Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 2

China blocks TPB
If anyone keeps up on the news coming from China, it is well known that China continually blocks certain websites and prevents access to its citizens. One of them is the Chinese Wikipedia website, even though the English version and most other languages remain unblocked. I'm currently living in China at the moment and have noticed that they are now blocking The Pirate Bay. This seems very interesting considering they still allow most other P2P/torrent hosting websites. The trackers also are still working, even though the site is not. Does anyone know what has happened recently that would cause this change? Oftentimes China will block a site for a few days and unblock soon after. I'll keep checking on this for the next week (I will return to the U.S. soon but return in August). 210.42.146.154 (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they want their own piracy sites to stay up. They have quite a lot of such sites in China (I should know, I'm Chinese myself and I know a lot of such sites, but I never use them; only the Pirate Bay ;-) ). ZtObOr 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

here's a MTR of it from shanghai: Host                        Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev 4. 124.74.209.165            0.0%    24   14.3  13.7  11.3  15.0   0.9 5. 61.152.81.85               0.0%    24   14.4  14.2  11.3  21.3   1.8 6. 202.101.63.174             0.0%    24   14.7  16.7  11.1  74.0  12.3 7. 202.101.23.238             0.0%    24   14.9  14.0  13.1  16.0   0.7 8. 211.94.56.1                0.0%    24   53.2  54.7  53.2  57.0   1.2 9. 211.94.44.2                0.0%    24   54.3  54.6  53.1  63.9   2.2 10. 211.94.191.242             0.0%    24   53.6  54.2  53.1  59.1   1.2 11. 211.94.191.4               0.0%    24   54.8  54.3  53.0  55.8   0.8 12. ???
 * snip snip*

more shanghai Host                               Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev 4. 124.74.210.233                   0.0%    16  526.2 783.5 505.8 1265. 218.9 5. 202.101.63.162                    0.0%    16  586.0 779.8 490.1 1261. 228.9 6. 202.101.23.238                    6.2%    16  591.7 758.0 486.0 1236. 216.3 7. 211.94.56.1                       0.0%    16  566.3 822.8 482.5 1217. 232.8 8. 211.94.44.2                       0.0%    16  566.4 818.7 495.2 1206. 230.6 9. 211.94.191.250                    0.0%    16  521.4 808.5 494.9 1250. 244.0 10. ??? china telecom backbone - shanghai Host                               Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev 3. 124.74.254.21                    0.0%    52    0.6   3.0   0.5  54.9   9.3 4. 202.101.63.202                    0.0%    51    1.0   1.3   0.9   2.5   0.4 5. 202.97.44.70                      0.0%    51    1.2   1.6   1.0   5.9   0.9 6. 219.158.32.93                     2.0%    51   19.1  19.5  19.0  21.5   0.6 7. 219.158.13.9                      0.0%    51   27.8  28.1  27.6  32.7   0.8 8. ??? china mobile backbone - shanghai Host                               Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev 5. 211.136.0.62                     0.0%    10  165.0 165.1 164.9 166.0   0.3 6. 157.130.241.217                   0.0%    10  165.2 165.6 165.1 166.7   0.6 7. 152.63.112.250                    0.0%    10  167.6 165.9 165.3 167.6   0.8 8. 152.63.57.78                      0.0%    10  165.3 181.0 165.3 209.4  19.6 9. 208.172.44.193                   33.3%    10  165.8 165.7 165.6 165.8   0.1 10. 204.70.192.137                    0.0%    10  226.3 226.8 226.3 228.3   0.7 11. 204.70.203.214                    0.0%     9  225.2 225.1 224.0 225.8   0.7 12. 204.70.203.226                    0.0%     9  220.5 223.3 220.2 246.8   8.8 13. 216.87.62.241                     0.0%     9  221.5 221.5 221.1 222.2   0.3 14. 205.242.181.34                    0.0%     9  221.1 221.0 220.8 221.2   0.1 15. 216.114.66.158                    0.0%     9  220.3 220.4 220.2 221.2   0.3 16. ???
 * snip snip*
 * snip snip*
 * snip snip*

Legality
The article says that PirateBay is legal under Swedish law in the "Legal and cultural background" section. But it also says "On 31 January 2008, Swedish prosecutors filed charges against four of the individuals behind The Pirate Bay." This is a contradiction. Is WP stating a legal opinion that Sweden doesn't know its own laws? Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that WP is stating that sweden does not know its own laws. the facts are that so far there is no law against what TPB is doing with their hosting of .torrent files and tracking the same. the procecutor filed charges because he was preasured from his superiors to do so after they were preasured by american interests.

