Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Social Networks The Internet Your Rights Online

The Pirate Bay Comes To Facebook 359

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a report I just read in Mashable, Pirate Bay is coming to Facebook. Writer Ben Parr says that The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to 'Share on Facebook.' Once posted to a profile, the Facebook member's friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided he or she already has a torrenting client installed. I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels. No doubt, if their song files were downloaded through this method, the record companies would sit back for awhile, derive profit from the promotional excitement generated for their dying industry, and then — armed with Facebook's data — sue the pants off all the hapless Facebook users who fell for it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Pirate Bay Comes To Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chlorine Trifluoride ( 1517149 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:27PM (#27382241)
    Nothing in the .torrent file itself is illegal. The **AA still needs to actually show that the person was illictly downloading the copyrighted material. If I downloaded every .torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.
    • Re:Not Really (Score:4, Insightful)

      by coniferous ( 1058330 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:37PM (#27382305) Homepage
      are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.
      • Re:Not Really (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chlorine Trifluoride ( 1517149 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:49PM (#27382419)

        are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

        I know that Sweden != US, but this is the crux of the TPB case. Even if this were the case, if all that they could prove was that you downloaded the .torrent, it would be Facebook that is in trouble.

      • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ledow ( 319597 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:53PM (#27382455) Homepage

        "Enabling" downloading of copyright material is a highly dubious, very unclear "legal" standard. As such, it doesn't exist in the form that you think it does (or that the RIAA think it does) and it isn't present in a great many legal systems. You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

        Thus the legal standard that is required for proof of such actions needs to be substantially higher than "what the RIAA thinks is enabling". Additionally, jurisdictional boundaries greatly interfere here (the RIAA can be as interested in me as they like, but I don't live in America), as do other relevant laws (i.e. the "right" to free speech, fair use, etc.) and the requirement of hard evidence that not only do I have the copyright material in my possession without a licence grant, but also that my *intention* was to then breach copyright by distributing further etc.

        Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

        Also, the legality or otherwise of a torrent file in even a single country has not been legally locked down (roll on April for PirateBay) and thus it's almost 100% certain that any court case would set a precedent in the particular country that hosts it. Until then, the whole thing is just a legal grey area and thus someone could easily do the above mentioned archiving, with a good technical knowledge and an intention of not breaching copyright, and not be breaking ANY existing laws at all, espeically if they can provide good reason (such as the whole "a torrent isn't its contents" argument which SHOULD damn well be correct).

        Don't let every legal threat you ever hear form a legal fact in your mind. 99% of things never go to court and 50% of those that do fail miserably. Otherwise, bank charges in the UK would be in the order of £5, not £50, Linux would be cleared or convicted of breaching several hundred patents, Microsoft would be dead in the water and I'd be able to eat peanuts without having to read "May contain nuts".

        • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Interesting)

          by actionbastard ( 1206160 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @07:23PM (#27382683)
          "'Enabling' downloading of copyright material is a highly dubious..."

          If I post a piece of paper on a telephone pole with the addresses of all banks in the city in which it is posted and someone uses that information to rob one of the banks on that list, am I guilty of 'facilitating' said robbery?
          If I leave a stack of CDs in a box by the sidewalk in front of my house with a sign that says' "Take one, leave one."; does that make me guilty of copyright infringement?
        • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)

          by isaac338 ( 705434 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @07:59PM (#27382903)

          You can see why - the person who supplies the computer keyboard/mouse is "enabling" the user to download a copyrighted work. So is the monitor manufacturer, and the ISP, and the electricity company.

          Not to mention the most supreme enabler of them all - the artist who created the original copyrighted works. If those works hadn't been created, nobody would download copyrighted material!

        • Don't let every legal threat you ever hear form a legal fact in your mind.

          Very well-put, ledow. You clearly don't need mod points, so I choose to commend you by name for such an insightful and informative post.

        • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)

          by EdIII ( 1114411 ) * on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:08PM (#27382949)

          Additionally, I have saved somewhere a news report from BBC News in which representatives of several major UK record companies state that they allow people to download/convert music they already own to use on their own devices, as many times as they like. This is quite damning and would protect certain usage of certain torrents, whether or not the official word on the copyright laws in my country say so.

          Don't fuck around. Post that right now. I don't know what the laws are in the UK, but since that was a public announcement it could be very well seen as an interpretation of their very own legal contracts with customers. Everybody should have a copy of that to maintain that as a backup as it could be easily used against them in the future.

