NationStates Jolt Archive

So, for all you bittorrenters out there, it was kind of a shock that The Man got to the Pirate Bay, wasn't it? It looks like they aren't invulnerable, after all ... first suprnova, now pirate bay.

Well, it's always good to have backup suppliers. Here's one that I've found. Hope you all enjoy it. It won't be shut down any time soon, because it's President Bush's own torrent site.

http://bushtorrent.com/

Yeah but they are already fighting back ... so far looks like nothing will stick.

They have already promiced that they have purcaced backup (including out of country) backup servers

They got some major hardware on the line

Who needs alternates?

http://www.thepiratebay.org. As they themselves said:
Just some stats...

Just some stats...

... here are some reasons why TPB is down sometimes - and how long it usually takes to fix:

Tiamo gets *very* drunk and then something crashes: 4 days

Anakata gets a really bad cold and noone is around: 7 days

The US and Swedish gov. forces the police to steal our servers: 3 days

.. yawn.

Although I still use Demonoid more.

Lol I always look forward to their replies :) they really have to be pissing someone at the RIAA MPAA off flol

In short yes for pirate bay,

I am so mad at the politicans who are against it,

The technic to share files exist and therefore you must use it.
The companies should have alternative payment.
I plan to vote for an pirate bay specialisted party here in Sweden.

I don't obey or respect a society that doesn't value new technology
over out dated irrational dogma like it's theift or blabla right to payment.

Especially when alternative payment is outright ignored and the old geesers
running the parlament doesn't know anything about technology.

Companies should deal out procent of internet license and fees
somewhat like TV or radio.

Internet should be somewhat more expensive but it would be cheaper in total
when middle hands like cd distrubition are cut of.

Companies would gain more secure and more longlasting payment and not needing to worry about distrubution and shipping costs.

Don't forget how much time it takes down loading things like games.
Probably large programs could not be put on the webb anyway.

I think it would help economy if games where burned on cd according to demand in the store.
Games are being shipped in in fixed numbers now.
An alternative distrubtion system could speed things up, make producs cheep
and allow more jobbs for everybody.
This is my conviction.

And regarding the vulgar content I say freedrom of speech.
People will not watch that they don't want to see
and people occasionally need to see bad things.
That is what you do when you report a crime.
More freedrom and more big brother in equal measure.
Everybody winns.

Pirate bay was moved to the Netherlands, this all happened like last week.

In short yes for pirate bay,

I am so mad at the politicans who are against it,

The technic to share files exist and therefore you must use it.
The companies should have alternative payment.
I plan to vote for an pirate bay specialisted party here in Sweden.

I don't obey or respect a society that doesn't value new technology
over out dated irrational dogma like it's theift or blabla right to payment.

Especially when alternative payment is outright ignored and the old geesers
running the parlament doesn't know anything about technology.

Companies should deal out procent of internet license and fees
somewhat like TV or radio.

Internet should be somewhat more expensive but it would be cheaper in total
when middle hands like cd distrubition are cut of.

Companies would gain more secure and more longlasting payment and not needing to worry about distrubution and shipping costs.

Don't forget how much time it takes down loading things like games.
Probably large programs could not be put on the webb anyway.

I think it would help economy if games where burned on cd according to demand in the store.
Games are being shipped in in fixed numbers now.
An alternative distrubtion system could speed things up, make producs cheep
and allow more jobbs for everybody.
This is my conviction.

And regarding the vulgar content I say freedrom of speech.
People will not watch that they don't want to see
and people occasionally need to see bad things.
That is what you do when you report a crime.
More freedrom and more big brother in equal measure.
Everybody winns.
1) Just because new technology exists that allows you to take something you didn't create doesn't mean that you have the right to steal.

2) Why the fuck should all internet users pay more because you want a new CD and don't want to shell out the cash? Fuck, by that logic everyone should pay more in taxes so I can drive a bigger car.

1) Just because new technology exists that allows you to take something you didn't create doesn't mean that you have the right to steal.

The difference is that Pirate Bay and other bittorrent websites are not actually stealing anything. No files are hosted on their servers. They only provide the infrastructure - basically a search engine - that people are using as an intermediary to "steal".

By that logic, Google is bad because you might be able to find child porn or something on there. ;)

The difference is that Pirate Bay and other bittorrent websites are not actually stealing anything. No files are hosted on their servers. They only provide the infrastructure - basically a search engine - that people are using as an intermediary to "steal".

By that logic, Google is bad because you might be able to find child porn or something on there. ;)
Or suing a telephone book company because you found the address of a person you chose to steal from.

Or suing a telephone book company because you found the address of a person you chose to steal from.

