And, Just Like That, France Rejects Three Strikes

Facebook Overreacts: Decides All Of The Pirate Bay Is Illegal

from the oh-really? dept

Thu, Apr 9th 2009 8:01am — Mike Masnick

I didn't bother writing up the story from a couple weeks back about a The Pirate Bay feature to easily share links to torrents on Facebook, because it wasn't particularly interesting. But, you knew that someone would overreact negatively. The question was whether it would be the entertainment industry or Facebook first. It looks like Facebook may have won. Rather than dealing with it intelligently, it overreacted and has blocked any and all links to The Pirate Bay, noting that due to the ongoing lawsuit and "controversy" it's basically decided to assume all links to The Pirate Bay are infringing and a violation of Facebook's terms of service. Now, it may very well be true that the majority of content shared via The Pirate Bay is unauthorized and infringing. But, even so, this seems to go too far. There are plenty of legitimate uses for The Pirate Bay, and there is a significant number of legitimate offerings on the site. Furthermore a link should not be considered infringing by itself. No copyright is infringed by a link alone. There were plenty of more reasonable ways that Facebook could have handled this, and it chose the sledge hammer approach. And, as David Title points out, the likely end result is merely that an arms race has begun, where The Pirate Bay will create a workaround, and Facebook will have to block yet again...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, links, terms of service
Companies: facebook, the pirate bay

126 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TooManyPuppies, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:08am

Trent Reznor of NIN puts up his own music on TPB. So, what Facebook is saying is, Trent or any other artist has no right what-so-ever to distribute their own works freely using BitTorrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  No. What FB is saying is that they are not interested in being associated with TPB. I use TPB myself sometimes but I don't blame FB for making this legitimate business decision. TPB has far too much negativity associated with it. If it was my business, I would do the same. Sorry TPB but you're just not worth the bad-rap-by-association when it comes to doing business.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No. What FB is saying is that they are not interested in being associated with TPB...TPB has far too much negativity associated with it.
    
    That's kind of the Internet in general. If that's really the way Facebook feels about it then they should start their own private network, take themselves off the Internet and start handing out purity rings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL! A private company with a private website shouldn't be allowed to control the content they're associated with?
      
      That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.
      
      The internet is a communications platform not the world in anarchy. Private businesses and individuals have every right to control the content they're associated with.
      
      Your view lacks insight or any real understanding of what the internet is. Now go outside and ride you bike or something.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:16am

There are plenty of legitimate uses for The Pirate Bay, and there is a significant number of legitimate offerings on the site.

http://thepiratebay.org/top/all

There are the top 100 torrents - please highlight the legitimate offerings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Peter Thomas, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:21am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, the top 100 represents EVERYTHING, you sure nailed Mike this time!
  
  The top 100 singles in the chart? That's EVERY piece of music ever made, that is.
  
  The top 100 best-selling books? Why, they are EVERY book ever published. There's never been 101 or more books produced, that's a fact that is!
  
  Well done Weird Harold, yet again, your logic has no boundaries.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    You must hate when I am right.
    
    This is very serious. Just because there are a few "acceptable" uses of P2P doesn't suddenly excuse the massive and overwhemling amount of illegal file trading that goes on. You would expect that in the top 100 files that there would be, I dunno, at least 10% that were legit? 20%? That the number is a shocking 0% is just an indication of what is really going on.
    
    I don't suggest for a second that the top 100 represents ALL files, but clearly it is an indication of what the vast majority of people are using TPB for - hint, they ain't trading legal NIN files.
    
    So you can pile on the scorn, but deep down, you have to admit I am right - and I know that really, really bothers you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, you are absolutely wrong.
      
      First, most of those are TV shows that just aired this week (if not yesterday). Of course they're going to be number one. And South Park is questionable, Mat and Trey don't care about piracy (that's why they created south park studios so they didn't have to download their own shows any more)
      
      Second, Just because you think the number one use is for illegal activities doesn't mean that the tool is illegal. Look at the top 100 news articles about guns. I'd bet that all 100 are someone shooting someone else. Doesn't mean that guns should be illegal.
      
      Third, quite a few people are still sharing NIN files. Just on my torrents there are over 1000 people sharing it and it's an old torrent. Fedora 10 has almost 4000 people sharing it (vary old torrent). Blank only has 6, I guess it wasn't that good. So from my limited and completely worthless group, I'd conclude that the vast majority of sharing is legit.
      
      Lastly, the people that post on TechDirt will tell you when they think you're right. You will never have to guess.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, how do I even start to address this?
        
        If P2P was doing what they wanted, there would be no need for "south park studios". They are using this site as marketing, to get people intereted to watch thier show, so that comedy central will pay them for it because comedy central gets more viewers and can sell the ads higher. Just because they set up this site doesn't suggest for a minute that they also put the material on TBP.
        
        If TPB was even half legal use, or heck, even 10% legal use, you might have an argument - but the occassional legal file mixed in with hundreds if not thousands of rips, cracks, and pirated material doesn't suddenly make it all good. One clean and sober guy in the middle of a rack den doesn't suddenly make crack acceptable.
        
        The NIN files shared are the rare exception - and they aren't shared specifically by TPB. For reference, the top file on TBP (episode of lost had 48227 seeders and 50464 leechers. Sort of makes that 4000 number on your NIN file seem small).
        
        Here's the other part: If the files are legal, why go to all the effort to hide the sources? Why use hidden trackers? Why go through the process? What the heck are you hiding?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Peter Thomas, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Pirate Bay is legal. It does not contain copyrighted material, it merely points to it. As does a certain other big site, whose name begins with the letter G.
        
        You must hate it when reality is right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Google is not the same as TPB. Google pays protection money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They are using this site as marketing, to get people intereted to watch thier show, so that comedy central will pay them for it because comedy central gets more viewers and can sell the ads higher. Just because they set up this site doesn't suggest for a minute that they also put the material on TBP.
        
        So, let me get this straight, they are giving away content for FREE, in order to make more money, because more fans means more eyes, which means more ad sales? I thought you said that business model wouldn't work? Wow, Harold, you're learning.
        
