Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kequc | Hacker News Reader

In the last 8 years the pirate bay hasn't changed? It went open source and embraced magnet links entirely. Making it so that almost nothing was being hosted on the server itself. You can download the entire pirate bay in 90MB to put one up of your own. There are hundreds of pirate bays all over the world running on almost nothing allowing everyone to download the same things at the same speeds.

[edit: It didn't go open source.]

To suggest the pirate bay hasn't done anything is just lame. Not as lame as sending 20 something's to jail over it but getting there.

The ads were because of legal defence fees, which can be huge.

View on HN

hey, I am the author of the 90MB archive.

I had to do it manually, it was in no way done by TPB, it took a looong time because their anti-DDoS systems were blocking me, and it was in no way open source. (it was endorsed by TPB though, in the way they told me they like it)

And I stopped updating it in early 2013.

I thought about updating it regularly and putting it somewhere, but that stroke me as slightly more illegal than what I did before, plus I had other priorities (mainly finishing the damn school).

I wished TPB did something like wikipedia (daily XML archives), but they don't.

I just read through your article, I loved it, Thanks for sharing. Here's the script he used if anyone else is curious: https://github.com/runn1ng/runn1ng.github.io/blob/master/pir...

You mentioned you had to switch computers multiple times, about how many times was that? Sorry on the off-topic...

Ooh, I don't remember frankly, it's almost 2 years ago now. I can admit it now - I run it on my school's network that has about 50 computers. I would say I switched computers about 10 times.

I am not sure if it was anti-spam or anti-ddos or just anti-scraper measure.

Awesome. So you're saying the "90MB archive", that everyone waves around as evidence that TPB will somehow live forever, was only done a couple times a couple years ago.

Well, basically, yeah. (Short write-up on my website here - http://www.karelbilek.com/piratebay/ )

There was another effort by a guy on pirate bay named "andronikov", he did something similar, but stopped last year around november. And nobody is seeding his torrents. (They have literally 0 seeds.)

Btw, can someone explain to me how they can have ads?

I mean, if US is willing to go far enough that they seem to have obvious influence on other countries and these countries punish these individuals, when normally they don't(or so I think), surely they very interested in taking down TPB or finding out who runs it?

And they had ads when there were no bitcoin etc.

So what I'm wondering is that, if I were interested in putting my ads on TPB, I would have to put/give money to somewhere/someone.

So if I'm working at NSA, why I don't just go to tpb, look at what companies they advertise on tpb, then look at where that companies sent their money. Surely we are not talking about $10-15 here, at some point they should see "yeaah, you guys seem to give these guys $xxxx(more x?) each month" or "$xxxxx once, why?"

To transfer that amount of money I can send via my bank, or transfer it via my personal account. I can use several layers inbetween, and use other people also. Maybe I won't even take money from company but do it personally. I can make it incredibly hard to be found.

But looking at how TOR services seem to go down and the lengths they go to make sure they don't stay alive, surely if NSA actually wanted they could track them down? Surely NSA doesn't lack the power to see our transactions and surely they don't lack the power to personally track basically everyone related with whoever gave the ads. Or maybe they do, but they still know what companies TPB advertises.

Anyway, if they are not very careful, I could find who currently runs TPB. and if they are, I still might have a shot.

Or maybe I'm not interested in finding out who runs TPB, just taking or down/making it harder. Why I(government) don't go to these porn sites and say "well, if we keep seeing your ads there we will have to do something". They did threaten yahoo and others without legal basis(or so I think), why stop now?

Then considering they can't easily find new companies to take ads from considering what happened to the first 3 companies that gave ads, no one sane would want to work with tpb, and they couldn't buy or maintain servers, then finally in current form they would go down.

Of course some methods to keep it alive(fake ads, donations etc.) will be found, and of course someone else will just create a new one but they seem to be interested in making tpb very hard to maintain, take it down even if it is only for days and make sure no one in their right mind would want to create a torrent site.

