Leaked: Police Plan to Raid The Pirate Bay(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Leaked: Police Plan to Raid The Pirate Bay
http://torrentfreak.com/police-plans-to-raid-the-pirate-bay-120309/
13 comments
Law enforcement don't have free hands to decide what laws they enforce. There are a good half dozen layers above them kicking downwards screaming "Shut down TPB", until it ends up in the lap of some poor slob who then has to actually go out and physically perform a pointless raid or lose his job. I'm sure that guy (and even his boss, and probably also his boss's boss) don't want to waste their time and resources with these raids, and would much rather go after real crimes. If you want to fix the problem focus on the political and ministerial layer, not the law enforcement layer.
> Law enforcement don't have free hands
> to decide what laws they enforce.
Law enforcement doesn't have enough free hands to go after every crime, therefore which crimes are pursued is always a choice. Resources are finite, therefore the decision to commit law enforcement agents to copyright infringement is also, at the same time, a decision to NOT commit law enforcement agents to pursuing trading violations on Wall Street, or income tax evasion among the rich.
In other words, with resources being finite, every decision about what to pursue is at least partially a political calculation. Ideally, that calculation may be based on social utility (in Jeremy Bentham's formulation "the greatest good for the greatest number") or, that calculation may be based on some corrupt influence of various political factions.
People like myself, who question the usefulness of these raids, are trying to raise the question "Is this the best use of our taxpayer dollars?" Given that trading on Wall Street recently contributed to the onset of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, I would say the case for stronger enforcement of trading regulations would prove more useful than further attempts to surpress copyright infringement.
Law enforcement doesn't have enough free hands to go after every crime, therefore which crimes are pursued is always a choice. Resources are finite, therefore the decision to commit law enforcement agents to copyright infringement is also, at the same time, a decision to NOT commit law enforcement agents to pursuing trading violations on Wall Street, or income tax evasion among the rich.
In other words, with resources being finite, every decision about what to pursue is at least partially a political calculation. Ideally, that calculation may be based on social utility (in Jeremy Bentham's formulation "the greatest good for the greatest number") or, that calculation may be based on some corrupt influence of various political factions.
People like myself, who question the usefulness of these raids, are trying to raise the question "Is this the best use of our taxpayer dollars?" Given that trading on Wall Street recently contributed to the onset of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, I would say the case for stronger enforcement of trading regulations would prove more useful than further attempts to surpress copyright infringement.
> Law enforcement doesn't have enough free hands to go after every crime, therefore which crimes are pursued is always a choice.
Misses the point. It's somebody's choice, but it's not always the law enforcement agency's choice. If the FBI director's boss tells him to raid TPB, his choices are "do the raid" or "get fired."
I would guess it's more satisfying to go after real criminals, but they have to follow their orders.
Misses the point. It's somebody's choice, but it's not always the law enforcement agency's choice. If the FBI director's boss tells him to raid TPB, his choices are "do the raid" or "get fired."
I would guess it's more satisfying to go after real criminals, but they have to follow their orders.
Law enforcement don't have free hands to decide what laws they enforce
Sure they do.
In some countries (e.g. UK) the prosecution service (e.g. Crown Prosecution Service) only bring a crime to court if it's "in the public interest" (cf. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutor... ). Ireland has similar laws ( http://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice... )
Although this applied to the actuall criminal prosecution, not the police enforcement.
Sure they do.
In some countries (e.g. UK) the prosecution service (e.g. Crown Prosecution Service) only bring a crime to court if it's "in the public interest" (cf. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutor... ). Ireland has similar laws ( http://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice... )
Although this applied to the actuall criminal prosecution, not the police enforcement.
> In some countries (e.g. UK) the prosecution service
Which is several layers above the poor bobby actually carrying out the raid. It's more of an illustration to dagw's post than a counterargument.
Which is several layers above the poor bobby actually carrying out the raid. It's more of an illustration to dagw's post than a counterargument.
That's just standard separation of concerns, expecting individual police officers to make judgments about each case would make law enforcement very inconsistent.
People who are skilled at making arrests and beating down doors are not necessarily also skilled in analyzing data and crime statistics in order to decide which cases to persue.