        Now run off and sell your recording industry guys on a new business model, the television concert. Musicians can make their money from the networks, who'll sell ads and sponsorship. Their music can be distributed free to drum up new fans and viewers.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael Long, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "So, let me get this straight, they are giving away content for FREE..."
        
        Almost. They are CHOOSING to give THEIR content away for free in the hope that, eventually, they'll make more money doing so.
        
        But it's their choice to do so, not yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Thom, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, he's not almost right, he's exactly right. If they weren't CHOOSING to give away THEIR content then THEY wouldn't "be giving away their content".
        
        His point, which I'm sure you got and I'm also certain you're trying to obscure, is that Harold just argued for a business model that he's always arguing against. He slipped up and gave an example of the very thing he claims can't work.
        
        Then you, of course, come along and try to change the subject to something else entirely, something to deflect the attention from Harold's failing.
        
        Just so you get it, the record labels and artists could CHOOSE to give THEIR content away for free in order to sell or promote other goods. Just as these guys are doing, just as Harold himself argued, just as mike always argues, just as everyone with more intelligence than bias gets, the industry could do. They just choose not too because they are so greedy that they can't understand the concept of not screwing their customers over again and again along every step of the way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But it's their choice to do so, not yours.
        
        I don't think he said it was, either. Nice try at putting words into someone else's mouth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who said Mat and Trey put the files up themselves? I said that they created South Park Studios because they didn't feel like downloading their own shows any more. It sounds to me like they don't care about downloading, they just wanted a way to watch the shows streaming.
        
        Look at the current episode of lost then look at that same exact episode in one week and tell me if that many people are still sharing it (let me know if even 100 are). The only reason it's being downloaded by that many people is because its brand spanking new. Hence the NIN being an old torrent and Linux being a vary old torrent.
        
        I would bet that TPB is much more than 10% legal, but we (and I mean you too Harold) have no way of knowing what truly is legal and what isn't. Linux is blatantly legal, NIN for the most part is but there are a few that are questionable, South Park isn't but they don't care, I have no idea if my copy of Blank is, then there's all the public domain stuff that better be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Peter Thomas, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You must hate when I am right. Having read a lot of your comments, you've put my hate muscle to rest. Your arguments are often along the lines of "black is white" and are frequently debunked by other posters here. You would expect that in the top 100 files... Why concentrating on 100? First off, yeah, the vast majority of that top 100 torrent links are of unauthorised copyrighted material. Okay? Got that? I'm agreeing with you on that one... Now, does Pirate Bay just feature only 100 torrent links, or... a HELL OF A LOT MORE? Hmm... I think it's the latter. You can pile on the scorn, but deep down, you have to admit I am right - and I know that really, really, really, really bothers you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      >by Weird Harold - Apr 9th, 2009 @ 8:27am
      >
      >You must hate when I am right.
      
      We'll let you know when it happens.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ryan, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike stated as much in his post, so I find it odd that you appear to claim exclusivity of your assertion (kinda like patents, heh).
      
      Obviously, the fact that TPB is used significantly more often for illegal file-sharing than for legitimate uses makes it a nice scapegoat for politicians eager to appease entertainment industry lobbyists, and the fickle nature of those same politicians encourages Facebook to take the easy way out by blocking links. However, that doesn't make the decision logical or prudent when considering the big picture.
      
      Whether TPB exists or not, illegal file-sharing will continue until countries cease to prohibit it, just as drug trafficking will continue from Latin America to the U.S. until legalized. Cracking down on Napster didn't cut down on mp3-sharing any more than cracking down on Columbian trafficking made a dent in the drug war; it just transposed to Mexico, because the demand is there whether the powers that be like it or not.
      
      And since file-sharing has virtually no impact on consumption of entertainment in general (just look at the Dark Knight), and is actually used extensively by more innovative distributors to intentionally get their content out there, the only thing that attempting to crack down on it does is hurt those legitimate purposes. People are still gonna find what they want elsewhere, whether it is a link to TPB on Facebook or Googling Harold and Kumar, but disallowing aggregate sites makes it harder for less known content to reach the masses.
      
      What Mike contends is not that TPB is used mainly for legitimate purposes, but that banning it only hurts legitimate purposes and is thus not the most beneficial course of action.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matt, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      uh, the legal world at large would tend to disagree with your ideas harold.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and this is why TPB is hiding is pro-copyright infringement Sweden, rather than operating in the other countries they have been chased out of.
        
        Yeah right.
        
        Why doesn't someone open "legitimatep2p.com" and only list files that are legitimately given to them by the copyright holders to distribute? Why aren't you guys all over an idea like that, seperating yourselves from the pirates and the "infringers"?
        
        Wait... for most of you, it's because you are the infringers. For Mike, it's because you can't sell "FREE!" advice if the mass "infringement" of music went away.
        
        Got it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Peter Thomas, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Weird Harold, can you actually prove The Pirate Bay is infringing copyright? I've visited the site a few times and there's no copyrighted material there.
        
        You must hate it when you're contrite.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Weird Harold, can you actually prove The Pirate Bay is infringing copyright? I've visited the site a few times and there's no copyrighted material there."
        
        MGM v. Grokster (545 US 913) leaves little doubt that the pirate bay is guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ehrichweiss, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:53am
        
        IF
        IF
        IF
        IF
        IF...they were in the United States but they're not. Idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        qez, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        MGM v. Grokster (545 US 913) leaves little doubt that the pirate bay is guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
        
        Did you forget one little detail? US court doesn't decide what is illegal in Sweden.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which is why they are hiding in sweden, instead of doing it in the open, because pretty much anywhere else in the world, they would be poor and / or sharing a cell with bubba.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Azuravian, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, they are "hiding" in Sweden, as you call it. Because Sweden's current laws happen to coincide with their beliefs, which are different from yours, we get it. However, countries having copyright laws doesn't make those laws right. There are multiple countries in this world where religion can't be practiced freely. Does that make it right? Would you suggest that an individual who leaves that country and goes to another in order to practice their beliefs is, in some way, hiding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Michael, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thats a stretch, look at cases since, that particular case was tried when people did not know much about the technology at all... just because someone wins in court, doesn't make them right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HaroldsmokingtooMuchKumar, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Hiding?
        I don't think they are hiding when that is the website founder's home country. If the website was hosted in Sealand or some other random location- then maybe this statement might be true.
        