          There is no other way to say it, that's wonderful :)

          P.S - You just know those representatives got slapped later. You just know it.

        • But given that peanuts are peas not nuts, its important to warn you that the package may contain nuts due to a factory error.

      • I am really surprised by this each and every time I hear it; if I provide a torrent to someone, I am not the violator, though the **IA argues that making available is a copyright infringement it is more a case of being an accessory to a copyright infringement; the funny part to me is that in trying to prove their case they pull files from said 'violator' and use that as proof; If they argue that they aren't violating the copyright because they are owner/agents the accessory charge is also null and void, if

      • by v1 ( 525388 )

        are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content? Then the RIAA might have something to say about that. I'm not sure what the current legal stance on that is, but that's an argument that a layer would probably make.

        I'm enabling them to download pirated content if I'm their cable provider. SueSueSue!

        Oh wait, I'm enabling them to download pirated content if I'm their power company! SueSueSue!

        And I'm enabling them to download pirated content by selling them a computer without rootkits preinstalle

      • by Tubal-Cain ( 1289912 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @08:10PM (#27382955) Journal

        are you enabling someone to download or find pirated content?

        Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it.
        -- Linus Torvalds

        I'm making an offsite backup. One such backup may not be available when I need it, so I better make many dozens.

    • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blhack ( 921171 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:41PM (#27382359)

      If I downloaded every .torrent on TPB for archival purposes, I would be doing nothing wrong.

      That doesn't mean that you wouldn't be doing something that the court feels is illegal.
      We need to come to grips with the fact that our court system doesn't work based on facts, it works based on feelings.

      Yes, but downloading a .torrent file, you haven't done anything to contribute to the piracy of any copyrighted materials.

      But the courts feel like you did, so you can be convicted for it.
      Its sad, and I think it speaks to the way that geek-minds work...we're analytical.

      We look at a box and when somebody asks us to describe it, we say things like "It is royal-blue, it is 14cm tall and a perfect cube."
      Sadly, the judges would respond by
      "Well...I think the box is kindof squarish, it looks like it was probably used as a doorstop for a few years".

      Facts vs. Feelings. This is the problem behind nearly every major legal battle that geeks are fighting. The facts support us, people's emotions do not.

      • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jhantin ( 252660 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @07:31PM (#27382739)

        The crux of the difference between geek-think and law-think here is that typically the legal issues turn not on the assets themselves, but on their provenance -- which is not an intrinsic property of the assets, but rather a sort of implicit metadata that requires extra bookkeeping to track reliably.

        The legality of a song-file depends on how you got it, not the fact that it's a song by a major label artist. Downloaded from a properly licensed online store? No problem. The same exact sequence of bits, downloaded from someplace shady? Problem.

        Similarly, the legality of a stack of $100 notes likewise depends on how you got it. If you got it by, say, making and selling custom cabinetry, you're probably fine, but if you got it by unauthorized sale of controlled substances, and the law catches on, you'll have problems.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FlyingGuy ( 989135 )

        Sorry, but you are wrong. Don't believe me, ask any lawyer.

        Facts vs. Feelings. This is the problem behind nearly every major legal battle that geeks are fighting. The facts support us, people's emotions do not.

        They are courts of Law where facts and feelings have very little to do with anything.

      • by langelgjm ( 860756 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:30PM (#27383403) Journal

        FYI, if you find yourself agreeing with the parent post, you probably have not ever read a Supreme Court or Appeals Court opinion, or decent law review article.

        There are of course a number of frankly idiotic opinions, but on the whole judges (or at least good judges, i.e., the ones whose opinions you read in classes) are a fairly analytical bunch. You kind of have to be.

        The impression I get when I ponder the relationship between the judiciary and the legislative branches is that we have a lot of well-educated, well-spoken judges trying to make sense of laws that have been cobbled together by a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at one another. It's a little depressing.

    • Re:Not Really (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nathan.fulton ( 1160807 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:49PM (#27382417) Journal
      Perhaps. But could **AA ask for a better "lead?" Take a look at some of the (blatantly illegal) things that the **AA and its cronies have done. They probably wouldn't shy away from using Facebook as a method to choose who to target with any new blatantly illegal schemes they come up with and think they can get away with.

      Regardless, making it public knowledge that you pirate/support piracy is probably a stupid idea if you ever plan on having a job.
    • Re:Not Really (Score:4, Informative)

      by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:51PM (#27382429)

      I wouldnt quite agree, as the .torrent files are checksums derived from either DVDrips or screencaps, which are both derivative works.