Now, why I'm wrong and why they don't do just what I said?

The NSA doesn't police copyright issues. Their involvement would be arranging for FBI/police in Europe to get the info they desire to do that.

yeah but they share data with adjacent three letter agencies at least it was done so with War On Drugs policing cartel - they had to furnish received information from NSA as if they have discovered it.

How is that not police-ing?

They aren't the body that enforces the law.

They use the scammmiest of the scammmiest ad networks that install adware and malware, open shitty pop ups and pop unders and so on.

Because NSA is not the king of Sweden? Who ran pirate bay was never a secret, you just read the blog of a former spokesperson of the site. They operated by dodging swedish law, piratebay is still not illegal here. Goverment countered by prosecuting two(?) of the founders for other, unrelated stuff (hacker stuff if memory serves me right).

Hope that explains some of it and excuse the bumpy-train-ride-spelling.

Nope, all four where found guilty of accessory to crime against copyright law in 2009. The hacker charges against two of the four came several years after the pirate bay trail.

> The ads were because of legal defence fees, which can be huge.

Citation?

The ads were making millions(1) to the people behind the TPB, and the legal cost is several orders of magnitude less.

update: (1) http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 "The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website" (2010, already)

> The ads were making millions

Citation?

http://www.thelocal.se/20100930/29334 "The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website" (2010, already)

The Pirate Bay earned up to 35 million kronor ($5.2 million) in advertising revenue from the file sharing website, >>>film companies maintained<<<

And literally the second paragraph in your link:

The claims were dismissed by Jonas Nilsson, legal counsel for one of the defendants, Fredrik Neij.

Nilsson argued that instead of being a profits earner most of the work to keep The Pirate Bay running had been undertaken on a voluntary unpaid basis.

"The revenues, which were not very large, went to buying new equipment," Nilsson said.

Well, you can say that "the prosecutor said this and the defendant counsel said this", but at the end of the day we know that the four operators of the site were convicted by Stockholm district court on 17 April 2009 and sentenced to one year in jail each and a total of 30 million Swedish kronor (approximately US$3.5 million, €2.7 million) in fines and damages.

So I guess the court believed the prosecutor.

>So I guess the court believed the prosecutor.

How do you figure? Their fine was not based on their advertising revenue was it?

The fine was based on what a theoretical license would cost per infringing item, multiplied if I remember correctly by 4. The theoretical license cost was created from estimates by the plaintiffs.

Well, for one, that the fines and damages were n has no bearing on what profit the site made, if any.

And, two, given the current legal environment in most of the West including Sweden, "the court believed the prosecutor" doesn't mean shit, really. Of course the court believed the prosecutor - they are on the same team, after all.

From what I remember the defense never provided any counter-claim about how much money tpb made. All they argued was that the prosecutors claim was ridiculously high. Exactly how much money the ad networks paid out is not publicly known but wire transfers are tracable. So it seems obvious to me that if brokep and anakata during the trial wanted to prove how much or how little the tpb made, then it would have been easy for them to do so.

How does that help your point. You still haven't provided any information that would back your claims.

Can you try and persuade me that TPB wasn't making substantial revenue when you have millions of daily visitors and a hell of a lot of ads? It seems a pretty simple assumption to make. What factors were in place that stopped that revenue flow?

Users of TPB go on the site to avoid paying for things?

Uses go to Google.com to not pay for search... yet Google makes oodles of money.

I've never paid for StackOverflow, TheDailyWTF or CNN.com yet somehow they all keep running.

Using website X witout paying doesn't mean website X makes no money.

How much they make can be argued, but to think they don't rake in mad money (Look at how much contemporaries like Dotcom made)... is a bit shortsighted to say the least.

... according to the prosecution, who pulled those numbers out of thin air, with no actual evidence what so ever. You see parts of that in the TPB - AFK documentary.

a vrry impartial source, indeed /s

That number was based on how much advertising space earn on sites with similar unique visitor count, like BBC or NYT.