        They are complying with all legal requirements in their home country. Just because America's commercial interests don't like it does not mean that America's commercial interests are the same interests to the entire world. Corporations in America do not run the world. They probably should not be bribing American politicians either. If you believe this is really the case then you don't believe in democracy or the right to freedom outside the United States.
        
        Harold is a true believer in American Fascism...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Hiding?
        Harold is a Canadian... he believes what his RIAA overlords tell him to believe. Oh, and the word "American" in all locations of your post could be replaced with "insert European Country Name Here" pretty easily. So get off your arrogant euro loving horse and stuff it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HaroldsmokingtooMuchKumar, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: Hiding?
        It would surprise you to know...I am a freedom loving American. I advocate democracy across the world. I want the US to stay out of other countries and allow them to make their own decisions. We are no better nor worse than these other countries, but we need to mind our own business and enforce our own laws. The US must respect viewpoints and countries that don't always agree with our laws. We do not and never should try to rule the world- our laws are no more "legal" than Euro-law and less representative of the democratic interests of that population.
        
        I also think we need real change and could do a lot to change the US government toward a true democracy rather than bow to corporate feudal lords and bought-off government representatives.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Hiding?
        Harold is a Canadian...
        
        Isn't Canada really part of the US? Don't they just do whatever the US tells them to do(Iraq, etc.)? They sure don't have any balls of their own.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL, your posts are getting more and more whiney every day WH. Pretty pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and this is why TPB is hiding is pro-copyright infringement Sweden
        
        Huh? Are you serious? Haven't you seen all the press TPB has been getting lately and TBP's deliberate actions to play that publicity up? And you claim that they're in "hiding"? You have really got to be one of the biggest liars I have ever come across.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait... for most of you, it's because you are the infringers.
        
        Well, if most of the public are infringers then it's high time to repeal the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "pro-copyright infringement Sweden"
        
        I just want to make sure you realize what part I'm talking about, you pig-headed imbecile. The laws in Sweden make much more sense to MOST of us. You see, since TPB doesn't actually host any infringing material, they cannot be held liable for pointing at said material, which is NOT on their servers. You see? Their laws work for them. Wish our's worked for us.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 4:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sweden allows for this sort of distinction, which makes them very much pro-infringement. TPB plays a very cute game of sham fronts, but at the end of the day, people majority go to TPB to obtain illegal, stolen, infringed, or cracked products. The top 100 shows that clearly, one has to be pretty ignorant to not to understand that.
        
        TPB then makes money off of placing ads and offering various things on their websites to the people visiting to get to those infringing works. Remove all of the "links" to infringing works, and nobody would visit TPB.
        
        The laws work for them because they are splitting a legal hair based on a law that wasn't constructed with technology in mind. That is exactly what makes Sweden a pro-infringment haven.
        
        You see? Their laws make it possible for TPB to exist where it could not in the US or most other western countries. In fact, the only "next" location for TPB when things get too tight are either buying their own country, or china (or maybe Hugo Chavez Or Kim Jong Il will give them space).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 6:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but at the end of the day, people majority go to TPB to obtain illegal, stolen, infringed, or cracked products.
        
        I'm with you WH and another example is automobiles.
        
        At the end of the day, people use automobiles to violate traffic laws and commit other violations. There is no denying that fact and the automobile dealers hide behind the law and cry "we just sell the cars, we don't drive them!" while clearly making money off them. Well it's time that stopped! I say start making the dealers responsible for what people do with the autos bought from them and you'll see far fewer autos on the road and far fewer traffic laws being violated!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        haha, funny but not relevant,although the manufactures have often been found liable for defects that were exposed in accidents (such as the badly placed fuel tanks on the Crown Vics used as police cars).
        
        Now, if the dealership put a sticker in every car that said "here is how you drive 150mph without getting caught, don't worry,it's entirely legal" then yes, they would be liable.
        
        All the double talk in the world doesn't make TPB any less aware of exactly what their site is used for. All the smarmy testimony in court just showed them to be an arrogant bunch of assholes giving the finger to the world and hiding behind a very poorly written swedish law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2009 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now, if the dealership put a sticker in every car that said "here is how you drive 150mph without getting caught, don't worry,it's entirely legal" then yes, they would be liable.
        
        I've seen plenty of ads and talked to plenty of auto salesmen who've talked about how fast a particular auto will go. Yet, I've never seen any of them arrested for it. Or perhaps you can provide some examples of that happening. (yeah, right)
        
        And TPB leaves it up to the user (i.e. driver) to follow their own local laws.
        
        You are really full of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2009 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All the smarmy testimony in court just showed them to be an arrogant bunch of assholes giving the finger to the world and hiding behind a very poorly written swedish law.
        
        How dare they not bow down and kiss your and your industry buddies' asses? Imagine that! That just really gets to you, doesn't it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phil McCraken, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      We do hate it, but it hasn't happened yet, so we are still happy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      DMCA is a poorly written and executed law which written for political purposes. You're not right, you're stupid.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Harold,
      
      When we want your convoluted opinion on anything, we'll give it to you.
      
      Until then, resist the temptation to exercise your first amendment right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and Harold,
        
        If you are a good little Nazi, I will not have to exercise my 4th amendment right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rick, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Weird Harold, using the same justification in the opposite direction.
      
      You should be put to death. Since there are Harold's who have committed murder - we should eliminate all Harold's immediately.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Fishbane, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:16pm
      
      I wouldn't mind you being right.
      So tell us, Harold - what percentage must be "acceptable" before we're "allowed" to assume that not everything associated with TPB is "legit"?
      
      Or even look beyond TPB. What percentage of computers need to have infringing content on them before we decide that computers are "illegitimate"?
      What about companies - how many firms must have non-licensed software in use internally before they, too, are declared illegitimate?
      
