
The Pirate Bay Moves to .SE Domain To Prevent Domain Seizure - dazbradbury
http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-moves-to-se-domain-prevent-domain-seizure-120201/
======
maerek
It appears that thepiratebay.org points to a server that then handles
redirection. Question: Why hasn't the .org URL already been seized at the DNS
level? DiG output below:

    
    
      ; <<>> DiG 9.3.2 <<>> @localhost thepiratebay.org A
      ; (2 servers found)
      ;; global options:  printcmd
      ;; Got answer:
      ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 5372
      ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
    
      ;; QUESTION SECTION:
     ;thepiratebay.org.		IN	A
    
      ;; ANSWER SECTION:
     thepiratebay.org.	3587	IN	A	194.71.107.15
    
      ;; Query time: 0 msec
     ;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
     ;; WHEN: Wed Feb  1 15:37:02 2012
     ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 50</code>

~~~
Karunamon
Probably because it's a lot harder to seize a site in another country which
isn't technically breaking any laws.. It's different from say, megaupload in
that no infringing content resides on their servers.

It's only going to get harder once TBP stops hosting even torrent files and
moves to magnet links entirely. Once that happens, the site basically goes
viral, since any random can just spider the whole site for magnet links and
host a mirror.

~~~
kzrdude
And Google's Cache will contain the full information of the site itself. Think
about that.

~~~
unreal37
No doubt a court order will soon be sent to Google so that they can no longer
index or cache TPB.

~~~
Natsu
They're already getting the government to demand essentially that:

[https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-industry-calls-for-
broad-...](https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-industry-calls-for-broad-search-
engine-censorship-120127/)

------
lignuist
I wonder, why they didn't move to a .is domain, since Iceland claims to be a
safe data haven.

~~~
toyg
That law is pretty new and quite untested.

~~~
mato
Link please? I wasn't aware Iceland has passed anything that might put it in
the position of a data haven, but then I don't follow Icelandic :-)

~~~
lignuist
[http://en.rsf.org/islande-nouvel-
article-18-06-2010,37771.ht...](http://en.rsf.org/islande-nouvel-
article-18-06-2010,37771.html)

------
mef
Supposing one law or another was passed giving the US govt the power to block
offending domains, if push came to shove couldn't the US government ultimately
block any domain anywhere via control over the .NET TLD of ROOT-SERVERS.NET
and GTLD-SERVERS.NET? e.g. punish/block any nameserver allowing
thepiratebay.se to resolve to it's real IP

~~~
slowpoke
This isn't about blocking domains, this is about the DHS or FBI seizing the
domain, which they can only do with TLDs whose registrar is located in the US
(.com, .net, .org, .us, amongst others)

~~~
dangrossman
It's not the registrar but the registry (Verisign) they go to. Lots of people
switched from GoDaddy to Gandi last month, a French registrar, but that won't
help against this .. problem.

~~~
slowpoke
Sorry, my bad. I'm not that familiar with the specific terminology, so I tend
to confuse some things. A better formulation would have been "TLDs which are
based in the US".

------
kayoone
All of the mentioned services only work if the government does not fiddle with
your ISP to block certain IPs/HOSTs/DNS Servers etc. Since our way into the
net is controlled by local companies who have to comply to local laws, theres
always a way to prevent people from using certain services.

------
SeanDav
There is something called "darknet" which apparently runs as part of the
freenet. I have heard about and read a few articles. This may be the way
forward.

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Well well, there seems to be an issue with their SSL certificate. It still
says .org even if you try to access .se domain. - fail.

~~~
ComputerGuru
SSL certificates take time to authorize/generate, depending on the issuing CA.

------
fluxon
Anyone else noticing non-response from the site? I'm supposing it's temporary,
as usual...

------
maeon3
Is there any way to make a website that has no central location, that lives on
hard drives and internet connections of citizens and self replicates and
adapts when the government wants it to just disappear?

A free internet is going to need a "deploy website to the hive" tool.
Something that would force the FBI to have to raid computers in 50 different
nations.

I'd like to see a message: "this site has been DNS blocked in your region,
please download this program to seed this website for others over an encrypted
subnet".

~~~
spodek
I believe the Freedombox project would help in situations like this, though
wouldn't solve it entirely, and that situations like this would help gain
support for such projects.

From <http://freedomboxfoundation.org> and
<http://freedomboxfoundation.org/learn>

What is FreedomBox?

    
    
        Email and telecommunications that protects privacy and resists eavesdropping
    
        A publishing platform that resists oppression and censorship.
    