People who are skilled at making arrests and beating down doors are not necessarily also skilled in analyzing data and crime statistics in order to decide which cases to persue.
Prosecution seems to be politicised, and pursue cases according to who controls the executive branch rather than according to the interests of the general public. I'd like to know which countries have taken steps to make prosecution more independent, and how they did it.
Indeed law enforcement does not have free hands to decide what laws to enforce. They are being puppeted by big business and government pressure. This issue is less about the law, and more about big business pressuring everyone and their momma to protect their business interests.
I have always thought about The Pirate Bay like a gun shop in the US. Gun shops sell guns and ammo...they help facilitate killing human beings...but we never hold the gun shop responsibile (so long as they comply with licensing laws etc). Why dont we look at The Pirate Bay in the same way? They supply a tool that can be used for wrong doing. It can also be used legitimately (as in the case of guns).
How is this arguement so different?
I have always thought about The Pirate Bay like a gun shop in the US. Gun shops sell guns and ammo...they help facilitate killing human beings...but we never hold the gun shop responsibile (so long as they comply with licensing laws etc). Why dont we look at The Pirate Bay in the same way? They supply a tool that can be used for wrong doing. It can also be used legitimately (as in the case of guns).
How is this arguement so different?
If countless millions of people were buying guns at one gun shop and killing people continuously, of course cops would ignore the actual killers and go after the gun shop.
The gun shop analogy is totally flawed. It's more like a newsletter about how to get away with murder. Except instead of a newsletter it's a website. And instead of murder it's copying things and giving them away for free.
If that were true, then surely the UK would have been shut down years ago.
Law enforcement does have a choice, because their resources are finite. The cynic in me would say that, when choosing between having to deal with dangerous criminals or raiding a bunch of white-collar nerds, it's easy to see which one is the most appealing. Servers don't shoot back.
In normal policing they do, it is a daily part of their job and is known as 'police discretion'.
http://rynardlaw.com/Article6.aspx
http://rynardlaw.com/Article6.aspx
Nobody gets this outraged when companies that violate the GNU license get taken to court and you can use the exact same reasoning as the pirates (When you use open source in a proprietary app, the original is still in tact. The only thing we don't get are the changes, so nobody really gets hurt).
People get outraged at the abuse of copyright by corporations against the common good.
Whether that abuse comes in the form of violating copyright or protecting copyright is irrelevant. Copyright isn't the ethical issue here. The abuse is.
Whether that abuse comes in the form of violating copyright or protecting copyright is irrelevant. Copyright isn't the ethical issue here. The abuse is.
Just because both the GPL and the media industry both rely on copyright does not make them equivalent. If anything, it's exactly the opposite--a company not complying with the GPL is making information inaccessible to the public; a company enforcing normal copyright is also making information inaccessible.
The GPL is basically an inversion of standard copyright: where copyright is normally used to restrict access, the GPL ensures access. So it's pretty easy to see how not complying with the GPL is similar to aggressively pursuing piracy or using horrible DRM.
The GPL is basically an inversion of standard copyright: where copyright is normally used to restrict access, the GPL ensures access. So it's pretty easy to see how not complying with the GPL is similar to aggressively pursuing piracy or using horrible DRM.
Nobody goes to jail due to GPL violations. If the police were conducting raids, seizing servers, and throwing people in jail for years for GPL violations and people still weren't outraged, then it might be time to talk about a double standard.
What would that even look like? GPL code can't be mass pirated by an army of private users, as with TPB--because it's free. And if some major players stole GPL code for commercial use, that would be remedied with a lawsuit, if at all.
Indeed. A company commits mass GPL infringement (e.g. shipping GPL code to a million customers without following the terms of the license) and it gets settled with, at most, a minor lawsuit. A different company helps its users commit mass copyright infringement (linking to torrents) and its servers get raided and its officers sent to jail.
[deleted]
I might find your argument somewhat valid if RMS was able to pressure the Swedes to execute a raid against a proprietary software company, and send people off to serve prison sentences.
GPL violations and media piracy only share copyright as a common thread, but copyright isn't the entire picture.