      Give us a number.
      
      So you can pile on the scorn, but deep down, you have to admit I am right - and I know that really, really bothers you.
      
      Meanwhile, back in the real world, I don't, and it doesn't, and it wouldn't if you were right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Brand, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And just because there are a few "acceptable" uses of VCRs doesn't suddenly excuse the massive and overwhemling amount of illegal recording of broadcast TV that goes on. Right ?
      
      The US Supreme Court disagreed, of course, but what do they know ?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Miles, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  There are the top 100 torrents - please highlight the legitimate offerings.
  All the TV shows one can find on other $0.00 sites.
  
  Now, before you rip into me on this, pay attention for 20 seconds.
  
  We already pay for this content, regardless if it's on an ad supported website or television station. People who don't watch these shows also pay for it.
  
  If monies are made through advertising, then logic dictates everyone who has purchased a Coke product pays for all content using Coke product ads.
  
  This argument about "someone pays" always tends to take away from the consumer, who has always paid.
  
  If you watch a show, with ads, and all ads are feminine products, what the hell did you contribute to paying for that show? $0.00.
  
  One of these damn days, you're going to realize it's the distributor having issues with controlling content, not what revenues are "lost" due to piracy.
  
  In the world of broadcasting, everyone pays regardless if they watch the damn show or not.
  
  Otherwise, the ad-supported distribution model would have failed long, long ago.
  
  As for the movies/software, I can see your point.
  
  Music is saved for a later discussion, given it's the only distribution product in which offers a choice between 1 song or an album.
  No one keeps a single episode of a television show without the rest.
  
  Now, please place your asinine defense below. It'll be interesting to see what spin you put here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ehrichweiss, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re:
    "If you watch a show, with ads, and all ads are feminine products, what the hell did you contribute to paying for that show? $0.00."
    
    Harold is really Harriet and she's been on the rag recently so she's actually contributed thousands in tampons this month alone.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Miles, you pay for the TV shows by paying attention to the commercials. if you view a copy with no commercials, they you didn't pay the going rate for free TV. If the show was on HBO and you don't subscribe to HBO, you haven't paid to see it either., and so on.
    
    (as for the feminine ads, if my GF sends me to the pharmacy to get her something in a rush, I am a secondary target market... so you never know. They are paying the freight, and that is the key. Perhaps you are watching too many "girly" shows? ;) )
    
    When you start to realize that payment isn't always made directly out of your pocket, you will understand the difference between free and "FREE!".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Thom, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't watch commercials. I skip them or I go get food or I go pee. I guess that makes me a thief, me and everyone else.
      
      Funny that, the very tiny percentage of viewers that do watch any given commercial, and are swayed by it to buy the product, support the full cost of all the advertising. Sort of like the tiny percentage of listeners who listen to music and are swayed by it to buy more music, products, or concert tickets support the artist. Exactly the same when you realize that music is also advertisement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Miles, you pay for the TV shows by paying attention to the commercials. if you view a copy with no commercials, they you didn't pay the going rate for free TV.
      Yeah, I remember when one of your TV industry buddies claimed that it was stealing to go to the bathroom during a commercial.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I remember when one of your TV industry buddies claimed that it was stealing to go to the bathroom during a commercial.
        
        That was the chairman of Turner Broadcasting Systems, surely one of WH's heros.
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20020715/0130220.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - R. Miles, 9 Apr 2009 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Miles, you pay for the TV shows by paying attention to the commercials
      Wrong, yet again.
      
      So, genius, who the hell pays for the ads I'm supposed to watch, but don't, because (like many others), a great button called "Fast Forward" prevents such "payment of attention" to these ads?
      
      When you start to realize that payment isn't always made directly out of your pocket, you will understand the difference between free and "FREE!".
      I guess you continue to skip over the parts in which I said I don't believe in the word "free".
      
      $0.00 is not the same as "free".
      
      Free means no cost, regardless if it's monetary or ads.
      
      $0.00 is what we're charged when having to view content with ad support.
      
      Thus, $0.00 means costs are made up by the very feminine product you purchased for your gf while my wife watches Lifetime.
      
      But wait. I digress, given I forgot how you believe this system is flawed because it's offered for "free".
      
      My bad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Miles, you are playing split hairs, I suspect you aren't happy I am on to you.
        
        If you use the fast forward button, well, good for you. The price you paid not to see commercials is a PVR. You are the reason why there are now plenty of "placements" in TV shows to keep you entertained.
        
        I guess you continue to skip over the parts in which I said I don't believe in the word "free".
        
        Trying to split hairs between free and $0.00 is just you wanting to pat yourself on the back for being smart. If that makes you feel better, run with it - but in the end, you are still paying, just not with direct cash.
        
        unless of course you are watching on cable, dish, or downloading on the internet - they you are paying, you just don't realize it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you use the fast forward button, well, good for you.
        
        What's this, Harold, encouraging people to "steal"? Shame on you, hypocrite!
        
        The price you paid not to see commercials is a PVR.
        
        Oh really? How much of the purchase price of a typical PVR goes to the content creator? I've got a hint for you: NONE.
        
        However, if you're saying that purchasing hardware gives one the right to use it as one pleases, then purchasing a computer gives one the right share files with it too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 7:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you use the fast forward button, well, good for you.
        You better go back and check the playbook with your chums in Hollywood on that one, Harold. They've been trying for years to get that made illegal.
        http://techdirt.com/articles/20041116/0818209.shtml
        And of course they disable the fast forward on parts of DVD's and claim that bypassing that restriction is illegal too.
        
        Bad shill! Bad!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anothermous, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:06am
  
  Re:
  The thing is, we don't know the ones that are non-infringing. For all we know, the legitimate copyright holder might be the one who uploaded and seeded the torrent.
  
  You simply *can't* know without contacting the rightsholder and asking. So run off and do that now for us Harold.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  There are the top 100 torrents - please highlight the legitimate offerings.
  
  TPB doesn't decide what's most popular, the public does. Thanks for pointing out what the public really thinks as opposed to what the copyright cartels are saying.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:23am

"Trent Reznor of NIN puts up his own music on TPB. So, what Facebook is saying is, Trent or any other artist has no right what-so-ever to distribute their own works freely using BitTorrent."