        An organizing tool for democratic activists in hostile regimes.
    
        An emergency communication network in times of crisis.
    
    

If you live near New York City, there will be a hack-fest February 18, 19, 20.

~~~
maeon3
Wow. Freedombox is exactly what im looking for. You could put a secondary dns
system on it which can't be fiddled with by ISP's and oppressive governments.
My freedom box could reach out to nearby freedom boxes to find the quickest
route in, around and through oppressive firewalls through encrypted tunnels
and what not. Where do I buy?

~~~
drcube
My understanding is that they are non-existent, and people are still arguing
over the design and implementation details.

But if you've got the skills, you can help. You know what it's supposed to do.
Chances are, whoever stops bickering and builds one first wins. I'm going to
see if I can get my local hackerspace to help me experiment and build at least
some sort of prototype.

------
batista
Permit me to address a few things in a way that is contrary, maybe, to the
common HN reader's sentiments. I'd like a serious discussion of said matters
rather than knee-jerk reactions.

1) " _It's not stealing, because you only take a copy_ ". We're playing with
words here. First, the point is not the common definition of the word, it's
what a court deems "stealing". Second, even in everyday life, we say things
like "he stole the exam answers" or "He stole the recipe" (when in fact he
only _read_ them).

2) "The losses are imaginary, because not everybody would have bought the
stuff he pirated". Sure, the estimations of the losses are imaginary. All
estimations are imaginary --by the very definition. You can argue about the
accuracy of the estimations, but not of the need of an estimation (even if you
put that estimated loss to zero).

Also, the fact that "not everybody would have bought the stuff he pirated"
bypasses two things:

a) some people WOULD have bought the stuff, because they want it, if it wasn't
available for them in pirated form. Those are actual money lost (I have
downloaded for free lots of things that I would have bought if they weren't
available because I just had to have them. Surely, other people have too. How
many, is the topic of the aforementioned estimation).

b) those that would never in any case had paid for the item, do not represent
"actual lost money". But they have violated the wish of the content
creator/distributor regarding the (paid) use of his product. This can also be
punishable by law, and fined, and in many legal systems, it is.

This "respect of the will" of the copyright owner, is like GPL etc works. If
you want GPL respected, you also want copyright respected, even if the owner
is not using a permissive license. Because the court doesn't upheld GPL for
it's permissiveness, but because of it being a copyright license.

3) "The creator gets nothing anyway, it's all the big media". This doesn't
matter. For one, people still pirate things that are sold by their creators
directly. People have pirated even the Radiohead "pay what you want" album.

Second, if the creator sold the rights to some "big media" company, that's his
choice (or mistake) to make. That doesn't mean you have the right to grab a
copy of his work as you see fit.

Third, for a lot of the content the creator _is_ the big media company. People
pirate like crazy BS teen-pop idols and hollywood blockbuster movies, which
represent like 1% creative talent and 99% big media bucks for effects,
marketing and production.

4) "Their business model is broken, they should find something else to make
money" - Actually their business model is not broken. They make and sell
something people want. The only broken part is that people copy it for free
and give it around illegally. If I get me some GPL code, and make a closed
source black box extended program out of it without giving back my source,
just because I can, would people say that the "GPL model is broken"?

5) "People only pirate because the prices are absurdly high / the buying
process is inconvenient" - Well, companies can set their prices to whatever
they want for their own stuff, and they can make the buying process as
convoluted as they want. That's not an argument in favor or copyright
infringement, as much as high prices for Ferraris is not an argument in favor
of stealing them, and the difficulty of attaining a university degree is not
an argument for printing a fake in our printer.

6) "They can make it up on concerts" - Directors and shrink-wrapped software
programmers don't give many concerts.

And even for musicians, a lot of musicians don't like giving concerts. Not
everyone is like your local bar band or Rolling Stones. Especially in modern
kinds of music, from electronica to ambient, there are lots of people that
don't like playing concerts that much or feel that that is not their artistic
medium (even the Beatles stopped playing concerts after '65). They still
deserve some money for the use of their work.

Even for artists that _DO_ play concerts, a gig used to be mostly a loss
leader for album sales. The only people making big money from concerts are
mainly established artists with a managerial team, everything organized, big
following and sold out venues and bands with a largish cult following (think
Phish, Pearl Jam, etc). That doesn't bode well for artists that still used to
make a decent living selling around 50.000-100.000 albums a year. Some artists
also have actual integrity and don't want to be seen dead selling
"merchandise". Not everything is "rock'n'roll".