Pretty much.

The difference is that Pirate Bay and other bittorrent websites are not actually stealing anything. No files are hosted on their servers. They only provide the infrastructure - basically a search engine - that people are using as an intermediary to "steal".

By that logic, Google is bad because you might be able to find child porn or something on there. ;)
I didn't say that bittorrent is bad. I just said that having the technology that enables one to steal doesn't give one the right to steal. I own guns. I have the technology to shoot people. That doesn't give me the right to do so. See what I'm getting at?

I didn't say that bittorrent is bad. I just said that having the technology that enables one to steal doesn't give one the right to steal. I own guns. I have the technology to shoot people. That doesn't give me the right to do so. See what I'm getting at?

Sure, but the fact is, these sites aren't stealing anything.

What king of a party is that?
Big headed youngsters?
Who elected them?
Virtual politic is pure imagination or an illness?

http://pirate-party.us/

1968 back online?

Meh. Private trackers pwn.:cool:

Sure, but the fact is, these sites aren't stealing anything.
technology exsists for someone to backtrack and find your ISP, thus finding out where you are posting from.

Technology exsists that allow people to enter another's computer.

Technology exsists that allow people to find out what keystrokes someone types in.

yet you're saying that just because someone makes such technologies available, they are not guilty if one should use them for illegal activities.

that's like saying a drug dealer is innocent because he only makes his stash available to others. the fact that those people use the drugs is not his fault.

technology exsists for someone to backtrack and find your ISP, thus finding out where you are posting from.

Technology exsists that allow people to enter another's computer.

Technology exsists that allow people to find out what keystrokes someone types in.

yet you're saying that just because someone makes such technologies available, they are not guilty if one should use them for illegal activities.

Yes.

The technology itself is not malicious and can be argued to have legitimate uses - you think government law enforcement agencies don't make use of the above? I won't argue in favour of it, but you could.

that's like saying a drug dealer is innocent because he only makes his stash available to others. the fact that those people use the drugs is not his fault.

The drug dealer is selling illicit goods for profit and had possession of these illicit goods at some stage. Bittorrent sites are by and large non-profit, and do not store any of the data on their servers.

Like I said, this kind of logic is flawed, because you can make any sort of comparison here - google should be illegal, because you might find child pornography on there (actually, I could also use it to search for pirate software as well, making it, in essence, no different to bittorrent). Electoral rolls should be kept secret, because a stalker can conveniently use them to search for people's addresses. Cigarrete lighters should be illegal, because people might use them to start fires. I could go on.

The fact is that bittorrent has useful applications - many software companies now use it in their updating process, to take the massive bandwidth load off their servers when they release a new patch. It also facilitates the easier distribution of open-source software. There is nothing wrong with making the technology available to the public.

ZOMJG ILl3GAL!!!111!!

Only kidding. Torrents are fun.(i found the whole series od Dr Who 5 minutes after the last episode.)

snip
The fact is that bittorrent has useful applications - many software companies now use it in their updating process, to take the massive bandwidth load off their servers when they release a new patch. It also facilitates the easier distribution of open-source software. There is nothing wrong with making the technology available to the public.
Yup how do you think I got my latest FC5 CD and DVD iso's

Torrents

All legal and company sponsored ... and how do you think I found the good torrent stream rather then the glitchy company provided one

Pirate Bay is how

The drug dealer is selling illicit goods for profit and had possession of these illicit goods at some stage. Bittorrent sites are by and large non-profit, and do not store any of the data on their servers.except they are not the copywrite holders for the files one download. thus they are holding and distributing property that isn't theirs.

Like I said, this kind of logic is flawed, because you can make any sort of comparison here - google should be illegal, because you might find child pornography on there (actually, I could also use it to search for pirate software as well, making it, in essence, no different to bittorrent). Electoral rolls should be kept secret, because a stalker can conveniently use them to search for people's addresses. Cigarrete lighters should be illegal, because people might use them to start fires. I could go on.Google is a tool yes, but Google has no responsibility for the sites it points to. sites regester themselves to the search engines so that others can find them. like ads in the classified section of newspapers, it's both the buyer and the seller that have to be responsible, the paper, like the search engine, only makes the meeting possible.

Bittorrent is, however, allowing the downloading of material it does not have rights nor licence to distribute. They are providing a service using property that isn't theirs.

The fact is that bittorrent has useful applications - many software companies now use it in their updating process, to take the massive bandwidth load off their servers when they release a new patch. It also facilitates the easier distribution of open-source software. There is nothing wrong with making the technology available to the public.and the downloading of copywrited materials?

what other purpose does the "technology" that bittorrent supplies, support?

http://bushtorrent.com/
Ive been using that one all along... Never used pirate bay.