      Go read up on what lawyers talk about the The Colour of the Bits [sooke.bc.ca]. It's rather interesting, but also states indirectly that one cannot know this type of colour easily.

      I wonder what NewYorkCoultryLawyer would say about this..

      • Re:Not Really (Score:5, Informative)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer ( 912032 ) * <ray.beckermanlegal@com> on Sunday March 29, 2009 @07:15PM (#27382631) Homepage Journal

        I wonder what NewYorkCountryLawyer would say about this..

        NewYorkCountryLawyer? He ain't sayin' nuttin'.

      • If they were perfect checksums, yes, you might have a point. But there are potentially many, many, many different things that can have the exact same checksum but be totally different. For that to be true then the same people have the copyright of any of those things which doesn't make sense.
        • by EdIII ( 1114411 ) *

          If they were perfect checksums, yes, you might have a point.

          Please don't hide behind the fact that most checksums are not provably perfect. I want to fight such ludicrous arguments from the other poster better than that.

          Even if it were perfect, is still does not make a valid point. A checksum by its very nature is a fair use by-product. It exists *only* to verify that the sequence of bits (the copyrighted data) is most likely (usually highly likely) to be the same as the one the checksum was produced fro

      • by g2devi ( 898503 )

        IANAL, but this seems bogus.

        Under your definition, the ISBN, number of pages in the book, number of spelling mistakes in the book, and even the letters used in the book, are all derivative works and are therefore is copyright. If that's then, every book out there is a copyright violation since all books other there use letters which are derivative works. Quoting an ISBN would also be a copyright violation, as would be a description of the book.

        Fortunately there is such as thing as fair use (or fair dealing)

        • Yeah, it seems bogus if you use your analogy.

          But, the hashes used in the .torrent file are directly computed from frame data. This isnt a summary. This isnt a ISBN or UPC label.

          These checksums serve only 1 purpose: and that is to properly put back together any number of files to their starting point. Hence, a mathematically transformed derivative work. And if there wasnt the movie file, those checksums would mean diddly squat, because those checksum numbers represent a cryptographic transformation of the so

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by g2devi ( 898503 )

            > These checksums serve only 1 purpose: and that is to properly put back together any number of files to their starting point.
            > And if there wasnt the movie file, those checksums would mean diddly squat,

            In other words, once you remove all the voodoo-to-the-average-joe mathspeak, its just a glorified URL link.

            Linking has nothing to do with derivative works, no matter how much you dress it up in math or tech or business jargon.

            But leaving that aside a moment, as far as "math transformed derivative work"

    • Until the laws are changed to make downloading a torrent 'intent' to commit.

      Then with that they have grounds for either a search warrant, or just grounds to sue outright.

    • by Firehed ( 942385 )

      That's true (well, depending on your location it may or may not be, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it is). But adding every one of those legal .torrent files to a BitTorrent client would result in a monolithic amount of copyright infringement. Finding who downloaded the torrent file is potentially very easy; associating that information with an IP address in the P2P swarm is equally easy. You do the math.

  • by coniferous ( 1058330 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:28PM (#27382247) Homepage
    Seriously. If I was in charge of facebook and even got wind of an app like this it would be blocked SO fast.

    I'm not against pirating, just against the drama that goes with it. I really don't want the RIAA on my ass; I'm sure facebook doesn't either.

    • This isn't an app, it's just sharing (posting) a link which any user can do without installing apps. You can add your own comment to it, a thumbnail, etc. It's a 'mini-digg'
    • Facebook has never given a crap about which apps run on it. They allow all sorts of apps on there that are nothing more than viral scams designed to steal user data. And, as a corporate machine, why wouldn't they? Every time one of those apps sends a message to a user, that user comes back to their site, might click on the invite friends link, and expand the facebook empire further.

      Anyway... there's one good side to all this. Facebook is HUGE. Quite a big portion of the whole internet is using it, and

  • Incoming! (Score:3, Funny)

    by MagusSlurpy ( 592575 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:33PM (#27382281) Homepage
    I am waiting for the **IA to sue Facebook for "aiding piracy." That will be a fun one to watch.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by boarder8925 ( 714555 )
      Then perhaps this is The Pirate Bay's way of getting the average joe to care about what the RIAA and MPAA have been doing?
    • by entgod ( 998805 )

      I am waiting for the **IA to sue Facebook for "aiding assisting making available." That will be a fun one to watch.

      fixed that for you :)

  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:36PM (#27382295) Journal

    I just hope people do not use this feature to download copyrighted materials which are not authorized to be downloaded, or at least not materials copyrighted to litigation-happy RIAA Big 4 record labels.

