Slashdot Log In
Pirate Bay Launches Uncensored Image Hosting
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jun 21, 2007 02:08 PM
from the can't-imagine-what-will-get-uploaded dept.
from the can't-imagine-what-will-get-uploaded dept.
Spamicles writes "The guys over at the Pirate Bay have launched a new, censorship-free image hosting website called BayImg. Users of the new service don't have to sign-up in order to upload images. However, they can assign a 'removal code' to uploaded images, in case they want to delete the files after a while, and tags to categorize images. BayImg currently supports 100+ file formats, and supports uploading Zip and Rar archives. The maximum file size of uploads is 100MB. The article also discusses TPB's plans for launching a video streaming service that will potentially compete with YouTube."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bob Goatse must be thrilled (Score:5, Funny)
well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
"As long as your pictures are legal they will be hosted here"
so sence child porn is illigal it will be taken down if noticed
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
In England 17 is legal. The legal age varies a lot. In some countries it is higher- in some countries it is lower.
The model's apparent age varies a lot too. How can you trust what looks like a 14 year old isn't really an under developed or made up 18 year old?
And it just needs to be enough to get them into court so they have to spend money defending themselves. Heck, in some cases you can arrest them and force them to post bail and can hold them for months if they can't post bail.
Parent
Re:well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Because even in states in the US where it's legal for two underage people to have sex, it's usually not legal for them to make photographs/video and distribute them.
Too lazy to try to google the answer. And kind of scared of what results I might get...
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually the age criteria for nude photography is a bit more complicated than a simple inequality. You can photograph anyone regardless of age (assuming of course you have his/her and/or his/her parrent/guardian's informed consent), as long as it's not in a "sexually explicit or lude and lascivious manner." This why you can have pictures of naked babies, children's genetalia in medical or sex-ed books, even in art. If the photographs or video are in sexual manner, then you have to 18.
How do you know where to draw the line when prosecuting child porn cases? In practice you don't have to define the exactly where the line is. A video of a grown man ejaculating on a nude 5 year old's face is pretty good indication, of that video being on the wrong side of the law. Same for a photo of 10 year old spreading her labia for the camera.
So how do investigators know that the individidual in the photograph or video is a real person that is under 18 years of age at the time of recording? Easy. The FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have an incredibly large collection of child porn. Like all porn, child porn is shared widely and has a very long life time. Investigators look for previously identified bonafied child porn, and prosecute on those instances. New suspected child porn is identified by medical doctors, who examine the material an give an expert opinion of whether the individual is underage. (Yes, they also maintain a database of false positives.)
When it comes to possession, posession is illegal. While it may be a dubious comfort, the US Attorney probably won't prosecute you for each individual photo or video in your 100 GB pr0n collection, but rather for just a two or three photos or videos. I say it's dubious, because you'll still be going to jail for a long long time.
And before anyone gets the wrong idea. I recently served on a federal grand jury. The Assistant US Attorney explained the law to us.
In an unrelated case, he ran a DEA video explaining -- in detail -- three methods used to manufacture methamphetamines. Yes. You could take notes.
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent: actually its 16
It depends what you're talking about; the age of consent in England *is* 16, but I believe that to appear in adult material you have to be at least 18. (I remember hearing that apparently Samantha Fox - a 1980s "page 3" [wikipedia.org] star- was 16 when she did her first shoots, and they commented that this would not be legal nowadays. Note that page three is topless, and no more).
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
Take a nice, hard look. [7chan.org] (You'll want the "Random" board. Totally NSFW.)
As far as I can tell, 7chan seems to be made up of people who got banned from 4chan, which in itself is remarkable, since 4chan's moderation is...minimal...at best.
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess they might survive a little longer, then.
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
saying "we're going to censor your images so we dont go to jail" is totally ok in a way that saying "we're going to censor your images for things we dont like" is not.
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
As another poster mentioned would this mean much if "The Chinese Pirate Bay" opened it's "uncensored" and couldn't show a picture of the Taiwanese flag?
Or if "The Iranian Pirate Bay" opened the "uncensored" site that couldn't show a boob?