The owners have said that it was just a hobby all along, but then some swedish attourney apparently thought "wait a minute... There are advertisements on that site! Their making money from it! That's not a hobby, that's a job!" so apparently, they might have to pay fines because they make money out of it. Odd little world, aint it?

except they are not the copywrite holders for the files one download. thus they are holding and distributing property that isn't theirs.

Google is a tool yes, but Google has no responsibility for the sites it points to. sites regester themselves to the search engines so that others can find them. like ads in the classified section of newspapers, it's both the buyer and the seller that have to be responsible, the paper, like the search engine, only makes the meeting possible.
These sites being shut down are no more than search engines, they just apply to a specific file type and thus are targeted by people who want to make themselves seem important. Google has advertisements for illegal things (according to EULAs) on their dynamic ads.


Bittorrent is, however, allowing the downloading of material it does not have rights nor licence to distribute. They are providing a service using property that isn't theirs.

and the downloading of copywrited materials?

what other purpose does the "technology" that bittorrent supplies, support?
Bit torrent is used to download material, period. To say it is used to only download copyrighted materials is bullshit and politician-class melodrama. Many legit download sites are picking up bit torrent to take strain off their own servers. In fact, any major site that hosts alot of downloads has a BT option. You can't shutdown Bit torrent because it has been picked up the mainstream, you can only try to shut down websites giving people the ability to keep up with trackers.

except they are not the copywrite holders for the files one download. thus they are holding and distributing property that isn't theirs.
So is Google. In fact, every search engine makes BT sites look like saints - big search engines provide unfettered access to copyrighted images and are moving into providing of video - especially Google.

So, for all you bittorrenters out there, it was kind of a shock that The Man got to the Pirate Bay, wasn't it? It looks like they aren't invulnerable, after all ... first suprnova, now pirate bay.

Well, it's always good to have backup suppliers. Here's one that I've found. Hope you all enjoy it. It won't be shut down any time soon, because it's President Bush's own torrent site.

http://bushtorrent.com/
They are back up again.

Bittorrent is, however, allowing the downloading of material it does not have rights nor licence to distribute. They are providing a service using property that isn't theirs.
It isn't illegal to link to sites/people/BitTorrent-users who provide copyrighted material in Sweden. So by our laws, they have done nothing wrong.

except they are not the copywrite holders for the files one download. thus they are holding and distributing property that isn't theirs.
...
Google is a tool yes, but Google has no responsibility for the sites it points to.
...
Bittorrent is, however, allowing the downloading of material it does not have rights nor licence to distribute. They are providing a service using property that isn't theirs.

But torrent sites are simply a tool as well. They act as search engines, just like google, only they search trackers exclusively. No content is stored on a torrent site's server, it's all on private individual's computers. As such, as you say about google, the Pirate Bay has no responsibility for the torrents it points to. Furthermore, the sites are not distributing copyrighted/unlisenced material: they are providing a torrent, which is basically a virtual map to the locations of the data (i.e. a user's private computer), via trackers.

The Swedish supreme court has ruled correctly that torrents do not amount to copyright infringement, and the DMCA (as well as simmilar bills around the world) are a grotesque restriction on our constitutional (and human) rights. [And before you get all upity and saying "zomg j00 dont haev a rite to pirazy lolz", I mean free speech and expression, as well as the sharing of information with others (which falls under that previous category).]

The Swedish supreme court has ruled correctly that torrents do not amount to copyright infringement, and the DMCA (as well as simmilar bills around the world) are a grotesque restriction on our constitutional (and human) rights. [And before you get all upity and saying "zomg j00 dont haev a rite to pirazy lolz", I mean free speech and expression, as well as the sharing of information with others (which falls under that previous category).]
What he/she/it said. Give me torrents or give you death!!!!

What he/she/it said. Give me torrents or give you death!!!!
He, but thank you anyways.

He, but thank you anyways.
No problem. This is a free country and free torrent swapping keeps it free!!!

Not to mention it saves me oodles of money. But thats not whats important. Honest. It's all about FREEEDOOOOMMM!!!!!

The Swedish supreme court has ruled correctly that torrents do not amount to copyright infringement

Source? Because I have heard of no ruling by the Supreme Court on any torrent site.

The problem is, everyone encourages this by being dicks and raising prices without raising substance.

Hell, I download games. More than half I don't even play more than once (and then don't get more than a handful of levels in) and remove them, some I forget to play once (I deleted B&W off my system months after downloading it and forgetting I had it..). I rather just get a demo of the game and try it out, but that is impossible. Games get larger and demo files get larger, but what the demos provide shrinks to something that is like a stale bread crumb - you don't know what kind of bread it came from or how good the bread is because its a fucking stale crumb.