I find a sentence like "This does not mean that BitTorrents are legal or illegal." highly troublesome. Something is either legal or illegal. What other unmentioned state beside that is possible? "The legal issues of BitTorrents aren't resolved yet" can be a State of judicial recognisation they are in. And if you are in a democratic country with a working judicial system then it is the norm that everything that is not explicitely declared illegal is indeed legal! So if that sentence should be belong into that article in the first place it must clearly read that BitTorrents are legal unless a law says they are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor2008 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion a sentence like that has no place in the article. It would become highly troublesome to start listing everything that Torrents are/aren't. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 22:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinions on democracy and legality are very interesting. But, WP is not an opinion forum. The US courts found them illegal. The Dutch and Canadian courts also found them illegal in just the last week. But this is also not relevant. The point is that WP is not a legal authority and cannot state that something is illegal or legal that is currently in the courts. The Swedish Government has arrested the owners of Pirate Bay. For WP to state that they have committed no crime while they are under charges clearly makes no sense. This article currently suggests that BTs are legal in one paragraph and then states in the very next paragraph that the US courts have ruled in the opposite manner. This is absurd. I added the statement in the first paragraph after the suggestion it was legal that "This does not mean that BitTorrents are legal." That statement is neutral. It does not claim legality in either direction. It is important that WP not suggest to readers that something is legal when it may not be. Objective3000 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Say objective3000 are you even reading yourself what you argument here before you do the edits? You claim that WP is not a legal authority and can not state if something is legal or illegal. And yet you fill in a sentence that says exactly that (it does not mean that BTfiles are legal) THAT behaviour makes no logic sense. and that has nothing to do with "opinions on democracy or legality". BTW. your other claim is false. BT files are NOT illegal (at least not when you accept that lawmakers make the law that is valid and not some judge that does not understand the technology involved. Would a judge that rules that a BTfile is illegal understand the technology behind such a file and what it is, then he would need to rule that google maps is illegal too since it is an assesory(sp?) to a bankrobbery). I have not seen such a stupid ruling by a judge yet. And even if I had (which i have when substituting google maps with BTfiles) that would not mean that such a ruling by a judge is the law. Because of that I say the sentence does NOT belong in the article. If you want to have a statement then write that there is currently no LAW that deals with BTfiles specificly and therefor they are legal! (because thats the principle of western democracyies with a working judicial system. Everything that has no explicit law agaisnt it is allowed and therefor "legal" in the judicial sense! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:NPOV. You are saying that you know more than judges about the law. Clearly this should tip you off that this is an opinion. Courts in US, Canada and The Netherlands have shut down BTs and the owners of TPB have been arrested. Given this, WP cannot possibly suggest that BTs are legal. The paragraph suggests that BTs are legal. My statement is neutral. It does not say that BTs are legal or illegal. Objective3000 (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rulings in US and Canada are irrelevant to the legality in Sweden. Please desist from the US-Centric mentality which is merely annoying in a casual conversation, actually becomes objectively misplaced in a legal discussion.
 * The site is vocal about the legal underpinnings of its activity, responds to letters through legal council, has a known location within a western democracy and none of this has changed over the last years. The matter, once the state filed charges, arguably went from "legal" to "unresolved".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.139.24.169 (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While the matter got resolved in the best way, do not have the infos at all in it, allow me a last counter argument. The article in question is about a swedish site operated by swedes under swedish jurisdiction. so what america or the netherlands or any other countries old man judge that has no grasp about technology says is (and since the section is gone for good: was) irrelevant. In Sweden BittorrentFiles ARE legal. If you have doubts about that fact, read for example the other section above that explains for example why the prosecutor is doing stuff that makes under swedish law no sense since he charged the owners with something that is not even possible as long as noone is sentenced as guilty of copyrightinfringement while using TPB's help for that. Anyway, cheers and happy editing :-) Wikieditor2008 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In re "old man judge": There is no place for ageism in WP save the article on ageism which you might wish to read. Objective3000 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Legality in different jurisdictions. Each nation state (such as Sweden or Canada) is sovereign. Domestic law and jurisdiction normally only apply in that nation state (unless we are talking about international treaty law). Courts in one country can not use judgements, rulings or laws of another country as a precedence, i.e. the Swedish courts would not be able to site rulings in Canada as basis for any of their actions. Now, that is why, for example, one can buy marijuana legally in the Netherlands, but not legally in Sweden. Also, if individuals are arrested or charged usually means that the prosecution has reason to believe that a law has been broken. Until convicted, the individual arrested or charged is innocent, as the burden of proof is with the authorities. Judges can not invent laws, it is the parliament that passes laws (we are talking about a democracy here). It could be that the Swedish parliament decides to reform their laws (to include activities undertaken by the Pirate Bay), but laws can not be retrospectively applied. If the prosecution can not prove that the Pirate Bay has violated existing Swedish law, they can not convict them.

Apparently the Pirate Bay lot has been charged with assisting copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a crime under Swedish law, and in most instances assisting a crime is punishable under domestic law. SasiSasi (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of this. However I would add that Sweden is a signatory of the Berne Convention which entails certain international treaty obligations. Objective3000 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest taking a look at this and this. The first is a reply made by The Pirate Bay to a legal threat, the second is the reply to the reply. The relevant parts are:
 * The Pirate Bay: "NONE of the copyrighted data in question is published or ever stored on our servers. Nor is any of the copyrighted data relayed through our servers. The tracker merely provides .torrent files. As to this day this activity is not prohibited by Swedish law"
 * The reply: "We've been able to shut down many trackers who don't actually host our materials under the 'made available' clause of the US DMCA; but this is an international case, so the laws of the US don't hold water..." ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read as much of this churlish nonsense as I can stomach. Clearly the Swedish prosecutors have a different view of the law than the defendents. Considering that they claim to have moved their servers out of Sweden, it is likely they don't believe their own bravado. Objective3000 (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pirate Bay are still in Sweden. After the raids, the Pirate Bay was back up in running in 3 days, and the date for the court case has never been set. You sound quite biased against them, are you sure you are able to edit this article with a Neutral Point of view? ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 14:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Was the article on Hitler edited by Nazi's? You sound quite biased for them, are you sure you are able to edit this article with a Neutral Point of view? Objective3000 (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need for this discussion. We are not here to debate legal intricacies, we are here to attempt to write a balanced article. Until some reliable sources crop up regarding the legality of the site, we needn't discuss it. Whatever our feelings about the site, I am sure we are able to shelve them in favour of writing from the neutral point of view. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Objective3000 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC) You agree after you swung the "Nazi keule"?! OMG, for someone that calles himself "Objective" you seems to have quite serious problems with the WP:5 it seems! Wikieditor2008 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was obviously that someone can write objectively about something even when they have strong opinions. You know full well I was not comparing anyone to a Nazi in any way, shape or form. As for the WP:5, you are the one that suggested that I was incapable of a NPOV without seeing any evidence of this in any edit and you are now getting quite nasty. Reread the WP:5. I'm done with this thread. Objective3000 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This should not be about feelings, certainly not... The Pirate Bay states that what they do is legal under Swedish law, there are many sources for that and I don’t see why this can not go into the article, after all they are entitled to their opinion and they have taken legal advice. As well, there are sources enough to include the fact that the individuals running Pirate Bay have been charged with assisting copyright infringement. Its now up to the courts to make a decision.