Uncensored generally means unrestricted. If you're doing it as a way of promoting freedom from an oppressive government, then saying "We're only gonna leave uncensored what the government will let us." doesn't really do much. I could have done that without the help of a new and nifty website.
Parent
Illegal stock tips (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that, er, the definition of censorship? Censorship = Banned by such-and-such government, ergo illegal? By this logic, over-the-air radio and television is "censorship free", even in China, since they're broadcasting anything they want as long as it's legal.
Parent
Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know nothing about Swedish law, but it's entirely possible that they define both "child" and "pornography" differently than in the U.S., creating a space where something is legal if it's on a Swedish webserver, but not if it's in one in the U.S. (Actually, I think there are a number of respected, non-pornographic films that contain nudity that fall into this area.)
Anyway, if they want to avoid getting constantly raided by the local gendarmes, they should probably create some sort of "Foreigner's Guide to Swedish Obscenity Law" so that people can at least have a shot at knowing what's illegal before they upload it.
In particular, aside from pornography which is the obvious one, I wonder about extreme animal cruelty (there is some downright disgusting stuff out there, and to be honest I find it more offensive than most of the run-of-the-mill CP). I kinda hope the Swedes make that illegal, since I think its presence does encourage its creation -- some dickhead sees another dickhead gain some sort of minor notoriety online by setting a kitten on fire and decides to emulate them. Since animals are more easily available and even more vulnerable than children, and the disincentives against hurting them are less, it doesn't take much.
Parent
Wonder what country it's in? (Score:4, Funny)
1) Holding true to the principles of no censorship whatsoever.
2) Not being immediately shut down when some troll posts necro-pedo-beastility images as part of some SA vs. Fark vs. 4chan contest to find the most simultaneously illegal and offense image to post.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like its hosted in Sweden and the domain is registered to a Swedish address via a German registrar.
Easy (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just posted [slashdot.org] that they should actually try to go out of their way to make sure they're not logging such information, in order to protect their users. No anonymity means many people will still engage in self-censorship, not publishing something for fear of the consequences it could entail. But from a liability standpoint, your idea is probably better. Considering the existence of things like Tor, open proxies and the like, anyone who isn't absolutely clueless could still use the service and be relatively sa
TOR (Score:5, Insightful)
Post it via TOR or some anonymizer. Unless they ban all IP associated with such tools (which even sites under dedicated troll assault like 4chan can't do), that's no guarantee for the hardcore.
Still, it's an idea that I find amusing for deterring the casual bad actor.
Parent
oh, cool (Score:3, Funny)
I'm yearning for the video service from them (Score:4, Funny)
Do what you want 'cause a pirate is free
ranking system (Score:4, Interesting)
Losing their way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Losing their way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
What about pirated software? (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, I visited the site about 10 hours ago, and the tag cloud was full of injected JavaScript - it was pretty much benign (only a couple of alert functions), but funny nevertheless, and seems like the whole thing was put together very quickly. They've fixed the problem now.
Trolls vs the World (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
When people have children something hormonal happens to their brains that makes them lose all perspective when children are involved. Think of how irrational your parents were? I remember one time when my younger brother got a ride home and didn't call. He was less than an hour late, and my dad made me drive around with him looking for my brothers body in ditches at the side of the road.
It's the Helena Lovejoy effect. Saying "think of the children" makes people revert to emotional thinking and makes them easier to manipulate. So it follows that if you're trying to grab power, appealing to the safety of children will make people fall in line.
Personally it works the other way on me. Any proposal put forth "for the children", I automatically assume is bullshit. After all, if it had real merit they wouldn't need to manipulate us into going along with it. If someone involved in neuropsychology is looking for a good thesis, pinpointing exactly what is causing this effect would be wonderful.
Parent
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
Times change, peoples problems change.
Parent
Woot! Online backups! (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Encrypt file.
3) Inject data stream into lossless image format.
4) Upload image.
5) Retrieve anywhere.
Legal == permission from copyright holder? (Score:4, Interesting)
To be perfectly legal you have to have permisson from copyright holders. If you have a quick look around the site it seems improbable that this is the case for most of the pictures.