7) "What's the proof of piracy's harm? Record company profits are at a high
this year" - How is this contradictory? One can have record profits and still
be ripped off. The sets of "people buying record company stuff" (profits) VS
the number of "people that WOULD have bought record company stuff but they
download it illegally" (actual lost money due to piracy) are not the same set.

Those are some arguments.

My personal opinion?

1) Software patents must go. Especially trivial. A patent period of 5 years of
actual use of the patent in production seems ok for everything else.

2) Copyright must be restricted. 20-30 years at max.

3) Illegal downloading should remain illegal. Not everything should be
available for free against the owner's wish. "Metallica" releases and "The
managing secrets of Attila the Hun" books are not an undeniable right for
everybody, there are just stuff for sale. There are lots of copyleft software,
music and books, one can use.

~~~
hxa7241
If you want to understand, you have to start by doing one thing: stop taking
copyright for granted, and imagine it as _not_ a fixture of reality, _not_
like a basic law of physics -- because it isn't.

Copyright is a law we have made, and those who reject it see it as bad and
unjustified. From a principled position it is basically immoral, and from a
pragmatic position it is unproven by evidence.

From the anti position, all the notions of 'stealing', 'losses', 'will of the
creator' no longer exist -- they are entirely dependent on accepting the
copyright concept. If there is no copyright, there is no stealing, losses, or
primacy of creator's will.

If a law is not justified and well-founded we really ought not to have it. Is
that not important?

~~~
newbusox
That's a fair point. I suppose it relates to why people follow laws in
general: is it because all laws we've adopted are good? Is it because laws, by
virtue of being a law, are good? Is it because we are afraid of being punished
for violating the law? These are major legal and political science debates
(e.g. H.L.A Hart, Ronald Dworkin, etc.).

Anyhow, point being, although the law may be unjust, punishment for disobeying
the law is not either unexpected or unfair. So while we can bemoan that people
are punished for violating copyright law, that doesn't mean that they weren't
justly punished by a government enforcing the law.

~~~
kijin
1) _although the law may be unjust_

2) _that doesn't mean that they weren't justly punished_

Didn't you equivocate on "justice" there?

If "justly" only means "legally", the second quote is right. There's a reason
why the Department of Law-interpretation-and-enforcement is called "Department
of Justice" instead. Lawyers love to think that they're administering justice
and not simply a piece of legislation. But we should not fall for this
linguistic trick and equivocate justice with what is legal.

Political philosophers often use the word "justice" or "fairness" to refer to
some moral ideal that is above existing laws, and which we can appeal to in
evaluating existing and proposed laws. There are disagreements about the
content of this ideal, of course, but none of that makes the concept of
justice less authoritative than positive law. On this definition, the first
quote would stand, but the second quote wouldn't make much sense.

There's also a sizable literature on civil disobedience, whereby citizens are
morally permitted -- or even required -- to disregard laws that they believe
are grossly unfair or unjust (provided that certain other conditions are met).
IIRC Dworkin wrote an article or two on this topic, and so did Rawls.

~~~
newbusox
Sure--I don't disagree with you. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't
engage in civil disobedience, in fact, I personally think that people should
engage in civil disobedience as often as they feel morally compelled to.

In my last statement (and setting aside the word "just"), I was putting
forward the legal positivist (i.e. HLA Hart) viewpoint that laws are valid by
virtue of being law (without getting into what "law" is and so on). Accepting
that copyright law is therefore a valid law on this level, I don't find its
enforcement invalid. This is separate from whether I find the law sensible, or
morally reprehensible, or whatever--and, depending on my views on that issue,
I might want to disobey it and be justified in doing so. But, even if I think
the law is completely insane, that's not saying that I would think of it as
some artificial concept that I might completely ignore and then be shocked at
being prosecuting for violating it, as a I read a previous post to suggest. By
rebelling against it I am tacitly acknowledging that the law is what it is,
and I should be prepared to accept the punishments.

Apologies if I am being opaque, it's obviously a minor point that has no real
bearing on how people actually act.

~~~
kijin
Oh, I see. I agree. I wouldn't be surprised that a government tried to enforce
positive law, the same way I wouldn't be surprised if the Mafia trashed your
store because you failed to pay for protection. Just because the powers that
be are wrong doesn't mean that their threats are any less real. To disagree
would be naive.

It's also great to meet someone who knows that legal positivism is not
incompatible with the existence of valid but unjust laws. Seen too many first-
time philosophy of law students who don't seem to understand this!