> When you use open source in a proprietary app,
> the original is still in tact
GPL violations and media piracy only share copyright as a common thread, but copyright isn't the entire picture.
[deleted]
You are pissing people off and what do you have to show for it except a few hollow victories?
Budget increments. This is basically the beginning and the end of the story.
Budget increments. This is basically the beginning and the end of the story.
It's kind of like how they started a country to escape taxes and then gave themselves the power to arrest and imprison those that don't pay taxes ... everyone knows how wrong what is happening is and how much it makes them look like morons to normal people ... but they have deeper pockets and patient lawyers/politicians in those pockets that will span generations if necessary until they get their way. They try a big step, and when it doesn't work, they step back and break it up into smaller steps that get them to the eventual goal. It's obvious their lobbying power is something that defies logic because we were taught how things are "supposed" to work in school. I'm curious how heartfelt blasting (totally justified btw) of these larger organizations accomplishes anything. A moment of rage doesn't stop a river. I'm not sure what does.
You have a few good points, but I'd like to correct the first one. America was not founded to escape taxes, it was founded (in part) because those taxes were coming from across the ocean and the money was going back across the ocean with no American voice being heard and no American benefit from being a colony.
Now we send our money to DC and never see it again.
"No taxation without representation" != "No taxation"
That does still leave Puerto Rico as a bit of an anomoly, though!
Forget Puerto Rico -- Washington, DC pays taxes and yet has no meaningful Congressional representation and limited autonomy to pass its own laws.
That's true. Now what do we do about it?
The option that gets the most traction is DC statehood, but understandably, the overwhelming force behind DC statehood is Democrats who want to automatically get another 2 Senators out of the deal. And the whole point of the District of Columbia was to keep the federal government neutral by not putting it in any state.
A more sensible alternative, which has less traction, is to reducing the District to merely encompass the core government buildings and ceding the rest to the state of Maryland, just as the parts of DC south of the Potomac were ceded to Virginia to form Arlington County. If this were done, Maryland would have to agree to it and the 23rd Amendment, which gives DC three electors in the Electoral College, would probably need to be repealed, or else the land surrounding the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court buildings would have three electors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...
It's an important issue for sure, but it's a tough nut to crack and the notion of statehood means any resolution to the problem will have a direct partisan effect.
The option that gets the most traction is DC statehood, but understandably, the overwhelming force behind DC statehood is Democrats who want to automatically get another 2 Senators out of the deal. And the whole point of the District of Columbia was to keep the federal government neutral by not putting it in any state.
A more sensible alternative, which has less traction, is to reducing the District to merely encompass the core government buildings and ceding the rest to the state of Maryland, just as the parts of DC south of the Potomac were ceded to Virginia to form Arlington County. If this were done, Maryland would have to agree to it and the 23rd Amendment, which gives DC three electors in the Electoral College, would probably need to be repealed, or else the land surrounding the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court buildings would have three electors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi...
It's an important issue for sure, but it's a tough nut to crack and the notion of statehood means any resolution to the problem will have a direct partisan effect.
The neutrality of the federal government is a nonissue. Federal buildings and parks are already outside city jurisdiction. They have their own police force and they pay no DC taxes. The founders certainly did not intend for 700,000 Americans to live without representation.
Retrocession is a neat idea aside from the fact that none of the people it would affect actually want it.
Statehood is the only option that makes sense. It is unfortunate that DC happens to have demographics that favor one party over the other only because it makes it hard to get things done. But it doesn't change the basic unfairness of the situation. It's not a partisan issue any more than women's suffrage is a partisan issue.
There was a decent plan a few years ago to give a voting member of the House and also granting an additional member to the next state in line based on census data (conveniently a heavily Republican district in Utah, I believe). Unfortunately it fell apart when Republicans added poison pill amendements to alter gun ownership and abortion laws in the District. It was also probably unconstitutional.
Retrocession is a neat idea aside from the fact that none of the people it would affect actually want it.
Statehood is the only option that makes sense. It is unfortunate that DC happens to have demographics that favor one party over the other only because it makes it hard to get things done. But it doesn't change the basic unfairness of the situation. It's not a partisan issue any more than women's suffrage is a partisan issue.