Re:I wish I could like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
This image site can do the same thing (ignoring the pedo stuff). Someone could go to the store, buy a Playboy Mag, scan in every image and post it to the site and everyone else could download the pics for free if they new the URL and of they go. So all the money playboy paid the model, the photography crew, the editors, the printers, poof.
Contrary to some of the internet ho's out there who like their pictures posted for free some people like monetary compensation for their investment/grace of good luck genes and deserve to be rewarded for it. How is supporting hosting of their images for no monetary fee 'free speech'
If they were hosting Neo-Nazi's, Black Panther, Anti-semtic, Islamic Jihadist stuff, sure ok that's free speech. But taking someones work and providing it for free? That's what copyright was intended for and it's not free speech, it's theft of services or whatever is the new legal mumbo jumbo for saying stealing money from someone who worked to earn it.
Parent
Re:I wish I could like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I wish I could like this... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't understand your confusion -- catering to a bunch of greedy, selfish leeches *is* what they're trying to do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As Legitimate as PirateBay...? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is my understanding from the site that this won't be for pedophilia, as they mention the images have to be "legal."
So my first thought was, this could be a place for images like the banned Mohammad cartoons or other politically/racially inflammatory images that countries like to pull down... as well as potentially "infringing" images like the Penny Arcade [slashdot.org] comic a while back.
But then, if an image is infringing on someone's copyright, doesn't the civil law come into play? And since they're hosting this stuff, they don't have the same legal protection that they have for torrents in Sweden (i.e. they have infringing material on their server, while ThePirateBay site only hosts trackers which are not technically infringing, only facilitating infringement). They're bright fellows and I'm sure they know what they're doing, but I admit I can't figure it out.
At any rate, yeah, there are good legitimate uses for this sort of thing, censorship is generally a bad idea, but a quick browse through the tags suggests that this sort of service is already, well, all over the internet.
Parent
Re:As Legitimate as PirateBay...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclosure: I am not a lawyer, but I am in law school.
As the issue never went to court, it would be misleading to say the image was infringing. The quotes indicate that the image was only alleged to be infringing. Because it never went to court, we'll never know how the case might have turned out. The argument might be made that the spoof was of both American McGee and Strawberry Shortcake. Or that Strawberry Shortcake is an iconic representation of innocence, which naturally communicates the precise point of the comic in question.
Compare, for reference, every political cartoon from the 80's in which Darth Vader represented the Soviets. Star Wars was not being spoofed--but iconic, trademarked characters were being employed to convey a message that did not compete with the original product.
We could get into the commercial aspects of infringement, the question of dilution, the question of "bridging the gap," all sorts of interesting legal arguments, but the point is this: I don't believe that the image was infringing. I believe Penny Arcade could have won the court battle, and I also believe that a legal battle (that might not have even happened!) would have been costly and so the guys at Penny Arcade made the right choice for their company, even though it would have been a nice moral victory. And I believe it is more accurate to discuss that comic as potentially "infringing" than as definitely infringing.
Remember that the law is not fixed, and oftentimes the assumptions of the masses will translate into the reality of the law. If enough people accept that the image was not in fact infringing, future cases that do go to court will have a better chance.
Parent
Re:Image files 100MB? (Score:5, Interesting)
But quite handy for steganography, which is probably what this is really for.
Parent
Re:Image files 100MB? (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm, perhaps they know more about their target demographics that it might seem at first...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:TPB Are Theives (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, I'm siding with my morals here too. Free copying is illegal, but moral. Scarcity is a great evil, if it can be abolished it must.
Parent
Re:TPB Are Theives (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, let me run a thought experiment by you.
Let us imagine, for the sake of argument, that I invent a cheap 3-dimensional copying device which produces perfect copies of anything placed in it. Even down to the material used to produce the copy, its strength and its colour. This device can be made and sold cheaply enough to market it to the general public, and it's not really possible to spot the difference between the copies are originals.
Note that it doesn't allow you to create an object from scratch (so it's a bit different to computer software in that respect, and thus the ability for individuals to innovate with it is substantially curtailed). Considering the economy as a whole (including the number of people currently employed in manufacturing), Is it a good or a bad thing?
Parent
Re:TPB Are Theives (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:TPB Are Theives (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent