Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media It's funny. Laugh. Your Rights Online

The Pirate Bay Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain 212

Posted by kdawson from the heads-will-roll dept.
palpatin writes to let us know that The Pirate Bay has now taken up residence at IFPI.com, a domain once owned by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The Pirate Bay says the site will now promote the International Federation of Pirates Interests. IFPI can still be reached at ifpi.org. Torrentfreak has up a brief interview with Brokep, one of the administrators of The Pirate Bay, who says: "It's not a hack, someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Pirate Bay Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain More

The Pirate Bay Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain

Comments Filter:

  • Let me be the first to say (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15, 2007 @06:56AM (#20980685)
    Yaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrr!

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @06:59AM (#20980701)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Legality? (Score:5, Informative)

      by v1 ( 525388 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:11AM (#20980769) Homepage Journal
      Makes one wonder what the legal mechanisms are for domain names and other international property like this if they are "unrightfully transferred"? I recall that the owner of sex.com was so worried about his domain that he had it on file at his registrar that they were not to transfer it without written request from the owner. Someone spoofed a letter and got it transferred anyway. He wasn't without the domain for very long, but just goes to show you that things like this are hard to make bulletproof.

      If by chance, someone managed to get say, riaa.com, transferred to another registrar that was like the hosting we read about recently in Russia, where they don't care as long as they get paid, just how hard is it to get your domain back? I seem to recall "unlock codes" being required and there not being any by-legal-force way to get this. (remembering the recent fiasco of godaddy.com not providing unlock codes) I could picture such a transfer being irreversable if the thief was stubborn and knowledgeable enough. Or is there an angle?

    • Re:Legality? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:15AM (#20980795)
      If I got it right, they founded the "International Federation of Pirate Interests" or something like that, which has (a happy coincidence, no doubt) the letters IFPI as its acronym.

      You can have a trademark all you want, if someone has at least the same "reason" to have a domain, you have no case. Ferrero lost a case for the domain "kinder.at" (with "kinder" being their trade mark, before German legislation made trademarking common words illegal ("kinder" means "children" in German)) against (IIRC) some youth organisation. The court's decision was explained with the fact that there is no danger that the domain holder (the youth organisation) could be mistaken for Ferrero (a company making chocolate products).

      Now, if the IFPI wants to claim that they could be mistaken for a bunch of 'pirates', this could be different...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by fastest fascist ( 1086001 )
        You're talking about a case in Austria here, elsewhere the situation might be different.
        • It was admittedly the first case that came to my mind, there are others. In general, the question is which party has the "better rights" to some domain name. This is true pretty much all over the globe, except in countries where the right depends on the size of your company.

          It could be an interesting case. Mostly because it will settle whether you can "own" letters. Acronyms are usually three or four letters in length, and if it's possible to "own" acronyms, you'll see people scramble to get "theirs" before

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nighty5 ( 615965 )
          No his not, his talking a band from Australia.

          Austria is another place.
          • I was wondering where all the surf had gone.. and do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a surfboard booked onto a plane? Grr. Oh well, off back home to good old Great Brittany.
            • Well, if you've ever tried to carry a surfboard through the crowded halls at an airport, you could see how it can quickly become a weapon of mass destruction. If you don't, just carry it on your shoulder and turn around once or twice.
              • Now you mention it, any good sports or exercise equipment could be legitimately referred to as Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm going to have to start a fitness equipment company with that name..

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by quanticle ( 843097 )

          There is a similar case in the US. Look up the World-Wildlife-Fund vs. World-Wrestling-Federation. Both organizations have WWF as their initials, and as I remember, World Wrestling Federation was forced to give up the WWF trademark.

          Not too clear on the details of the case, but maybe someone else can fill in more details.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by eth1 ( 94901 )

        Now, if the IFPI wants to claim that they could be mistaken for a bunch of 'pirates', this could be different...

        Well, if they're anything like the RIAA, they might have a case, then! :)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Opportunist ( 166417 )
          If they really sue on those grounds, they may get the URL but lose more.

          Reminds me of a case where a sleazy tabloid sued a parody site which was quite similar to their online presence, only a letter different in the URL. They took press agency messages, then cited arbitrary and with the intent to twist the words and meanings around, doctored pictures and generally were about as sensationalist as possible. When there wasn't anything going on, they simply made up stories.

          They were sued on grounds of being "to

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ag0ny ( 59629 )
        You can have a trademark all you want, if someone has at least the same "reason" to have a domain, you have no case.

        Unfortunately, there are judges who don't agree with you:

        Nissan Motors vs. Uzi Nissan [wired.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BobGregg ( 89162 )
        >>You can have a trademark all you want, if someone has at
        >>least the same "reason" to have a domain, you have no case.