There was a decent plan a few years ago to give a voting member of the House and also granting an additional member to the next state in line based on census data (conveniently a heavily Republican district in Utah, I believe). Unfortunately it fell apart when Republicans added poison pill amendements to alter gun ownership and abortion laws in the District. It was also probably unconstitutional.
> The neutrality of the federal government is a nonissue.
The White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court should not be placed in any state. Either statehood or retrocession would be best suited by carving those buildings, and the area immediately surrounding them, out of the ceded area and retaining them in a federal district.
> The founders certainly did not intend for 700,000 Americans to live without representation.
The founders created the District of Columbia in the first place; did they not intend anyone to live there?
> There was a decent plan a few years ago to give a voting member of the House and also granting an additional member to the next state in line based on census data (conveniently a heavily Republican district in Utah, I believe).
Statehood would still create 2 new Democratic senators out of 102, so giving the Republicans 1 extra Representative out of over 400 is hardly a "decent plan". You'd have to make up the 2 senators somehow. For instance, if you split the state of Washington in half at the Cascades, Eastern Washington would make a state much, much larger than DC in both area and population with 2 Republican senators.
If representation were the issue then retrocession would be an acceptable solution. The fact that people don't accept retrocession just shows that people really want more Democrats in the Senate.
The White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court should not be placed in any state. Either statehood or retrocession would be best suited by carving those buildings, and the area immediately surrounding them, out of the ceded area and retaining them in a federal district.
> The founders certainly did not intend for 700,000 Americans to live without representation.
The founders created the District of Columbia in the first place; did they not intend anyone to live there?
> There was a decent plan a few years ago to give a voting member of the House and also granting an additional member to the next state in line based on census data (conveniently a heavily Republican district in Utah, I believe).
Statehood would still create 2 new Democratic senators out of 102, so giving the Republicans 1 extra Representative out of over 400 is hardly a "decent plan". You'd have to make up the 2 senators somehow. For instance, if you split the state of Washington in half at the Cascades, Eastern Washington would make a state much, much larger than DC in both area and population with 2 Republican senators.
If representation were the issue then retrocession would be an acceptable solution. The fact that people don't accept retrocession just shows that people really want more Democrats in the Senate.
> The White House, Capitol, and Supreme Court should not be placed in any state.
Yes, that's what I was saying. You don't need to change anything; they are already carved out. The White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, along with most of the museums, monuments and parks are already in federal jurisdiction.
> The founders created the District of Columbia in the first place; did they not intend anyone to live there?
Eh, it's complicated. Congress was in a reactionary mood, having recently been chased out of Pennsylvania by an angry armed militia.
> Statehood would still create 2 new Democratic senators out of 102, so giving the Republicans 1 extra Representative out of over 400 is hardly a "decent plan".
Well, it wasn't a plan for statehood. It did not award the district any Senators. It was just for a single voting member of the House.
> You'd have to make up the 2 senators somehow.
This is the part that drives me nuts. No. You really don't. For the same reason that you don't need to offset the end of Jim Crow laws by giving white people extra votes.
First, not everyone in DC is a Democrat. But even if they were, giving them a voice in Congress is not a gift to the DNC -- these are seats that should have been there all along.
> The fact that people don't accept retrocession just shows that people really want more Democrats in the Senate.
That's totally false. We're talking about local politics here and there are local political reasons why DC would not want to be in MD or VA and why VA and MD would not want DC. Here's a fun fact: the DC Republican Party supports statehood. And of course the DC Green/Statehood Party does. (Also consider that adding another chunk of DC residents to VA would likely turn that state from purple to blue.) This is not a partisan issue; it's about basic fairness.
Yes, that's what I was saying. You don't need to change anything; they are already carved out. The White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, along with most of the museums, monuments and parks are already in federal jurisdiction.
> The founders created the District of Columbia in the first place; did they not intend anyone to live there?
Eh, it's complicated. Congress was in a reactionary mood, having recently been chased out of Pennsylvania by an angry armed militia.
> Statehood would still create 2 new Democratic senators out of 102, so giving the Republicans 1 extra Representative out of over 400 is hardly a "decent plan".
Well, it wasn't a plan for statehood. It did not award the district any Senators. It was just for a single voting member of the House.
> You'd have to make up the 2 senators somehow.
This is the part that drives me nuts. No. You really don't. For the same reason that you don't need to offset the end of Jim Crow laws by giving white people extra votes.
First, not everyone in DC is a Democrat. But even if they were, giving them a voice in Congress is not a gift to the DNC -- these are seats that should have been there all along.
> The fact that people don't accept retrocession just shows that people really want more Democrats in the Senate.
That's totally false. We're talking about local politics here and there are local political reasons why DC would not want to be in MD or VA and why VA and MD would not want DC. Here's a fun fact: the DC Republican Party supports statehood. And of course the DC Green/Statehood Party does. (Also consider that adding another chunk of DC residents to VA would likely turn that state from purple to blue.) This is not a partisan issue; it's about basic fairness.
> This is the part that drives me nuts. No. You really don't. For the same reason that you don't need to offset the end of Jim Crow laws by giving white people extra votes.
That's only true if you compare statehood to the status quo, not if you compare statehood to retrocession. DC would be one of the smallest states in the union; it would go from zero representation to massively disproportionate representation on a similar scale to Wyoming or Alaska.
But, while I'm probably also right from the perspective of justice, I was just talking about the practical politics of getting it done.
> But even if they were, giving them a voice in Congress is not a gift to the DNC -- these are seats that should have been there all along.
"All along"? The land DC is now built on was originally part of Maryland. So "all along", DC residents should have been Maryland residents. If you want to carve out an entirely new blue state where there's never been one before, it's only fair to carve out an entirely new red state where there's never been one before. Eastern Washington has greater area and population than DC and it's as reliably Republican as DC is Democratic; it's a fair swap.
That's only true if you compare statehood to the status quo, not if you compare statehood to retrocession. DC would be one of the smallest states in the union; it would go from zero representation to massively disproportionate representation on a similar scale to Wyoming or Alaska.
But, while I'm probably also right from the perspective of justice, I was just talking about the practical politics of getting it done.
> But even if they were, giving them a voice in Congress is not a gift to the DNC -- these are seats that should have been there all along.
"All along"? The land DC is now built on was originally part of Maryland. So "all along", DC residents should have been Maryland residents. If you want to carve out an entirely new blue state where there's never been one before, it's only fair to carve out an entirely new red state where there's never been one before. Eastern Washington has greater area and population than DC and it's as reliably Republican as DC is Democratic; it's a fair swap.
But Puerto Rico has been given the chance to become a state, and they always vote it down. So it's not like they entirely don't have a say.
Don't forget children and felons.
Don't forget legal non-citizen immigrants :)
There seems to be a confusion between the terms representation and voting rights.
You're right. I vote, but none of those bastards actually represent me.
Not sure there is confusion at work. Legal non-citizen immigrants cannot vote in national elections.
And usually not in local ones, either, according to the US Customs & Immigration Service: "There are very few jurisdictions where a non-U.S. citizen may vote in a local election."
-- Wife of a green card holder
And usually not in local ones, either, according to the US Customs & Immigration Service: "There are very few jurisdictions where a non-U.S. citizen may vote in a local election."
-- Wife of a green card holder
Totally agree. It's the old west trying to keep up with the world, it's only a matter of time before you are run over!
I have a question. Is copyright infringement (in the UK at least) a criminal offence or a matter for the civil courts?
I have a question. Is copyright infringement (in the UK at least) a criminal offence or a matter for the civil courts?
I think it depends whether it's done commercially or not. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/V...
Ahh ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the link.
I believe that format shifting (e.g. ripping a DVD) is still technically illegal in the UK, although I don't think that anyone has actually been charged.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13429217
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13429217
"Rather we find it interesting that a country like Sweden is being so abused by lobbyists and that this can be kept up. They’re using scare tactics, putting pressure on the wrong people, like providers and users. All out of fear from the big country in the west, and with an admiration for their big fancy wallets."