I download songs - not albums. It isn't worth it to buy whole albums for one or two songs. And again, demos of 30 seconds don't show off the whole song; providing one or two songs on the cd does not show off a cd of 14+ songs. I have just about 2GB in music - but some was providing free on Winamp radio (and recorded from there), or was gotten from myspace downloading, or was just from a free underground band and the total of songs is split between probably well over one hundred artists. Probably 1GB or so is from CDs I bought because I liked enough of the songs on the particular cd. If it isn't worth ripping the whole cd onto your computer minus one or two songs, it isn't worth buying

The Pirate Bay is still open... Seedler.org wasnt too lucky tho

Source? Because I have heard of no ruling by the Supreme Court on any torrent site.

This raises the question of the reach of Swedish and European copyright
law. It is the opinion of us, and the Swedish Supreme Court, that
information about WHERE to obtain copyrighted material, which is the
case with Bit Torrent, is not illegal. The '.torrent' files that are
offered for download at the site in question contain nothing more than
hash and checksum information. How this information could, in itself,
possibly be an infrigement of your copyright is beyond us and apparently
the Swedish legal system agrees.

As to this date the third paragraph of the Swedish copyright
legalislation does not criminalize information exchange. You may also
wish to rewiev the 'Lag (1998:112) om ansvar för elektroniska
anslagstavlor'. It is stated in the fifth paragraph that under certain
circumstances an administrator of a site might be required to remove
certain 'messages' entered by the users. However it is our opinion that
'.torrent' files is not of the nature stated here. The subparagraph in
question is aimed at stoping people from quoting whole literature
works or posting copyrighted pictures.

...

I have the distinct pleasure of informing you that no Swedish trademark
and/or coypyright law is being violated, regardless of how the situation
may or may not be under UK law. I would advise you to read up on Swedish
trademark law, more specifically Varumarkeslag (1960:644), as this might
save you a great deal of future humiliation.

I believe what he says.

I didn't say that bittorrent is bad. I just said that having the technology that enables one to steal doesn't give one the right to steal. I own guns. I have the technology to shoot people. That doesn't give me the right to do so. See what I'm getting at?

Stealing implies ownership. I dont think anyone can own those 0's and 1's that make up a movie or mp3 file.

Yup how do you think I got my latest FC5 CD and DVD iso's

Torrents

All legal and company sponsored ... and how do you think I found the good torrent stream rather then the glitchy company provided one

Pirate Bay is how
How fast was the torrent? Fedora has a good list of mirrors backing it. I can keep the dl above 325 with Fedora. Be interesting to see if bittorrent is faster in this case.

and the downloading of copywrited materials?

what other purpose does the "technology" that bittorrent supplies, support?
It was originally intended for small buisnesses that could not afford to have every customer download your product. Instead they download a small (~100KB) torrent file, and then they then download the files off eachother instead of the server. It still lends itself to pay-to-download payment, as they still have to get the torrent file off the server.

Bittorrent is, however, allowing the downloading of material
Isn't it great?:)

[B]snip

Bittorrent is, however, allowing the downloading of material it does not have rights nor licence to distribute. They are providing a service using property that isn't theirs.

and the downloading of copywrited materials?

No more so then the phone book

what other purpose does the "technology" that bittorrent supplies, support?
Um as already stated the downloading of compleatly legit files as anyone in the *nix world has experience with

Google is a tool yes, but Google has no responsibility for the sites it points to. sites regester themselves to the search engines so that others can find them. like ads in the classified section of newspapers, it's both the buyer and the seller that have to be responsible, the paper, like the search engine, only makes the meeting possible.

In the Napster case, the courts ruled that sites were responsible for what people used them for, whether or not it was the site owner who did the things. By that logic, Google should be answerable for screening it's content, much as napster was, and as the Pirate Bay would be, were it on US soil.

As it isn't, the case is different.

I believe what he says.

You misplace your confidence. The Supreme Court has not ruled in the matter of bittorrent aggregators at all - had it ruled as they claim, the police never would have been able to get a warrant for seizing the equipment and this investigation would not be under way.

Also, the laws they quote ("Lagen om ansvar för elektroniska anslagstavlor" and "Varumärkeslagen") seem quite irrelevant to this case, actually, seeing as the first one deals with electronic forums/BBS systems (the Pirate Bay is not an "elektronisk anslagstavla"), and the latter with trademark - not actual copyright, hence its name "Trademark Law."

Always remember to seed children. lol