        Tell that to People Eating Tasty Animals [wikipedia.org]....

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 )
      Well, .com domains are registered via U.S. registrars, so U.S. courts may have jurisdiction here, although it's always possible, I suppose, that the plaintiffs could try to file suit in Sweden, since that's where TPB is located. At that point, it would be up to the Swedish judge to decide jurisdiction.

      As far as whether it's a trademark infringement, it's important to realize that 1) trademarks are territorial in nature (IFPI would have to have a trademark on the name 'IFPI' in Sweden and possibly the U.S.,

      • 3) Under Swedish trademark law, infringement occurs when you do business using someone else's name as your own. Simply putting up a web page to poke fun at some corporate entity doesn't mean you are doing business, though I suppose IFPI will ask the judge to consider whether the domain holder may be doing business without this being evident from the web page in question.

        4) Even if two different companies are doing business using the same trademark, they could be doing it in entirely different branches (say

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by guruevi ( 827432 )
      IFPI is not a trademark, it's an acronym . Even if it was a trademarked acronym, TPB could have trademarked their acronym as well (IFPI: International Federation of Pirates Interests) and since they are not in the same business as IFPI they do not infringe on the trademarks. If TPB would be a protection/racketeering agency too, then they might infringe...
  • What about those of us who are ninjas? Where is our coalition for the protection of our interests?

  • dotcom (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Klaidas ( 981300 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:00AM (#20980707)
    Sure, but the .org one is still active.
    .com must have expired and was registered by someone - maybe it wasn't really that popular? (Um, popular as in "under heavy use"/"meaning something to someone")
    Hey, this IS funny - but not really such a big deal if examined closely.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Aladrin ( 926209 )
      I think it's hilarious, if a bit cruel. So far, I'd probably have done the same thing, though.

      The turning point will come when the original IFPI asks for the domain back. I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost, and reimburse the guy who snagged it. Will they? I don't think they did anything illegal, so they are under no obligation to help an organization that is dead set on putting them out of business. It'll probably depend on the IFPI's reaction, I guess.

      No matter how you look at it, this is inte

      • Nononono (Score:5, Informative)

        by themusicgod1 ( 241799 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ffilc.yerffej}> on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:24AM (#20980851) Homepage Journal
        (IANAL)
        "I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost"
        That course of action would lead you to be a criminal, or at the very least instantly lose your legitimate title to the domain. Do *not* under any circumstances offer a price. That's how microsoft got Mike Rowe, and how other large corporations worldwide have gotten many other domains. As soon as you name a price you are a domain hijacker. This isn't just an american law; it has happened pretty much worldwide with the same consistent results, afaik.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Aladrin ( 926209 )
          Well damn, you can't even be honest anymore without someone suing or stealing from you.

          In that case, I guess the IFPI could kiss their domain goodbye, because they can't legally return it and compensate the source without it costing them money. Fsck that.

          Still, I'm not TPB, and they may have other tricks up their sleeves. Will still bear watching.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MPolo ( 129811 )
          Selling it at normal cost (that is, the $30 a year, or whatever you paid) shouldn't cause a problem. Mike Rowe's problem was naming a higher figure to pay for the work that he put into the site, which then branded him as a domain hijacker. Or at least that's how I understand the original story. I think Microsoft even offered to pay the registration fee when they originally demanded the domain in the first place.
        • So if someone lets a domain expire, and then you buy it (or register it, you never really buy a domain), and then try to sell it back to them, then you are a domain hijacker? I'd call it being a smart business man. It's not like you stole the domain from them by pretending to be them. They had plenty of time to renew the domain. If they don't renew it, they have shown that they aren't that interested in keeping it. If someone, even a past owner offers to buy your domain, what's wrong with asking a fair

          • So if someone lets a domain expire, and then you buy it (or register it, you never really buy a domain), and then try to sell it back to them, then you are a domain hijacker?
            This raises an interesting question: What's the difference between a hijacker and a pirate?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rs79 ( 71822 )
            Domains don't expire any more. The registrAR holding the domain uses it by putting up a parking page with ads. There's a (two week?) grace period whereby the registrar doesn't have to pay and the domain still works. If it makes enough money to reasonably believe it'll make the $6 wholesale price they keep the domain. Otherwise they dump it.

            So, names like dhkhwhf98.com might expire by anything even remotely meaningul (or short, no matter how random) will never go back into the free pool.