    Knowing the Internet community at large, I think there is probably no risk of this happening. :p

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:36PM (#27382299)

    What the *AAs are losing through piracy, more than sales and such, is control. The buzz "center" is moving from the old media into the piratebay's top100. Essentially. Such a development will eventually kill off the content-for-money industry (though a content-with-sponsoring may rise to take it's place, you'll notice that the TV industry is much more laid back).

    This is a step in that direction, so look for a quick and angry reprisal, legally warranted or not.

  • I always thought that the facebook link was a sort of civil disobedience type deal at worst, or at best, a humorous poke at how every site on the planet has Digg this, facebook this, mixx it, etc attached to every page generated.
  • by taucross ( 1330311 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:47PM (#27382407)

    Fred has sent you a torrent. Download?

    Send 20 more torrents to get a "FUCK THE RIAA" gift!

    C'mon, gimme your best shot.

  • What gives? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by krou ( 1027572 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @06:47PM (#27382409)

    I don't get it. The Pirate Bay launches a cheap, unlogged VPN in order to provide a more private service, but now they're encouraging sharing via Facebook?

    You'd think that Facebook is the last place they'd want to be, since it just seems to be the complete antithesis of what I understood the Pirate Bay to be about.

    • Now that TPB is selling a service, it is probably prudent to evaluate their actions from a profit-motive perspective.

      Cheap unlogged VPNs have been around for ages. TPB's service needs something to set itself apart -- like a brand name and viral advertising. Hence facebook links.

      Or maybe it's just an early April Fools joke.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Felix Da Rat ( 93827 )

      Personally, I think they're worried about the court case.

      Even if they win, the risk of law changes is pretty big. So I think they are going whole-hog while they can. The VPN? nice side business, and may allow them to keep going with their ideals. The Facebook thing? Spread the joy, make it easier for everyone to pillage while they can. Possibly even get the benefit of mixing Facebook (now a tracker) into the mess.

      I hope the guys at PB win this one (and the next as well), because they are the boys on the

      • by socsoc ( 1116769 )
        FB wouldn't a tracker in this instance, more like an index or directory, hell they're just links. TPB will still be the tracker.
  • from TFA:

    It works simply: The Pirate Bay site now includes links under torrents to âoeShare on Facebookâ. Once posted to your profile, your Facebook friends can click the link on Facebook to begin the download right away, provided they already have a torrenting client installed.

    wtf am I missing? So, I used the Ubuntu [thepiratebay.org] example given by TorrentFreak [torrentfreak.com] (linked in the mashable article) and hit their Share on Facebook button. It posted to my FB profile as expected, but when I hit the link in my profile,

    • For as awesome as NewYorkCountryLawyer is with technical/legal issues, I think he didn't do precisely what you did yourself. Its the same for me, it takes me to the torrent page instead of the .torrent download. All it is is a specially crafted URL that instructs facebook to ask for your login, (or sample your cookies/authenticated sessions) and post the link to your profile. Nothing more.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        For as awesome as NewYorkCountryLawyer is with technical/legal issues, I think he didn't do precisely what you did yourself. Its the same for me, it takes me to the torrent page instead of the .torrent download. All it is is a specially crafted URL that instructs facebook to ask for your login, (or sample your cookies/authenticated sessions) and post the link to your profile. Nothing more.

        Thank you very much. Now we have a record of your visit. Now we can later claim that you are a copyright infringer, even though we have no evidence of your actually having infringed any copyrights, just as we did in our p2p file sharing cases.

        Your cooperation is indeed appreciated.

        Sincerely yours,

        -Your grateful RIAA Overlords

  • I love it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IonOtter ( 629215 ) on Sunday March 29, 2009 @09:37PM (#27383445) Homepage

    So many here are arguing legality, right, wrong, weather or not it'll fly in court...

    It. Doesn't. MATTER.

    The **AA can serve me with a lawsuit for raping the corpse of Pope John Paul II while wearing nothing but a purple party hat and pink woad.

    It'd make a judge pop a vein from laughing so hard, but if I don't have a lawyer or can't afford one...

    Then I'm shit outta luck and lose the lawsuit.

    Remember, it's not how much justice you can get, it's how much justice you can afford. Or in the case of the **AA, it's how long you can hold out under sustained bombardment.

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito

Working...