The assumption is that that companies are willing to spend the same amount of money to advertise on a torrent site as a international news paper.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/05/pirate-sites-ad...

Another citation: me, but not going to prove it. I am friends with an ad network TPB used. They made $10k daily from adware installers alone in 2013.

Exoclick was monetizing their traffic for a bit, not sure if that is still the case.

The site had 50m uniques a month. At least 2-3 ads on every page. Even at a terrible CPM rate or CPC conversion rate, they'd have to be ansolute morons not to be making oodles of cash from that setup.

i find that difficult to believe, because almost everyone who would go to the pirate bay would have adblock of some sort no!?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/21/use-of-ad...

Maybe 30%, worst case?

I find this entire thread bizarre as I'd always thought pirate bay was ad free (and due to blockers never knew different)

Several orders of magnitude? So legal defense costs less than ~tens of dollars?

The fact that it's hosting torrents in flat files or in database rows seems like a minor technical difference to me. Apart from that, the same broken UI doesn't seem to have changed much in the past 8 years. I didn't know that TPB was open source... surprised that the community didn't try to improve the UX a bit.

Actually, there is a difference between hosting the files and just linking to them, and is by no means a "minor technical difference". Although to be fair I think it was done not only to increase portability but also to decrease legal targeting, the latter of which seems like it didn't pan out in the end though may have thwarted some legal efforts along the way.

>Actually, there is a difference between hosting the files and just linking to them, and is by no means a "minor technical difference".

From the technical side of showing the torrent/magnet links on the TPB page, it's indeed a minor difference.

But a torrent was already just a link to the actual content.

I think you misunderstand. They never hosted any content, they only linked to it. What we're saying is that the torrent database was upgraded from plain old filesystem storage of .torrent files to a more efficient/specialized database.

Sorry. I was mistaken it didn't go open source, the proxybay was literally proxies to the main site and now all of them are down. You can in fact download a copy of every torrent and magnet link, then build your own site that searches through them.

Magnet links are just a short string of text so one who does isn't hosting anything as far as I'm concerned. That isn't the law apparently.

> all of them are down

If you mean all the 'thepiratebay' domains, I think you are mistaken. This one works for me:

https://thepiratebay.cr/

haven't tried any else yet

500 Internal Server Error

If the page loads that doesn't mean it works correctly.

Works for me: http://i.imgur.com/GD3rZuv.png but it wasn't earlier. Got the same error.

No, you won't be able to search for anything. That site just proxies your searches to thepiratebay.se, which is down.

It now searches just fine.

You are getting some text with a picture, that is not a working site.

i tried searching for "test" just to see and got a pop up that said my computer was infected. the one time i use the pirate bay...anyone else willing to check it out and see if it actually installs malware? i was using chrome.

That's not a pirate bay domain in the sense that they own it. It's just a proxy and so as the main site is down, that is too.

The thing is that to download a torrent, the absolute minimum amount of information you need is the torrent hash. The torrent hash is on the order of ~40 characters long, requiring no other information. All you have to do is paste that short sting into a torrent client to download a set of files.

Are we really going to say that these 40 character strings are illegal to share? If I paste the hash for the latest blockbuster in this comment, can legal action be taken against me?

I understand that magnet links might make a difference legally. What I meant is that switching to magnet links instead of torrent files is not what I would consider a big technical achievement (TPB didn't actually invent the magnet URI scheme, they simply adopted it). My main point being that I agree with Peter Sunde, TPB hasn't changed much in 8 years. Here's TPB in 2006: https://web.archive.org/web/20061007080151/http://thepirateb...

It's sad that I have to beat that tired old drum again, but in law, intent matters (yes I have a law degree but I think it's fair to say that one doesn't need one to know that). After 15 years I should have been desensitized by farcically naive 'reasoning' (or I should say, farcically naive sophistry, because let's face it, that's what it is) like 'they don't post torrents, the users do' and 'how can a small string be illegal' but it still annoys me.