            I'd love to know how
        • You just have to wait 'til they sue, and then make an offer to settle out of court. Say, $224,000 for starters.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rs79 ( 71822 )
          Laws don't get involved initially. When you buy a domain (lease actually) you agree to be bound by the UDRP (Uniforum Dispute Resolution Protocol) by contract. This is handled by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Associaiton) in Geneve. This is courtesy of ICANN to give a fast track, cheap out of court settlement to domain disputes.

          DO NOT offer a price as that deomstrates "bad faith" one of the 3 criteria that must be met for yo to lose your domain. Not using it and being confusingly similar are the other t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 )
        I'd let them buy it from me at normal cost, and reimburse the guy who snagged it.

              Are you kidding? That site will get many more hits now, it should be worth at least 10 times more! :)

  • Sweet RIAA Defense (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cryophallion ( 1129715 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:08AM (#20980753)

    It's not a hack, someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it.

    Can I use that to explain the music on my computer?

    "Umm yeah, some guy gave me a cd of this music. I have no idea how he got it, but it's mine and I'm keeping it."

    Someone call Ray Beckerman - I think we have the new defense all worked out for him! I don't care if it was his to give or not - still my music as they gave it to me!

    • Why not? I mean, if you buy or borrow a book from someone, and it has some passages copied from another source, why would you be responsible?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aliquis ( 678370 )
        Over here in Sweden we had laws which for instance said that you could keep the bike if someone had sold you a stolen one but you really thought it were legit.

        Nowadays, due to abuse I suppose and to protect the real owner, there are no such thing and if you buy a stolen bike you can never say you didn't knew that and it belongs to the first owner.

        I don't know how much that would relate to domains and CDs, but I guess you can't defend yourself by saying "uhm, what? Those nukes? Someone gave me them.."
    • Or "He told me it fell off the back of a delivery truck."

      I guess that applies to this domain as well.

  • Ill gotten gain? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SunTzuWarmaster ( 930093 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:10AM (#20980759)
    Does anyone else have a problem with the justification of:
    "yes, this shipment of cigarettes just arrived at our doorstep, we figured we'd keep 'em".

    • Re:Ill gotten gain? (Score:5, Informative)

      by will_die ( 586523 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:40AM (#20980959) Homepage
      Well in the US if the owners of the cigarettes did that they are considered a gift, provided you had not requested them or they are mis-delivered, and you are free to keep them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jratcliffe ( 208809 )
        Only if the people who sent them to you are the owners. If you know, or have good reason to know, that they're not, it's possession of stolen property.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Tim C ( 15259 )
          No no no - if they're stolen then it's possession whether you know it or not. The difference is that if you can convince the police (or a court) that you didn't know, then you don't get prosecuted (or fined/imprisoned).

          Other than that, I agree - just because someone gives you something it doesn't necessarily mean that you get to keep it. Even assuming there are no laws preventing you from owning the thing in the first place (eg endangered or dangerous animals), the person who gave it to you had to have the
      • Mod parent down: -1, Uninformed.

        As usual, uninformed speculation modded up by the similarly uninformed.

        Since I don't work for you and this isn't legal advice, I'll leave it at that.
    • Not really. Someone is handing out free t-shirts. Do you question it or do you assume they have some legitimate reason to be handing them out? Personally, I assume something would be done about them if it wasn't legit and so take one (as long as it's not someone off-loading a load of crappy charts pop t-shirts).

      Also, as with the RIAA and 'theft' of digital music, there's a difference between "someone just gave us a physical item that could be stolen" and "someone offered us the rights to an address that has

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by vertinox ( 846076 )
      Yarrr! As long as ye follow the laws of ye Admiralty [wikipedia.org] any salvage by ye shall be yours by right of cutlass!

    • Does anyone else have a problem with the justification of:
      "yes, this shipment of cigarettes just arrived at our doorstep, we figured we'd keep 'em".
      No no, according to this article, the analogy would be:

      "yes, we were given this shipment of cigarettes, so we figured we'd keep 'em"

      The domain was transferred to them.

  • Pity they announced it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <`hobbes' `at' `xmsnet.nl'> on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:17AM (#20980807)
    The Pirate Bay could have been rather more subtle about it:
    1. copy the content of IFPI.org
    2. change the content, subtly at first
    3. publish ever more outrageous claims
    4. wait for people to realize the site isn't owned by the IFPI.

  • GO, PIRATES GO! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by eiapoce ( 1049910 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:22AM (#20980841)
    The IFPI. I hate them. They tend to play in europe the same role as the RIAA in USA. With the difference that in Europe States have actual laws that private firms are bound to respect: trivial things like privacy and the concept that the State actually runs the law instead of mediadefender.