And I, as a Swede, is both angry and embarrassed that we're taking it. In the next election, the Pirate Party gets my vote, but sadly the larger public remains oblivious.
And I, as a Swede, is both angry and embarrassed that we're taking it. In the next election, the Pirate Party gets my vote, but sadly the larger public remains oblivious.
Do you honestly think this is the most important political or social issue facing Sweden at the moment? I am not a Swede, but I do agree with you on this issue. However, in my mind this is a relativity minor issue in the big scheme of things. Or does the Swedish Pirate Party also have good points on other issues? I feel it's mostly a one issue party in other countries.
This party is a tool for applying pressure on other, more prominent parties. It is not about giving the PP a vote, it's about making a show of taking a vote away from other parties.
At least they have a decent party to vote for as protest. In my country they elected an actual clown as a "protest vote", he was the single most voted representative in the whole country :(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11465127
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11465127
It's an important enough issue that I'd vote for such a party if I could. It's not just about raiding a torrent site. I see it as being at least:
- Government for the people. This is often forgotten, but it's the most important point - enforcing strict copyright does not help the citizen. Period.
- Censorship - raiding one site means raiding any site, eventually
- Copyright should be relaxed for non-commercial purposes - not because RIAA it's obsolete, but because in the world of the Internet, this is the way that will insure maximum creativity.
- Hitting the incumbents and setting an example that it's possible
- Government for the people. This is often forgotten, but it's the most important point - enforcing strict copyright does not help the citizen. Period.
- Censorship - raiding one site means raiding any site, eventually
- Copyright should be relaxed for non-commercial purposes - not because RIAA it's obsolete, but because in the world of the Internet, this is the way that will insure maximum creativity.
- Hitting the incumbents and setting an example that it's possible
Feel free to use google translate to look at Germany's Pirate Party's goals. http://www.piratenpartei.de/unsere_ziele
(On initial glance, the google translate version is an acceptable translation to get an idea of what is being said).
As you will see, their platform is not a single issue and the likely reason why the Piraten Partei was successful in the last Berlin local election. They were so successful they won every seat they could possibly have held. If they were any more successful, the additional seat(s) would have had to been left empty, since the Partei only had so many candidates running.
(On initial glance, the google translate version is an acceptable translation to get an idea of what is being said).
As you will see, their platform is not a single issue and the likely reason why the Piraten Partei was successful in the last Berlin local election. They were so successful they won every seat they could possibly have held. If they were any more successful, the additional seat(s) would have had to been left empty, since the Partei only had so many candidates running.
Think of it as a way of not voting for the major parties while also not decreasing the turnout statistics and giving the impression of apathy.
The Swedish Pirate Party doesn't suck as much as the Dutch one does. I wish we had a Pirate Party like Sweden.
The German one is pretty good also, btw.
The German one is pretty good also, btw.
If their country's law enforcement and legal bodies are being so drastically corrupted by a foreign country, that would seem like one of the most important legal issues around.
Pirate Bay Magnet Archive:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:938802790a385c49307f34cca4c30f80b03df59c&dn=The+whole+Pirate+Bay+magnet+archive&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80The Pirate Bay should commit all its magnet files to git; you then have a distributed, versioned hash library.
Then, build a package that lets you seek out one of the repos, pull it, and integrate it with your Torrent client.
Alternatively, you could hide the hashes in TXT records of domains no one knows about. Cached, resilient magnet hash records.
Then, build a package that lets you seek out one of the repos, pull it, and integrate it with your Torrent client.
Alternatively, you could hide the hashes in TXT records of domains no one knows about. Cached, resilient magnet hash records.
That's pretty awesome. So... how does one convert those records into something you can feed into a client?
You can feed magnet strings straight into any client already.
The magnet archive torrent doesn't actually contain the magnet links, just the hash. To use the hash, you prepend:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:
People on TPB are promoting Tribler as a new decentralized, non-takedownable, open source file sharing network. I haven't tried this myself yet, but here's a link to the main site: http://www.tribler.org/trac. I'm downloading the source now to try it out.
The thing is, TPB is not only a collection of torrents. If it was just that, it is already mirrored several times on bitsnoop, isohunt, torrentz.eu and other places.