At the risk of going down the shitty analogy path, let's consider 'How can putting just a tiny bit of lead into somebody's head be illegal? It's only 115 grain! I mean, of course, putting 500 grain into somebody would be illegal, but if I put only 115 grain of lead into somebody, can legal action be taken against me?' Really?

That's a terrible analogy. Try: "Yes, making meth is illegal. Yes, selling meth-lab kits is illegal. Okay, maybe publishing instructions for building a meth lab is illegal. Wait, linking to someone else's instructions is illegal? And now you're telling me that sharing a short hash that validates someone else's link to someone else's instructions is also illegal?" (Is it even illegal in the meth lab scenario?)

Why, yes, of course. Or are you saying that as long as there are enough indirections and 'wink wink nudge nudge', anything is legal? So I'm a drug runner and it's illegal for me to take your money and point you to the guy at the other side of the street who has your stuff, but it's OK when I give you a piece of paper with a map to a rock under which is another paper with a phone nr which you need to call that will then tell you to walk to the other side of the street?

Or let's say I'm an electrician who wires indoor marihuana plantations. That is illegal. Do you think it would be OK to stand next to some other guy and tell him what switch to connect to which socket and which tools to use to strip the wire? 'Oh your honor I was just distributing instructions on how to build a plantation, not doing it!'. You might want to prepare your diddly hole when you rely on such argumentation as a legal defense.

Again: INTENT MATTERS. When something is done with enough proximity to actual illegal actions, that 'something' is quite likely also illegal and punishable. Which is why Uncle Fester is a free man and Kim Dotcom isn't (well only barely).

In your analogy, TPB acts as the middleman, hooking the user up with the supplier. Yes, when it comes to meth, that's illegal.

It's actually illegal to share instructions on how to make "controlled" substances? That sounds utterly abhorrent.

If it was instructions on how to make a movie, I don't think anyone would have a problem. But it's instructions on where to get illegal goods. It's not like the receiver is going through a recipe themselves like they're baking a cake.

Don't get me wrong; I torrent tv shows and the like. But what I find silly is the way people are trying to boil the intent and action away from torrenting, spin-doctoring it to sound as innocent as possible.

I was referring to the example of publishing a hash code for a torrent. So it's like saying "Someone told me that there is a drug dealer (haven't verified this myself) where if you add up the GPS coordinates of his house, divide by 317 and take the remainder, the result will be 42."

It's not at all obvious that saying "42" (with the other operations unstated) is or should be illegal speech, and it's by no means comparable to putting a small bullet into somebody.

I don't know about you, but when I go to TPB, I'm not greeted with a bunch of pages with nothing but simple low numbers. I'm greeted by a search engine, which shows me great lists of things by TV show name (for example), which I can click on and get taken to a page where someone describes what's on offer with this 'number', and other people comment on the quality. I can get the torrent hash, and also instructions on what to do with it. It's generally not something that needs to be verified very often, either.

And in any case, if someone says "hey, where can I get meth", and you say "42, just deconstruct the number with this algorithm", you've done the same thing as just handing over a phone number - you've facilitated the contact.

What Colour are your bits? [1] This rather poular article really opened my eyes. Basically the same bits can be both, illegal and legal, at the same time, depending on the method you used to derive them. I still think it's stupid but it gave me a better understanding of the reasoning behind certain court decisions.

[1] http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

This is the color of my bits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Free-speech-flag.svg

Note: picture is illegal.

Picture is only illegal if you display it and say "I support freedom" with a wink. Don't wink and there'll be no intent. Obvs.

As a layman, I think this is the real problem: the law assumes that people are smart and tools are stupid. However, computer programs like torrent clients have become frighteningly smart about efficiently turning scarce information (like a short hash) into illegal actions. Imagine a GPS unit that could turn "don't go downtown, there's a strong mob presence" into a route to the nearest drug dealer.

