5 ms·

I routinely use the Pirate Bay to find torrents of Linux distros that are not even approximately "pirated material." It does have legitimate use cases.

by avn2109 10y ago

542458 10y ago
As an aside to the actual argument at hand... Why not use the official downloads and torrents? Seems like you're exposing yourself to unnecessary risk like this, unless you're religious about checking every download signature against the official ones.
- Spivak 10y ago
  For the same reason that people used CNET in the past for downloading software.
pdabbadabba 10y ago
This is true (I too have used it to download a distro from time to time), but it is simply not responsive to GP's point, which is that, unlike Google, TPB does not comply with DMCA takedown requests and is "setup explicitly for the purpose of finding pirated material." When it comes to piracy, Google's situation is exactly opposite of TPB's: TPB is primarily designed to facilitate piracy, does not comply with DMCA takedown requests, and has incidental noninfringing uses. Google is not primarily designed to facilitate piracy, does comply with DMCA takedown requests, and only incidentally facilitates piracy.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Why should the DMCA apply at all? It's an American law. The fact that it implements WIPO treaties does not change that fact, in other words, being DMCA compliant is not something that entities outside of the USA should have to be.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Because the .ORG registry is an American company. As disgusting as I feel agreeing with a AA on anything, they're probably within their legal rights here. Not that they should be, mind. Domain registry needs to be a neutral ground and absolutely should not be subject to any kind of takedowns. A domain name points to an IP address - go after that. If it points to another country, your job just got harder, but that doesn't make it my job.
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    A fine point--and much better than the one I was responding to. I'll just say that extraterritoriality can be a difficult concept when the Internet is involved, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone here. (E.g., http://www.bna.com/court-refuses-to-dismiss-action-involving-an-infringing-video/ http://www.bna.com/court-refuses-to-dismiss-action-involving...) And, in any event, their response to DMCA take down requests (http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/ http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/) and efforts to evade U.S. jurisdiction (not that it helped them much given their serious legal problems at home in Sweden) is pretty good evidence of their intentions--though it is hardly the best evidence available. A business that was not intentionally facilitating piracy would probably just comply with the DMCA takedown notices and, as a bonus, not have to spend all its time hiding its servers.
    - joemi 10y ago
      > A business that was not intentionally facilitating piracy would probably just comply with the DMCA takedown notices and, as a bonus, not have to spend all its time hiding its servers. I strongly disagree. Look at how many big name American companies have fake HQ's and other such arrangements in other countries in an effort to pay less American taxes. Companies in general try to get out of all kinds of things (taxes, responsibilities, etc) all the time, and doing so is not any kind of admission of legal transgressions. If I had an American company and I was getting legal threats from an organization in another country that was citing their country's laws, you can bet I'd do everything I could to avoid having to comply... regardless of whether or not I was actually breaking any laws at all.
- mbesto 10y ago
  Where precisely does it explicitly say on TPB's website that it is "setup for the purpose of finding pirated material." In fact they explicitly state otherwise: The Pirate Bay is the worlds largest bittorrent indexer. Bittorrent is a filesharing protocol that in a reliable way enables big and fast file transfers. No torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind The Pirate Bay responsible for the material that is being spread using the site. I'd appreciate a copy paste of the specific text that says they are setup with the purpose to find pirated material, otherwise it's implied and it's very different.
  - ksk 10y ago
    It doesn't have to say on the bottle of water that it is explicitly sold to quench your thirst either. People are not stupid.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      The only thing piracy-focused is the userbase. I don't think it's fair to shut down a content-neutral site based on the percentage of users that are doing illegal things.
    - mbesto 10y ago
      Bottled water is used for like 1000x more applications then "thirst quench". For example - I just watered my garden with it.
      - ksk 10y ago
        Sorry you just lost me. I thought you were genuine but now I realize you're wasting everyone's time. Good bye.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Since when was it required for someone to explicitly state "the purpose of this website is to commit this civil/criminal offence" for a court to rule that a website owner is intentionally committing or assisting in an offence? I mean, if it calls itself the Pirate Bay and publicly refuses to remove references to pirated material on request (whilst pruning links to fake torrents) it's pretty difficult to take seriously an argument that the preponderance of references to pirated material is merely incidental.
yrro 10y ago
How do you make sure that you're not downloading my evil modified version of the distro, filled with malware?
- animeweedlord 10y ago
  Cryptographic signing.
  - yrro 10y ago
    And you got the key against which you check the signature from where?
    - e12e 10y ago
      With Linux distributions it's entirely possible to meet [ed: developers] at conventions and build a path of trust quite directly to the signing keys. I'd argue it's generally more secure than "random CA said this domain name belongs to Red Hat". It might even be more secure than this particular CA that I believe Red Hat have previously used, said this new TLS key belong to Red Hat.
      - yrro 10y ago
        While all this is true, I find it hard to beleive that anyone prefers to dodge the dark patterns, forged images with embedded malware, and adverts of The Pirate Bay rather than direct from the distro web site.
- yomly 10y ago
  Doesn't a checksum verify that the file you have is the same one the distributor intends you to have?

I routinely use the Pirate Bay to find torrents of Linux distros that are not even approximately "pirated material." It does have legitimate use cases.

by avn2109 10y ago

I routinely use the Pirate Bay to find torrents of Linux distros that are not even approximately "pirated material." It does have legitimate use cases.