What is interesting about PirateBay are the comments, the description and (why not) their name and status.
What is interesting about PirateBay are the comments, the description and (why not) their name and status.
[deleted]
Agreed. Torrents without some sort of user feedback mechanism is a disaster waiting to happen.
I wish they'd split the "search" and "discovery" and the "download" and (rather novel) "play immediately" concerns. I'd prefer to keep using uTorrent for downloads, and there's not point in Tribler spending their efforts re-solving a problem that's been solved very well.
Also, there's a certain irony in the Tribler download not being available on BitTorrent - to the extend they had to take the site offline a few weeks ago due to excessive download traffic.
Also, there's a certain irony in the Tribler download not being available on BitTorrent - to the extend they had to take the site offline a few weeks ago due to excessive download traffic.
I don't think Tribler will solve all the problems and creates more issues for those less technically oriented. Until someone comes up with a novel bootstrap method that is truely decentralized and robust there will always be a single point of failure for peer networks.
"...and creates more issues for those less technically oriented."
I haven't used it much since I want a native client for my platform, but from what I've seen it's almost like an "App Store" with search-functionality and a one-click procedure to download. What makes you think it's harder to use than normal bittorrent-clients and sites?
I haven't used it much since I want a native client for my platform, but from what I've seen it's almost like an "App Store" with search-functionality and a one-click procedure to download. What makes you think it's harder to use than normal bittorrent-clients and sites?
I am technically oriented, but I was very aware of how easy it was: download, start (simple install, no config), wait five minutes, search, click download. Done.
What issues are not solved and what new issues are created?
What issues are not solved and what new issues are created?
See http://svn.tribler.org/bt2-design/overall/trunk/release_plan...
"Our technology increases your tracability. Every Tribler software installation has a unique identifier based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography."
"We are constantly monitoring the Tribler P2P network using spider software. This will allow us to detect inefficiencies in our P2P software. However, it will also show us the occurence of illegal activities."
"Our technology increases your tracability. Every Tribler software installation has a unique identifier based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography."
"We are constantly monitoring the Tribler P2P network using spider software. This will allow us to detect inefficiencies in our P2P software. However, it will also show us the occurence of illegal activities."
It doesn't have a clear date marking, but it refers to Feb 2006 as being in the future. But while that is worrying, how is it worse than being tracked by your IP? If you are mobile sure, but that's hardly a common use case for, erhm, scenarios where you worry about traceability?
Unless one goes through the 'installation process' anew each time one runs the software (this is of course all taking them at their word; I haven't actually analyzed the Tribler source myself), one can then be continuously tracked even when one's IP changes (not only during instances of travelling or being 'mobile', but of course in cases of users having dynamic IPs as well). The fact that one can thus be tracked across multiple IPs is precisely what makes this a cause for concern.
Add to that the statement that the entire Tribler network is 'constantly monitored' (cf. some organizations doubtlessly monitoring some torrent trackers, but it being improbable that every single torrent tracker is monitored), and one once again has a gross escalation of privacy erosion that surpasses the extent of mere IP-based tracking.
Add to that the statement that the entire Tribler network is 'constantly monitored' (cf. some organizations doubtlessly monitoring some torrent trackers, but it being improbable that every single torrent tracker is monitored), and one once again has a gross escalation of privacy erosion that surpasses the extent of mere IP-based tracking.
The Tribler bootstrap servers are not single points of failure. To bootstrap you just need to know the address of a single non-NATed peer. If the Tribler servers went down anyone else could setup their own and publicise the addresses. The overlay itself would survive.
Retroshare and Oneswarm would be other alternatives, which I believe protect the identity of the user more.
TPB response: http://thepiratebay.se/blog/209
"The only box someone could find is the one in the front, that needs to be public. We have multiple of those, scattered like diarrhea around the world. They contain no storage device, no graphics card. Only a network cable, a cpu and memory."
Interesting. So if these servers are seized and turned off you don't know where they were talking to. Though if the police are careful they ought to be able to tap the outgoing connections and get the IPs for the others servers they were communicating with and go from there.
