breaking up your ring.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:46 AM

so said by a truely law abiding citizen... I bet you never turned without a turn signal, never bnroke the speed limit? never cheated on your taxes? and if an error was made in your favor, you always brought it to the erring party to make sure everything was right? lol get a life

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 10:40 AM

And yet you use all of those wrongs to justify yet another.

Brilliant.

Get a life indeed...

Some of us are actually guided by such things as ethics and morals. Your glaring lack of them does not justify copyright infringement.

I find it amazing how some folks spend their entire lives believing they *deserve* to be able to speed, to cheat on taxes, and to get that extra $10 from a bank teller who will now probably be *fired* for the mistake.

..and let's not forget you also *deserve* all those free downloads, right?

If you had *any* concept of right and worng, any ability to see how your actions affect those around you, any ability to see beyond your 'instant gratification', you'd realize what a joke you are.

I guess it's a good thing you can't. One less suicide victim to clean up after.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:23 PM

...wow.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 1:32 AM

Indeed, I can see why half our police officers are used in speed limit enforcement on our roads - makes perfect sense. Bugger the thieves, rapists and murders of this world: there's no money in catching them. Let's just go hunt vehicles on the freeway doing 103km/h instead of 100km/h, and hand them a nice $125 fine. Hell, it pays wages, right? :P

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:10 PM

Odd, most criminals caught fleeing from the scene of crimes are in vehicles...OH...and over 80% of them are speeding.. Hmmm, kind of clears up the picture, eh?

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted May 31, 2006 - 8:43 PM

I know I usually "rip" on you and you use logical fallacies left and right, but I agree with you on this one. Though I think you meant "so until it's NOT illegal" instead of "so until its NOT legal".

Score: 0

By The Man

edited May 31, 2006 - 3:26 PM

i think he was pointing out the fact that the drug problems in the world far outnumber the piracy problems.
not to mention, the drug problem tends to kill a great number of people. i've yet to hear of anyone dying from copyright infringment.
:-p

Score: 0

By rijp

posted May 31, 2006 - 4:57 PM

Drugs don't kill people either. PEOPLE Kill people!

Drugs involve money, you piss off enough people with money, and you take their money, that tends to get people killed, it doesn't matter if its drugs or not. Piracy can get you killed as well.. Ever try knocking over a street vendor and take his "stolen" CD's?

Yeah, we will be reading about your a** on the news.. man gets shot trying to be good citizen, film at 11.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 1:33 AM

"Guns don't kill people. Kids who play video games kill people." :P

Score: 0

By cousinkix1953

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 4:33 AM

This was literally the case in Oakland California USA. Four punks actually played GTA and went on a murder spree. They drown around at night and killed several peple...

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:15 PM

Laughable at best. Since I'm not sure if you agree with what happened, I won't blast you for it. However, to agree with that sort of ideology is like saying McDonald's made you fat. I've played GTA since it first came out and I'm a very non-violent person. It's all about the choices YOU make. The Nuremberg Trials of WWII established that each person is responsible for their OWN actions...it's funny how a society that has advanced so tremendously in the last 60 years has actually regressed in it's line of thinking to believe that we should blame OTHERS for our actions.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 10:42 AM

I'm *sure* they were upstanding young members of society prior to playing the game, right?

Score: 0

By nightops

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 12:18 PM

OH definitely. They attended church, helped out elderly persons in their neighborhood, created study groups for younger kids, got straight A's in school, and never said a bad thing about anyone..... LOL

Actually, I have no clue what types of people they were, but the odds of you being a role-model citizen one day, and then playing GTA and becoming a serial murderer the next, is about as plausible as John Kerry actually *deserving* all 3 of his Purple Heart awards...LOL

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted May 31, 2006 - 5:29 PM

I agree with mostof what you said but

"Drugs don't kill people either. PEOPLE Kill people!"

I do not agree with. Ever hear of anyone ODing on drugs? Millions of people are killed by drugs every year. So by what you say the person found dead with a needle in their arm someone else killed them? Drug dealers just sell the drugs someone has to want to take them.

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Jun 1, 2006 - 2:50 AM

once again, drugs didnt kill... misuse of them did. some MORON decided to thing that shooting 10 lbs of heroin in their veins wouldnt hurt them or something simular.
if you simply use the arguement "Ever hear of anyone ODing on drugs?" to justify making drugs illegal then lets make cars illegal too because "did you hear that someone died in a vehicuilar accident?" is the same thing

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 5:10 AM

So your saying the person who takes crack or snorts coke is just misusing it? Once you take crack once your addicted and you feel you have to have it and that addiction is what will kill you.

Yes cars can kill but thats because either people don't know how to drive, or they're on something.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Jun 2, 2006 - 11:46 AM

well trying them the first time was their fault and they deserve what they get. therefore people do kill people, not drugs. if they chose not to start then they wouldnt be dead would they? same for drunk drivers, if they didnt drink and drive they wouldnt be dead, or at least less likely to be dead, therefor its their own fault for being a moron.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 10:48 AM

Idiot.

Cars do not impair judgement, alter brain-chemistry, alter your genes, or foster addiction.

The comparison you make is absurd.

Drugs are illegal because they *cause* harm. They aren't the vehicle, they aren't the delivery mechanism for harm, they *are* harmful.

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Jun 1, 2006 - 11:15 AM