Most of the "intent" of going from a hash to a download is in the torrent client. It's a smart tool. But to my best knowledge, the law assumes that intent has to happen in a human. If you have two humans, and both have weak criminal intent, but they're connected by a program that makes illegal acts very easy, I don't know how the law judges that. Probably badly.

Maybe a better analogy would be hiring a hall for a music copiers swap meet and charging advertisers for wall space around the hall?

Now, as crimes go I happen to think TPB are far less guilty of offences against humanity than - say - the bankers who cause the 2008 meltdown, or the torturers at the CIA.

And it's also debatable just how many sales of mainstream CDs are lost due to piracy.

But I know a couple of small music software/plugin devs who shut up shop because piracy killed their revenue stream, and it just wasn't worth their time any more.

So it's counterfactual for the supporters to pretend there are no negative consequences to file sharing, and it's all about heroically sticking it to The Man.

It really isn't.

there are far more musical plug-ins than one would ever need. I see no loss.

> piracy killed their revenue stream

I hear about things like this every once in a while, but where's the proof?

I don't think that the post you were responding to was really arguing that the size of the hash was the significant factor for legality. It was instead pointing out that treating the distribution of such short hashes as illegal is absurd. There is nothing to prevent a government from making laws against, say, the distribution of bomb making information. Governments have done so. Such laws are still absurd in a world where there is no practical way to limit the distribution of such ideas. A government might just as well make a law against the darkness that occurs after the sun goes down.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Is it that IP protection laws are immoral, or that they're impractical? GP was making a moral argument (I think), you seem to be making a practical one.

So assuming that you are making a practical argument: should there be no laws that are hard to enforce? Let's take domestic abuse, or child abuse. Hard to detect, even harder to prosecute because there is usually little physical evidence. So should we just throw our hands in the air and go home?

"Such laws are still absurd in a world where there is no practical way to limit the distribution of such ideas."

Well a largish number of raids over the last years on sites hosting torrents, causing these sites to disappear, would say that you're wrong. Sure, it's hard to completely restrict all illegal distribution. That's not even a practical goal. But with TPB down, it's become quite a bit more difficult to find illegal content for people who are occasional torrenters (i.e. not people who are members of private sites, or who use IRC - a tiny subset of all people).

People have been saying for years 'you can't shut down the torrent sites!'. Well there aren't a whole lot of them left, are there? So it does seem that IP law enforcement isn't as impossible as you claim it to be.

People have been saying for years 'you can't shut down the torrent sites!'. Well there aren't a whole lot of them left, are there?

Yes. Yes there are. Not to mention hundreds of sites (especially forums) where torrent files and magnet links are distributed.

>Such laws are still absurd in a world where there is no practical way to limit the distribution of such ideas.

We keep child pornography illegal, and indeed take measures to limit its distribution. It isn't clear that laws are necessarily absurd because of the difficulty of their enforcement.

The absurdity of a law might be better measured based by the effects of the thing the law prohibits on society or individuals.

Intent is subjective as hell. I cant believe you have a law degree and dont realize this.

Every story has a million differnet sides.

It seems like thats the lawyers JOB to prove varying degrees of intent.

Was their 'intent' to merely share magnet links in an open forum or was it to destroy copyright protections,ruin the entertainment industry, and starve all artists to death.

Did I put 115 grain in your head by accident or was I intentionally trying to murder you? (Ie accidental manslaughter vs 1st degree)

Intent does matter and the client with the smaller pockets usually has the worst intentions.

True, I'm tired of the old "ones and zeros" argument. If all you did was punch some numbers into a phone and speak a name, it's still conspiracy to commit murder (or whatever, IANAL) if you are calling a hitman. If you flash your headlights to warn thieves that the police are coming, you're still an accomplice. Surely it can't be illegal to flash my headlights?? Well, yeah it is, in this case. And if I share a hash key which tells people where to find child porn, well that's illegal too.

If you wrote down the number Pi in hexadecimal, I conjecture that any possible 40-digit sequence would appear in there somewhere.