Regarding: The Pirate Bay: "NONE of the copyrighted data in question is published or ever stored on our servers. Nor is any of the copyrighted data relayed through our servers. The tracker merely provides .torrent files. As to this day this activity is not prohibited by Swedish law"

What they are trying to argue is that because they dont store or process the copyrighted material/data - they are a search engine (like google) - their activities are not illegal under Swedish law. I understand that this is the first time such a case has been brought in Sweden. So its a precedence (we can not look at past cases in Sweden to draw a conclusion on the likely outcome). It could be that the judges decided that the pirate bay can not be prosecuted under existing laws (or that it can). In many European countries existing laws do not adequately cover new Internet related technologies and activities. And this can obviously not go in the article because its my humble view.

The question of legality really should not have anything to do with anybodies feelings (or Nazis...), there are a number of simple facts that should be included in the article (Pirate Bay opinion/defence, and the charges brought against them), and whether its legal under Swedish law or not is for the court to decide.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your point. Nearly all defendants claim innocence and nearly all defense lawyers claim innocence. And sometimes they are. And it is clear that they have been indicted but not yet found guilty. The article does not state that they have been found guilty. Also, the fact that laws do not specifically include “Internet technology” concepts is not relevant. Copyright laws are general and cover any and all forms of “publication” unless otherwise stated. This is a red-herring. You may have another view, but the article makes no comment on this issue and shouldn’t. 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs)

If you look at how this discussion started it was around the fact that the article use to say that the PirateBay is legal under Swedish law.

It no longer does, however, and that’s the point: in the moment it does not state with what offences the individuals involved in the Pirate Bay have been charged (only the reason for the raid), and it does not state the Pirate Bay position on legality (the one that has been quoted here), only the legal opinion of International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. there are reliable sources for the charges as well as the Pirate Bay's defence argument, hence I was saying that this should be included in the article.

Also, I am not disputing that there is copyright protection on publications in Sweden, and neither does the Pirate Bay, I was trying to explain that the Pirate Bay defends itself by arguing that it is just a search engine (it does not copy or distribute copyrighted material).... Now if the court accepts this, whatever, I don’t care... lets just put the facts with references into this article. I got drawn into this because people started to make all sorts of strange claims about whether the Pirate Bay is legal or not (with no understanding of basic legal principles)... and because the article originally said that the pirate bay is legal in Sweden - which is the position the Pirate Bay takes, but the article originally stated this as a matter of fact.... which it should not because the court has not yet decided whether it is illegal or legal under Swedish law... .... .... --SasiSasi (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still don't understand your point. They have been arrested. They are being prosecuted. ALL defendants have defenses. I don't believe WP is a place for legal arguments. Just facts. The facts are in the article. It states "The site's legal adviser, Mikael Viborg, has stated that because torrent files and trackers merely point to content, the site's activities are legal under Swedish law." It's a ridiculous argument used in other countries and cases that have failed, but it is already in the article and no one has suggested that it be removed. Now if you wanted to add to this, you could state that TPB has claimed that they are moving their servers out of Sweden and that they are buying an island -- both of which appear to indicate that they don't even believe in their own defense. But, no one is suggesting that this be added either. What needs to be changed/added? Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They were arrested and released without charge. The impending court case was filed by an individual party over copyright claims. It's the difference between getting arrested for illegal activity and being sued. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to make comments like "It's a ridiculous argument used in other countries", this talkpage is for improvements to the article, not a place to discuss the possible weaknesses in the article subjects legal defence. Also, they are not moving out of Sweden or buying an Island, where did you get that information from? ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 01:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your information is incorrect. They were charged with crimes punishable with incarceration by Swedish prosecutors and are awaiting trial. Yes, they are also awaiting trial on civil charges from multiple civil suits -- but these are a different cases. They made the statements about moving out of Sweden and buying an island. These are very well-known. And my statements were on the talk page for the very reason that a talk page exists in WP. Objective3000 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Talkpages exist to discuss improvement to the article, not to slander the website's legal team. Also, their plans to buy Sealand was nothing more than a publicity stunt, which they admitted. This discussion is redundant, we have the line we need in the article: the quote from their lawyer. When the court case is settled the legality can be updated. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Talkpages do not exist for false accusations of slander. I said nothing in any way, shape or form that could conceivably be taken as slander. (Or libel, the correct word -- you cannot slander someone in writing.) OTOH, you just libeled me by making a false accustion.:) Objective3000 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Playing armchair lawyer over the internet got stupid 10 years ago. You didn't get the memo. --70.131.85.113 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh this is getting really boring!!! it does not matter if any of us thinks any of the legal arguments are ridiculous, that’s for the Swedish court to decide.... and again, Sweden is sovereign. The fact that a similar argument used in other countries has been turned down by the local courts, has no impact whatsoever on Sweden. I will add a note with the charges brought against them (referenced of course) to the article. --SasiSasi (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research
I have created a "charges" section which outlines the charges brought against the individuals behind the Pirate Bay and some of the legal arguments relating to the case. I have also removed the following original research from the intro as the article policy is "no original research":