542458 10y ago

As an aside to the actual argument at hand... Why not use the official downloads and torrents? Seems like you're exposing yourself to unnecessary risk like this, unless you're religious about checking every download signature against the official ones.

Spivak 10y ago
For the same reason that people used CNET in the past for downloading software.

pdabbadabba 10y ago

This is true (I too have used it to download a distro from time to time), but it is simply not responsive to GP's point, which is that, unlike Google, TPB does not comply with DMCA takedown requests and is "setup explicitly for the purpose of finding pirated material." When it comes to piracy, Google's situation is exactly opposite of TPB's: TPB is primarily designed to facilitate piracy, does not comply with DMCA takedown requests, and has incidental noninfringing uses. Google is not primarily designed to facilitate piracy, does comply with DMCA takedown requests, and only incidentally facilitates piracy.

jacquesm 10y ago
Why should the DMCA apply at all? It's an American law. The fact that it implements WIPO treaties does not change that fact, in other words, being DMCA compliant is not something that entities outside of the USA should have to be.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Because the .ORG registry is an American company. As disgusting as I feel agreeing with a AA on anything, they're probably within their legal rights here. Not that they should be, mind. Domain registry needs to be a neutral ground and absolutely should not be subject to any kind of takedowns. A domain name points to an IP address - go after that. If it points to another country, your job just got harder, but that doesn't make it my job.
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  A fine point--and much better than the one I was responding to. I'll just say that extraterritoriality can be a difficult concept when the Internet is involved, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone here. (E.g., http://www.bna.com/court-refuses-to-dismiss-action-involving-an-infringing-video/ http://www.bna.com/court-refuses-to-dismiss-action-involving...) And, in any event, their response to DMCA take down requests (http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/ http://beebulletin.com/hilarious-pirate-bay-legal-responses/) and efforts to evade U.S. jurisdiction (not that it helped them much given their serious legal problems at home in Sweden) is pretty good evidence of their intentions--though it is hardly the best evidence available. A business that was not intentionally facilitating piracy would probably just comply with the DMCA takedown notices and, as a bonus, not have to spend all its time hiding its servers.
  - joemi 10y ago
    > A business that was not intentionally facilitating piracy would probably just comply with the DMCA takedown notices and, as a bonus, not have to spend all its time hiding its servers. I strongly disagree. Look at how many big name American companies have fake HQ's and other such arrangements in other countries in an effort to pay less American taxes. Companies in general try to get out of all kinds of things (taxes, responsibilities, etc) all the time, and doing so is not any kind of admission of legal transgressions. If I had an American company and I was getting legal threats from an organization in another country that was citing their country's laws, you can bet I'd do everything I could to avoid having to comply... regardless of whether or not I was actually breaking any laws at all.
mbesto 10y ago
Where precisely does it explicitly say on TPB's website that it is "setup for the purpose of finding pirated material." In fact they explicitly state otherwise: The Pirate Bay is the worlds largest bittorrent indexer. Bittorrent is a filesharing protocol that in a reliable way enables big and fast file transfers. No torrent files are saved at the server. That means no copyrighted and/or illegal material are stored by us. It is therefore not possible to hold the people behind The Pirate Bay responsible for the material that is being spread using the site. I'd appreciate a copy paste of the specific text that says they are setup with the purpose to find pirated material, otherwise it's implied and it's very different.
- ksk 10y ago
  It doesn't have to say on the bottle of water that it is explicitly sold to quench your thirst either. People are not stupid.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    The only thing piracy-focused is the userbase. I don't think it's fair to shut down a content-neutral site based on the percentage of users that are doing illegal things.
  - mbesto 10y ago
    Bottled water is used for like 1000x more applications then "thirst quench". For example - I just watered my garden with it.
    - ksk 10y ago
      Sorry you just lost me. I thought you were genuine but now I realize you're wasting everyone's time. Good bye.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Since when was it required for someone to explicitly state "the purpose of this website is to commit this civil/criminal offence" for a court to rule that a website owner is intentionally committing or assisting in an offence? I mean, if it calls itself the Pirate Bay and publicly refuses to remove references to pirated material on request (whilst pruning links to fake torrents) it's pretty difficult to take seriously an argument that the preponderance of references to pirated material is merely incidental.

yrro 10y ago

How do you make sure that you're not downloading my evil modified version of the distro, filled with malware?

animeweedlord 10y ago
Cryptographic signing.
- yrro 10y ago
  And you got the key against which you check the signature from where?
  - e12e 10y ago
    With Linux distributions it's entirely possible to meet [ed: developers] at conventions and build a path of trust quite directly to the signing keys. I'd argue it's generally more secure than "random CA said this domain name belongs to Red Hat". It might even be more secure than this particular CA that I believe Red Hat have previously used, said this new TLS key belong to Red Hat.
    - yrro 10y ago
      While all this is true, I find it hard to beleive that anyone prefers to dodge the dark patterns, forged images with embedded malware, and adverts of The Pirate Bay rather than direct from the distro web site.
yomly 10y ago
Doesn't a checksum verify that the file you have is the same one the distributor intends you to have?