Interesting. So if these servers are seized and turned off you don't know where they were talking to. Though if the police are careful they ought to be able to tap the outgoing connections and get the IPs for the others servers they were communicating with and go from there.
TiAMO’s decision to start a backup of the site is probably the most pivotal moment in the site’s history.
I'm surprised to see that a backup might be considered an heroic move. If you don't have any backup you may as well consider your data entirely lost !
I'm surprised to see that a backup might be considered an heroic move. If you don't have any backup you may as well consider your data entirely lost !
[deleted]
Surely they can't touch them - did't Sweden recently recognize file-sharing as a religion? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16424659
True, but opponents and critics were quick to point out that it does not protect against "illegal acts". Pretty funny, when you think about how religions have formed our society's rights and wrongs for thousands of years (for better or worse, depending on who you are).
Europe's march to irrelevance continues apace.
Blocked at work. Gist or pastebin of the article please?
"Why the Police Plan to Rain The Pirate Bay and you should too"
With any luck they will take down sites like torrentfreak next.
This all continues to look more and more like the war on drugs. An unwinnable battle that has no net effect except to piss everyone off and waste money.
So nobody minds if I pirate their software right?
Just because I don't want people pirating software I may write, doesn't mean I agree with the stance current governments take on copyright and it's enforcement.
Nice strawman though, if a bit lazy. You could have gone with piracy supports terrorism or something along those lines as well.
Nice strawman though, if a bit lazy. You could have gone with piracy supports terrorism or something along those lines as well.
If you are selling software to make a living that strawman just took money out of your pocket. If you are surfing broadband in your parent's spare bedroom it's different.
> just took money out of your pocket
That is a metaphor that only obscures the real issue, because the money was never in your pocket to begin with.
If you're selling software for a living and you don't have a reasonable strategy for coexisting with the inevitable pirates, then you're doing it wrong. If piracy will make or break your business model, you are doomed.
I'm not taking any position on whether that's right or wrong. It's simply a fact.
That is a metaphor that only obscures the real issue, because the money was never in your pocket to begin with.
If you're selling software for a living and you don't have a reasonable strategy for coexisting with the inevitable pirates, then you're doing it wrong. If piracy will make or break your business model, you are doomed.
I'm not taking any position on whether that's right or wrong. It's simply a fact.
After you have downloaded and tried it, think about this:
If you like the software, you pay for it or donate to the developers to support further development. If it turns out it wasn't what you were looking for, you delete it off your hard drive.
If you like the software, you pay for it or donate to the developers to support further development. If it turns out it wasn't what you were looking for, you delete it off your hard drive.
Non sequitur. This is like going into one of the TSA threads and saying, "So nobody minds if I blow up their airplanes right?"
You probably wouldn't have bought it anyway...
Certainly not if I can just pirate it.
You seem to be saying that given the option of pirating and purchasing, you will always pirate - if that is the case, then you are part of a very small and militant demographic.
I cant think of a single movie, album or piece of software that cant be pirated as easily as it can be bought - yet people still buy them.
I cant think of a single movie, album or piece of software that cant be pirated as easily as it can be bought - yet people still buy them.
i buy lots of things i can just pirate.
If anything, piracy increases the chances that I may buy someone's software. I'm definitely not going to risk money on the chance that a program might be useful, and if it turns out to be what I want, I'll likely pay for it. Many people who pirate it wouldn't have bought it in the first place, so it's not a lost sale and it actually increases knowledge about particular software.
It doesn't matter whether copyright infringement is ethically good or bad. It doesn't matter whether these sites are legally liable for copyright infringement that goes on using them.
You look like complete morons trying to take down site after site. You are pissing people off and what do you have to show for it except a few hollow victories?
If copyright infringement through file sharing has decreased, it's due to itunes, amazon, google, and all the smaller companies offering digital versions of content. Guess who is missing from that list? MPAA and RIAA members.
Trying to fight copyright infringement through punitive fines or throwing people in prison is sick. It's like the drug war, only worse. At least you can point to a few crazy meth heads as a danger to the public. "Pirates" hurt... the meatspace content distributors that are rapidly becoming obsolete?