How could you possibly have come to that conclusion based on Facebook's decision?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:29am

going about it wrong
Furthermore a link should not be considered infringing by itself. No copyright is infringed by a link alone.

TPB only posts links to infringing content. that is why their site is legal in sweden.

so facebook is blocking links to links to infringing content, which is double unnecessary. that makes my head hurt.

in about five minutes, a site called TPB-book.com (or something similar) will emerge, providing links to TPB torrents and a facebook app that makes sharing links to TPB-book super easy and accomplishing the super human feat of being triple unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:36am
  
  Re: going about it wrong
  You are wrong. Our group uses Pirate bay to distribute our game mods, and video's all of which are legal and actually boost legitimate sales of the games we mod, and MANY companies do the same. While its true that illegal materials hit the top 100 (because its full of the newest torrents) it is a complete fabrication that they are all illegal. Go look at Vuze, they use bittorrent to make money and distribute advertising for the very people who rail against them. On top of this is the fact that stopping it is not even an option. It isn't going away folks, we won't let it. Change the way you do things and keep up with the times or deservingly go broke fighting us.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re: going about it wrong
    You are wrong. Our group uses Pirate bay to distribute our game mods, and video's all of which are legal and actually boost legitimate sales of the games we mod, and MANY companies do the same. While its true that illegal materials hit the top 100 (because its full of the newest torrents) it is a complete fabrication that they are all illegal.
    
    you misunderstood me. i mean that the only thing that TPB hosts are links to materials, rather than hosting any materials itself. i do not mean that TPB only links to infringing materials, but rather that the purpose of the site is to host aggregate pointers to and comments about materials that are not hosted by the pirate bay.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:25am
  
  Re: going about it wrong
  What about just using a url obfuscator like tinyurl or xrl? Or does Facebook already block those?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erv Server, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:06am

The Bay
Those who regularly use Pirate Bay don't need Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fsm, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:08am

Question for Harold
What if I only STEAL music from artists who are already dead?

I'm only stealing from their record label or greedy grandkids then, and we can all agree to hate them, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Question for Harold
  Those grandkids worked hard to be descended by creative people. They deserve that money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Long, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:42am
  
  Re: Question for Harold
  But you don't, so the question is meaningless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Thom, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re: Question for Harold
    You're not a very creative troll are you? The question isn't meaningless at all, it directly raises the issue of giving extended copyright to the families of long dead creators.
    
    Giving. Giving as in granting them rights that they never had. Giving as in taking the rights away from mankind, not for any grand reason of fairness or equity, but solely because it's a marketable excuse for extending the copyright control on a bunch of disney films.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:10am

It's facebook's choice
I don't particularly agree or disagree with their decision, but they are a business and they are choosing to disallow links to the pirate bay. That's their choice, it's their right, and they have to live with the consequences whether good or bad.

It could be a good move for them, especially if they're looking at some back room deals with content producers. It could also be a bad move for them given their recent public relations flubs. It could be a little of both where only time will tell which wins out.

I don't think banning TPB hurts the legitimate purposes any more than it hurts the illegitimate ones, it just doesn't give either any new exposure, at least directly, since in the end this could have the opposite effect and promote TPB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yakko Warner, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:10am

TinyUrl?
Do they block links to TinyUrls that resolve to TPB?

(According to Wikipedia, MySpace decided to block all TinyUrls because of abuse; so if Facebook does the same, well, there are other services that might not be blocked... ;) )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Peter Thomas, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:16am
  
  Re: TinyUrl?
  It's also trivial for any coder to write a URL-redirection script on their own website.
  
  Facebook might be able to block the well-known services like TinyURL.com and bit.ly, but to go after them all would be playing Whack-A-Mole...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:11am

Put yourself in Facebook's shoes. What is the benefit in allowing TPB links? Very little -- some users may be happy. What if the RIAA decides you are supporting copyright infringement? Could be very costly.

They are a business. Risk analysis says its wiser to just block the links.

Sure, call them overreacting. But why would you expect a business to be a crusader in legitimizing TPB?

The legality of TPB is an entirely different issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike42 (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:11am

Harold Hates Guns
It seems that the tool is being blamed for the actions of it's users. As well stated above, the top 100 news articles on guns would all be killings, so we should ban guns, right Harold? Any other NRA supporters want to chime in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:14am

Seriously
Seriously, stop feeding it and it will go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:20am

This is very serious. Just because there are a few "acceptable" uses of P2P doesn't suddenly excuse the massive and overwhemling amount of illegal file trading that goes on.

There are a lot of things that way - so you'd punish the innocent to get some guilty? So - because some people get drunk and kill others with cars - we should ban cars, right?
Because some people eat far too much sugar and get too fat, we should ban sugar, right?
Because some artists use offensive, racist, or untactful lyrics - we should ban music right?
Because some kid manages to get adult content on cable, we should ban cable, right?
Because some lunatic shoots up a mall, we should ban guns, right?
Because some people rape others, we should ban sex, right?

Because some politician abuses a law, we should ban laws, right?

And before you say, "well, that isn't the majority of what happens in those instances so we shouldn't ban them..." - I could most certainly argue the point right above this on that - that in fact, most of the time laws made are abused by the people making them.

Name ONE thing that DOESN'T get abused... just one.

I've downloaded a number of quite legitimate programs from Torrent...

Ubuntu Linux, Perfect World International (MMO - download from torrent), quite a number of films that are ok for free re-distribution. Any software that is a 'larger' sized qualifies, as does anything that is better off with very high availability. Not to mention, some artists like the idea of such a distribution network.

Quite a number of the smaller MMO's use torrent to distribute their installers. WoW uses an isolated version of torrent for their updates as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analyst (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:28am

I normally don't side with WH, but ...
I'm gonna side with WH on this one.

First, all of you who claim that TPB does not infringe are correct. TPB does not infringe: they create an infrastructure that facilitates file sharing. Some users of that infrastructure have chosen to share files which, according current legal definitions, do infringe.

Second, I read a report (here? somewhere else? sorry no reference) that basically showed that link popularity is frequently exponention, with only a small percentage of content commanding a large percentage of hits. As WH notes, all of the Top 100 links on TPB are "infringing copies" (again legal definition, not mine). This just supports the well established fact that a LARGE PERCENTAGE of content linked by TPB is infringing (again, current legal definition).

All Facebook is doing is proactively protecting themselves from potential litigations. Sure this means the bad guys' lawyers are winning, but it doesn't mean the war is over. For all you guys out there with legit content, why not focus on the next workaround?

As Facebook is demonstrating here, TPB's reputation is starting to cause legal concerns for big companies. So what? TPB is not the only torrent provider, nor are torrents the only solution.

Are all of you legitimate content providers going to use this whole situation as a reason to get even more creative, or are you going to sit around complaining about your problems like the RIAA and print media?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: I normally don't side with WH, but ...
  "Are all of you legitimate content providers going to use this whole situation as a reason to get even more creative, or are you going to sit around complaining about your problems like the RIAA and print media?"
  
  Why not? The RIAA are flat out refusing to change to accommodate pirates, why should legitimate people change to accommodate these RIAA lawyers. Both sides have perfectly reasonable actions they could take to work around (and possibly work with) the illegal activities.
  
  Why are we forcing legitimate users to work around the illegal activities of the RIAA lawyers and not forcing the RIAA to work around the illegal activities of some of TPB users?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TriZz, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:30am

Solution:
http://tinyurl.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:30am

my 2 cents
If top 100 links correspond to illegal content then it is most likely that a significant part of the content is illegal. Quit harassing "weird" for semantics.

The real question is, as mike mention and the core of the pirate bay trial, does posting torrents or linking them constitutes infringement.

Another aspect is this action is going to have minimal impact. Users are still going to "compress" the link and share it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: my 2 cents
  Or just link to the dozens of other torrent tracker sites. Either way, who cares. Like I get ANY links to torrents from someone's facebook.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:32am

MGM v. Grokster (545 US 913) leaves little doubt that the pirate bay is guilty of contributory copyright infringement. And Google won't give you the same end result for your search? Or Yahoo... or MSN... or Dogpile.. Practically any search engine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:35am
  
  Re:
  "And Google won't give you the same end result for your search? Or Yahoo... or MSN... or Dogpile.. Practically any search engine."
  
  I wasn't stating an opinion on whether I think liability should extend to entities like the pirate bay, I was simply informing people that it does.
  
  I think your analogy to Google is a bit of a stretch.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think your analogy to Google is a bit of a stretch.
    
    i agree. google is a publicly traded company with it's headquarters in california.
    
    the pirate bay's logo is a pirate ship. i mean the evidence is irrefutable.
    
    C.T.: your argument is invalid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Random, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:31am
      
      Study
      In the Pirate Bay trial an unrefuted study of the Pirate Bay in defense of the Pirate Bay stated 80% of all links were legal. I'm not sure if you could even say the same for Google. Also the legality of a link being illegal is somewhat questionable.
      
      Does a picture of a pirate ship suddenly make everything they do illegal? I'm sure you could find lots of pirate ships on a quick search of Google. I'm also sure there are links to individual Pirate Bay pages through Google. At what point can you say that any of the linking is illegal and where do you draw the line?
      
      This is very much a gray area. Why does a small business have different rights from a larger business? If I start an innovative search engine which is not publicly traded, am I not afforded the same rights as Google? This is setting a dangerous precedent for a lack of innovation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      the pirate bay's logo is a pirate ship. i mean the evidence is irrefutable.
      
      A logo is "irrefutable evidence"? You're really daft.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I wasn't stating an opinion on whether I think liability should extend to entities like the pirate bay, I was simply informing people that it does.
    
    You were trying to inform people that US law applies to Sweden. It doesn't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The infamous Joe, 10 Apr 2009 @ 6:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    *sigh*
    
    Type the following into a google search bar, please:
    
    wolverine filetype:torrent
    
    thank you, and have a great day.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Weird Harold, 10 Apr 2009 @ 7:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Each one of those links takes me to a page that has links that link to somewhere else that might have the file.
      
      I was unable to find a tracker file on google.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:33am

"First, all of you who claim that TPB does not infringe are correct. TPB does not infringe: they create an infrastructure that facilitates file sharing. Some users of that infrastructure have chosen to share files which, according current legal definitions, do infringe."

This is factually correct, but your legal conclusion is wrong. The doctrine of secondary liability extends to parties who induce others to commit copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- R. Miles, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:46am
  
  Re:
  The doctrine of secondary liability extends to parties who induce others to commit *strike*copyright infringement*strike*.
  Then, by this reasoning, gun manufacturers should be held liable for anyone murdered with their product (shot down in many cases). "To hunt" isn't fair defense when anything can be hunted.
  
  Yet, guns exist.
  
  I get the beef of TPB. Yes, it offers a wide open door for infringement. But to blame TPB? No.
  
  TPB doesn't tell these users to open their computers for sharing.
  
  TPB doesn't tell these users to open their computers to copyright material.
  
  TPB doesn't tell these users to download the content.
  
  TPB doesn't prevent the entertainment industry for using their product.
  
  Just like gun manufacturers don't tell their purchasers to kill humans.
  
  TPB doesn't even imply their services are used to share copyright material.
  
  Thus, no liability should be placed on the service/owners, regardless what the users do with it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Miles, just read how TPB treats DMCA or copyright violation notices, and tell me they are not encouraging "infringement". Telling a guy to yell FIRE in a crowded theater is just as bad as yelling it yourself in the end.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:51am
      
      I don't blame the TPB for dismissing DMCA first of all - the DMCA is a U.S. law. They are well outside U.S. jurisdiction. When it comes down to it the argument is that copyright holders - especially the likes of conglomerates such as the RIAA, MPAA, etc. have a stranglehold that is morally wrong - law aside. The laws of any country more often than not reflect the desires of the powerful and not those of the majority. The simple fact is that TPB is thumbing it's nose at that very thing. Just because they support infringement does not make them wrong - the issue is far more complex than that.
      
      I believe in copyright in general as I am an artist myself however, big business has taken things to a whole new level. Copyright and patents, at least in the U.S. are broken systems. Only those using the current broken system to cheat others would defend it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:37am

I think your analogy to Google is a bit of a stretch.

It's the only search engine I use for torrent searches. So no - it's not a stretch by any means whatsoever.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+8.10+torrent&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t &rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&safe=active
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:44am

"It's the only search engine I use for torrent searches. So no - it's not a stretch by any means whatsoever."

I wasn't suggesting that you can't find infringing material through a google search. It's rather obvious that you can. Nonetheless, that is a shallow analogy in the context in which we are speaking. Contributory liability for the inducement of copyright infringement turns on a showing that the defendant had an intent to foster infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:53am

"Then, by this reasoning, gun manufacturers should be held liable for anyone murdered with their product (shot down in many cases). "To hunt" isn't fair defense when anything can be hunted."

I don't find your analogy to be very enlightening. Generally, you're right: gun manufactures aren't liable for how their guns are used. However, a gun merchant can be held civilly and criminally liable if they sell firearms in a negligent manner, especially if one of the guns is later used in the commission of a crime. Secondary liability for copyright infringement is similar. Just because you run a site/service like Google that may enable people to find copyrighted material, you will not be held liable for copyright infringement unless your conduct suggests you sought to induce the end user's copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  You seem to be a lawyer or legal scholar or the like, so I have two questions for you:
  
  1) You seem to be basically stating that TPB's content is infringing because of MGM v. Grokster...but that was a U.S. decision that held that entities could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement. But as far as I know, this just extends to the "marketing" per se, and not the links themselves: if it did, then as other have said, Google would clearly be liable for billions of dollars. So if the site itself is still legal in the U.S., and the company cannot be sued in the U.S. because it is located in Sweden...then what difference does it make in this case?
  
  2) What constitutes "inducing"? Does TPB commit some action that encourages users to download an illegal torrent over a legal one? Seems they are pretty passive to me as far as their business model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - C.T., 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Ryan --
    
    1) I was ignoring the jurisdictional issues because I was simply responding to the argument that their conduct could not be infringing because they don't store any copyrighted material on their servers. Assuming they were some how tried in the US, the pirate bay would almost undoubtedly be liable for inducement of copyright infringement.
    
    2) Inducement is proven through any clear expression or affirmative steps taken to foster copyright infringement. Evidence that a company aims to satisfy a known source of demand for infringing materials, that they take no efforts to screen or remove material they know to be infringing (including links), or that they derive direct financial benefit from the infringing materials (ie - selling ad space) is all relevant to the inquiry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 9 Apr 2009 @ 9:56am

I see your point - really. I can't say I agree with it 100% - but the reality of the matter is this..

We started with Napster - they got shut down.

So it went on to Kazaa, Gnutilla, Grokster, etc... Then they got shut down.

Now on to Torrent.. same thing.

I've downloaded some stuff I shouldn't have in all honesty - but I don't now and probably have bought a number of CD's to "shore up" the music I wanted.

Worst part is - I went into a Meijer's looking for a couple Live CD's (the band Live - whom I got familiar with for free - radio and torrent) and they didn't have a one!!

Oh well, Amazon does for sure. But I plan on buying at least two of their CD's now.

Some maybe are ok with half-rate digital copies, but not me. I like the original CD and a GOOD rip at 320kbs. With the ability to re-rip later if I want.

But I do understand the problem - the artists do need compensated for their work.

But I still fail to see why the RIAA or someone won't put up a server that users can create accounts on - buy music under that account and then re-download what they've bought on demand - anytime. That's value worth paying for.

What they would loose in price vs. content, they'd gain a hundred times over in sheer volume.

What's one thing you notice about torrent? no matter HOW MUCH music is out there - people never stop downloading. Now, If I could get good quality MP3's at say... 25 cents or a dime each - I'd go on a downloading frenzy - along with maybe 25 million other people who prefer legit stuff.

Hell, I wish I had a practically unlimited supply of data that users would be knocking the door down to buy at 10 cents or 25 cents. The point isn't the price PER song, it's the bill after the session is done.

I bet I'd spend more doing that than I ever did buying CD's.

It's all about the business model - not the technology. But like an old drunk, the industry keeps trying to hold on to it's old bottle of wine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  I am with you on the price thing. I don't buy or copy music, but if I could get songs for $0.25, I'd buy a ton of music, old and new. So they could turn people like me who sit on the sidelines into paying customers. They could turn a lot of pirates into paying customers. Not counting all the other ways they can use free or cheap content to induce people to spend more for scarce goods.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Long, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    And someone else would say that a quarter is too much, and they'd buy tons of music if it were only $0.10, or $0.05, or $0.01. No price point for anything is going to please everyone. And besides, not liking a given price point isn't grounds for stealing it anyway.
    
    It's all just another rationalization...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You have a point, but at some price point they can maximize their earnings. Unfortunately my accounting classes were too many years ago. But in one of those classes we learned that there is a point where price x demand = maximum $. Right now, the price is too high as many people either copy or don't buy at all. The lower they bring the price, the more people will buy. Many pirates would start buying just to "ease" their conscious. Many like me who won't copy but won't buy at the current price would start buying.
      
      Currently, the labels aren't even trying to find the right price point; they just want to put the genie back in the bottle. The genie isn't going back, so find a way to cope.
      
      All of this isn't to say that stealing is justified; it is music and not life sustaining food after all. But why fight the customer; find a way to work with them and turn them into paying customers. At the same time, you are never going to turn everyone into paying customers, so why try? Make money from the ones you can and don't worry about the rest.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:59pm
  
  Re:
  We started with Napster - they got shut down.
  
  So it went on to Kazaa, Gnutilla, Grokster, etc... Then they got shut down.
  
  Now on to Torrent.. same thing.
  
  napster was one central location to look for infringers and to collect market research. shutting it down created 4 services to watch. shutting down each of those 4 created 4 new gnutella services. now there are hundreds of torrent trackers. soon this will all be done through anonymous proxies or encrypted tunnels. good luck capturing any data then.
  
  every move you make against downloading makes downloading that much harder to control. every time you fail to stop the pirate bay, your cause looks more and more ridiculous.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 6:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Heh. I still use FTP.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:36am

59 Comments?
I didnt know there were that many people who still cared about facebook?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:00am

Whats funny is that...
Based on his definition the person who posted second on this story infringed the copyrights of the top one hundred since he did link to it after all. I had no idea where to look until he did that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 1:17pm
  
  Re: Whats funny is that...
  Based on his definition the person who posted second on this story infringed the copyrights of the top one hundred since he did link to it after all. I had no idea where to look until he did that.
  
  Yeah, not only is Weird Harold a liar, but he's a hypocrite to boot. Ever notice how those two tend to go together?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re: Whats funny is that...
    Harold Hill's comments have a theme song attached to them. I believe it has something to do with Trombones.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JM, 9 Apr 2009 @ 11:38am

A Sound Business Decision
All the arguments here regarding the legality of TPB are off-topic. The simple fact is TPB has made themselves a target and doing business with them or even being slightly associated with them (through actuality or perception), especially in the United States, is flat out toxic.

TPB's legality/morality/whatever aside, if I was running FB I would do the exact same thing. Distancing themselves from TPB is distancing themselves from a potential liability. Like it or not this was a sound business decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re: A Sound Business Decision
  Yep, the arguments about TPB are off topic, but I counter with; we argue because no one is blaming FB for this. We all understand that it's a businesses strategy to distance themselves from potential liability.
  
  I also argue that it's one of those "slippery slopes" we hear so much about. They took down TPB links, what's next? As far as I see (vary limited expireance), Rapidshare and the like are only used for infringment. What about their links? Then Rapidsearch since it's a search engine for Rapidshare. Since we are blocking sites that potentially link to infringing content why don't we block all links all together?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JM, 9 Apr 2009 @ 2:08pm
    
    Re: Re: A Sound Business Decision
    TPB arguments are morality arguments and they ALL have merit. Copyright holders want to protect their interests and have every right to do so. On the other hand, the copyright and patent systems are broken and have allowed abominations like the RIAA to have far too much power and are infringing on fair-use.
    
    Since we are blocking sites that potentially link to infringing content why don't we block all links all together?
    
    I'm not sure how or why you have lumped Rapidshare or any other site in with FB's decision either. There is no slippery-slope here. This is not a matter of public policy or unilateral government mandate. If somebody doesn't like it they can boycott FB. You're argument would hold water if this was somehow a sweeping policy required of all sites. It's not. It's simply a business decision. There isn't anything evil or inappropriate about it.
    
    IMHO of course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 7:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: A Sound Business Decision
      I'm not sure how or why you have lumped Rapidshare or any other site in with FB's decision either.
      
      Yeah, because those other sites don't potentially link to infringing content. Oh, wait...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 7:31pm
  
  Re: A Sound Business Decision
  The simple fact is TPB has made themselves a target and doing business with them or even being slightly associated with them (through actuality or perception), especially in the United States, is flat out toxic.
  
  FB wasn't being "associated" with TPB. FB makes it quite clear that they don't endorse the contents of member's pages. No, this is a clearly case of FB specifically targeting TPB, which is quite a different thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 10:07pm
    
    Re: Re: A Sound Business Decision
    TPB created a "share this instantly on facebook" button on their site, which let people add links to "infringing" material to facebook right from TPB. If anything TPB was targetting Facebook, and Facebook has told them to get lost in no uncertain terms.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell, 10 Apr 2009 @ 4:07am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A Sound Business Decision
      Does FB have links to other file sharing sites such as mini nova?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2009 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: A Sound Business Decision
        Does FB have links to other file sharing sites such as mini nova?
        
        Sure they do. And btjunkie and Google and all kinds of other indexing sites as well. Somebody at Facebook just has a dislike for ThePirateBay and is using their position in the company to force it onto all Facebook members.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2009 @ 11:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: A Sound Business Decision
      TPB created a "share this instantly on facebook" button on their site, which let people add links to "infringing" material to facebook right from TPB.
      
      So you're another one of those shills who goes around claiming that TPB hosts infringing files. It doesn't. So quit spreading that lie.
      
      But then again, lying is what you do best, isn't it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casey (profile), 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:23pm

Is the issue here really about whether or not FB condones content on TPB? How about this just being a measure of preventative maintenance? The amount of lawsuits that have been flung around simply because a website has linked to an infringing website is astronomical. So maybe FB just wants to be seen as taking early steps to limit its exposure to future lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe, 9 Apr 2009 @ 12:28pm

FB & Safe Harbours
I'm no legal expert, especially on American law (as I am not American) but I seem to recall reading about a "Safe Harbours" sort of setup where sites are not liable for the content of their users so long as they are not actively policing the users content.

Wouldn't that same logic apply here? FB bans links to TPB, so FB actively polices' their links. So if someone links to illegal content (outside of TPB) wouldn't FB be potentially liable *because* they are policing their links to TPB?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 2:12pm
  
  Re: FB & Safe Harbours
  I don't see this as FP 'policing' anything. They have simply blocked links to TPB. They're not out there scanning pages looking for potential content. They've simply added some code to their site that disallows direct linking to a specific site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 5:17pm

Too bad this is going to be too far down to get attention, but I wasn't aware that TPB had recently added a one click "SHARE ON FACEBOOK" button on their site.

I think that explains things much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 5:51pm

If I point to a robbery in progress, am I complicit ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Weird Harold, 9 Apr 2009 @ 5:57pm
  
  Re:
  Nope, but if you hold the door open and watch for cops, you are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 6:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nope, but if you hold the door open and watch for cops, you are.
    
    If I saw a robbery in progress, I think one of the first things I would do would be to look around for a cop. I never knew that would make me complicit. Wow, thanks for your insightful comment, WH!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2009 @ 6:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How does TPB hold open a door and look for cops
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]