Indeed, how could it possibly be illegal to share pieces of Pi? :)

because information without conext is useless?

So someone shares the sequence without any context and someone else grabs it and conjectures the context themselves.

What if they share positional information from a known sequence: pi[3000:3040].

you said yourself the sequence was insignificant, so i assume it would be hard to infere any context. either way, on tpb there is context. A pointer into pi is just a minor difference in encoding. As said in another comment, intent matters - as much as I dislike the pressumptions made about the intent. Law philosophically, for lack of better words, difficult questions of morallity arise and are indeed significant. That includes conciousness about the consequences, which is why this topic is debated at length, because everyone has a stake in it. That's a lot of context.

OTOH assume knlowedge of nothing but the magnet link list torrent file, if you just downloaded the linked torrent files without to procede to download when in doubt about copyright infringement, that woould not be careless.

Your argument extends to how can any string of data be illegal, putting copyright into question, but that's a different debate.

> Are we really going to say that these 40 character strings are illegal to share?

Yeah, it's not unusual for short messages containing numbers to be illegal. Like:

"The guy at 42 Foo St. is looking to sell a kilo of coke if anyone's interested."

"Everyone show up at the mall at 11PM exactly, grab something, and run. They can't catch us all!"[1]

"Thank you for your payment to personaldeetz.com! Bill Jones has the social security number 001-23-4567 and the date of birth 1/2/34 and the bank account number ..."

There's nothing illegal about any of the numbers involved here, including the hash of the latest blockbuster. But there can certainly be something illegal about conveying information (in whatever encoding) that's intended to help someone commit a crime. Proving intent is the fun part.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob#Crime

You're pointing a thief in the right direction under no duress whatsoever. If a similar situation was replicated with physical goods there would be no question that you would be on the wrong. You're trying to fuzz up the situation using technicalities.

Broken UI? Really? The posters here are so peciliar about UI sometimes. It's bewildering. Nothing was wrong with TPB's UI. It did exactly what it was meant to cleanly and in an easy to use way. Nothing was difficult or unintuitive about it. Did it not look starkly minimalist enough? Did it not use enough css3? Did it use a table and that just ruined the whole thing? Not enough fancy javascript transitions?

The search results where garbage if you didn't know that you had to click "SE" to sort by number of seeders.

Yes, among other things:

- You often had to scan through the comments for a clickable IMDB link.

- Movie meta data was manually entered by uploaders who didn't really bother with it most of the time.

- Titles contained a bunch of metadata which shouldn't have been part of the title (e.g. encoding, source, quality, uploader name, etc.).

- There was sometimes an extra comment page that was empty.

- No moderation whatsoever in the comments. Impossible to find the interesting/useful comments without reading all of them one by one.

- A bunch of annoying ads (one of the download buttons was an ad if I recall correctly).

There's a recurring meme on HN that all UIs are automatically good if they are old/non-trendy.

The only meme is that old UIs are the /bad/ ones. Those points are all very minor. A major problem would be having an inoperable half-assed mobile version that you were redirected to on mobile.

trivia about flying on helium balloons:

"In 1982, Larry Walters flew across Los Angeles in a lawn chair lifted by weather balloons, eventually reaching several miles in altitude. After passing through LAX airspace, he descended by shooting some of the balloons with a pellet gun."

In Brazil, a priest doing a gimmick to raise some funds to his church went on flying with helium balloons. He was drifted to the ocean by the wind and didn't know how to return. He did took a phone and a GPS device. But he didn't know how to use the GPS he took to tell people his location. He died.

EDIT: source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelir_Ant%C3%B4nio_de_Carli

Am I missing something here?

I think the GP post has been edited, I'd guess the helium balloons are a reference to this story http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122789-the-pirate-bay-pla... that TPB might move the site to drones/LEO sats/balloons.

Nope, my mistake. This was supposed to be an answer to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8727049 on another thread.

I was reading both and confused the tabs while clicking on reply, I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com