    So far their intimidating letters and scary tactics have fired back all the way. (I have seen one they sent to the guy at the Network managment of my uni a few years ago). I can just hail to the new domain!
  • I don't know how long TPB can hang on to that domain name (remember peta.org?) but it should be fun watching the fireworks.

  • huh? it looks like it's still for sale (Score:5, Funny)

    by metroplex ( 883298 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:24AM (#20980853) Homepage
    If you actually go visit ipfi.com , it says it's still for sale: The domain name www.ipfi.com is for sale Prices in the region of US$4675

  • Time for a name change perhaps? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ilex ( 261136 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:25AM (#20980861)
    Having a name that always parses as "The International Federation of the Pornographic Industry" is not just silly but shows how resistant to change the recording industry really is. I mean when was the last time you actually saw let alone played a Phonograph?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 )
      Unfortunately, the reason they probably still use 'phonographic' is that the word 'phonographic' still has a legal meaning in many countries, including the U.S. Even though CDs aren't phonographs per se, they are stilled referred to as 'phonographic recordings.'

    • Re:Time for a name change perhaps? (Score:4, Funny)

      by the_womble ( 580291 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @08:03AM (#20981137) Homepage Journal

      I mean when was the last time you actually saw let alone played a Phonograph?

      About the same time as they had a viable business model.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by S3D ( 745318 )

      I mean when was the last time you actually saw let alone played a Phonograph?

      You mean Pornograph ?

    • is not just silly but shows how resistant to change the recording industry really is

      Boy even I want an edit button now. Purely for your sake, ya know? I just feel kinda sorry for you. "Phonograph" has some ancient origins. I understand that you (and, understandably many other nerds) would render it "pornographic", but who cares? This is a serious company, not one that tries to associate with youth with catchy slogans, endorsements from skateboarders and advertisements that use the feel good hit of the sum

  • Pirates are sweet and by sweet I mean awesome (Score:4, Funny)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:26AM (#20980865)
    I can see it now, Pirate Bay having the wind gauge, lufting up to the scurvy lubbers and giving them a full broadside of grape before setting the grapples and boarding, cutlasses flashing, pistols firing, blood in the scuppers. If they be called pirates, then by God, they be actin' like pirates! And don't nobody tell me they just paid a fee and transferred the domain legally, you'll totally harsh my visualization here.
  • That is so very "pirate" of you. "Piratisch" even. So did you use broadsides to make them surrender or did you board them ?

  • And from the other ifpi site... (Score:3, Funny)

    by N Monkey ( 313423 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:55AM (#20981055)
    In news from

    Earlier today the New South Wales Police, together with Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) raided the home of an illegal trader of country music in Kelso near Bathurst, seizing in excess of 2,000 pirated CDs, ...

    Could his defence be, perhaps, to plead insanity? :D

  • It looks like it expired, not stolen (Score:5, Informative)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @07:59AM (#20981091) Homepage
    According to the whois:

    Creation date: 28 Jan 2007 19:02:24
    Expiration date: 28 Jan 2008 19:02:24
    This looks more like the phonographers let the domain expire at the beginning of the year and someone else registered it on January 28th. This happens all the time, especially by spammers and registrars that turn it into a "search page" for a while.

    • Re:It looks like it expired, not stolen (Score:4, Insightful)

      by imadork ( 226897 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @09:38AM (#20982127) Homepage
      Furthermore, if this is the way the domain was obtained, it may make it harder for the IFPI folks to take back. Since the domain was at one time legally owned by them, and then abandoned, the domain name arbitrator could rule that they relinquished any claim to the name when they abandoned it. After all, if they really wanted the domain name, wouldn't they have renewed it?

  • PETA.org (Score:3, Funny)

    by shking ( 125052 ) <babulicm@nOsPaM.cuug.ab.ca> on Monday October 15, 2007 @08:36AM (#20981451) Homepage

    Reminds me of the mid-90's when "People Eating Tasty Animals [wikipedia.org]" registered peta.org

  • Irony (Score:4, Funny)

    by RomulusNR ( 29439 ) on Monday October 15, 2007 @10:37AM (#20982831) Homepage
    Shouldn't it be TPB that has the .org (non-profit) and IFPI that has the .com (money-leeching corporate union)?
  • ...just hosting some torrent files that don't point to broken torrents? I've given up on trying to watch some pay channel shows and just wait to rent the DVDs. If the video file doesn't generate countless errors, it's in some bugfuck "new and improved" video format or conatianer where the current player is at version 0.0.1 alpha. Is simple MPEG not esoteric enough for a stupid TV show?

    Yeah, I know, it's not their responsibility, but I gotta rant somewhere.

    Hey, Showtime and HBO and others. I'll happily pay a

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close