In some countries, offering copyrighted torrent media could be considered an illegal inducement of copyright infringement, but in other countries this is not the case.

Wikipedia already has a relevant article called File sharing and the law, which I will main link in the charges section. As Sweden is a sovereign country these rulings have no influence on Swedish courts whatsoever, there is no need to discuss whether filesharing is legal or illegal in countries other than Sweden in this article.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work. However, since 99% of TPBs users are not Swedish, the legality of file sharing is relevant. In any case, the oft-quoted Spanish case is not on point. As I understand it, the Spanish courts did NOT rule that BTs were legal. The court only ruled that names of violators could not be obtained in a civil case and that petitioners had to bring a criminal case. Objective3000 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * all Swedes and non-Swedes can inform themselves about the legality of file sharing at File sharing and the law which is linked (and needs some extra work if anybody is interested). I guess as a uploader or downloader of copyrighted material the legal situation is slightly less complicated, because its quite obvious that the individual is breaking copyright law (civil or criminal) in their own country. Whether or not running a tracker is legal or illegal (or a civil or criminal matter) I think is the more complicated question depending on the country in which the tracker is based.
 * In any case, I think the legal situation is sufficiently covered (i.e. people get an overview and can obtain further information in linked articles or the cited sources)...--SasiSasi (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This sentence
''The documentary Steal This Film was produced and distributed (via BitTorrent) in the months following the raid. In the words of its speakers, it aimed to present the other side of the debate, until that time dominated by the media industry. The film was made available free, as donationware.'' I don't see the purpose of it. It doesn't seem to in anyway mention this film's relation to TPB. Unless the film was made available first on the pirate bay or as a direct result of what happened to them, etc. Otherwise this kind of sentence belongs in another article entirely.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC) The film, as far as I can recall, features a lot of interviews with them, so it might belong here, though it's relevance should be clarified in the sentence. Ragzouken (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The film was a documentary interviewing members of TPB after the raid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.60.11 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Antipiratbyrån / Piratbyrån (Anti-Piracy Beauro / Piracy Beauro.
There is a fault in the main text to this article, The "Anti piratbyrån" is the real name for the anti-piracy beauro in sweden, the "Piratbyrån" is a kind of mock name for the company/institution that supports downloading and "piracy", the name was to mock the real deal "Anti-piratbyrån" with the name "pirat byrån" which litterally means "Piracy beauro".

// I am Swedish and a member of the swedish Wikipedia as "Alexeij", sorry for any bad english.

81.224.34.189 (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Legal and cultural background"- is this section even needed?
There's currently some significant discussion over this section, but, personally, I don't think it is even needed. It doesn't cite a single source, isn't directly related to the website and linking these cases and laws to the Pirate Bay appears to be original research, as it constitutes unpublished synthesis. The kind of discussion that is being had in the part of the article belongs elsewhere. I say the whole thing is removed, and can be written from scratch if any reliable sources linking tPB to legal concerns arise. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. One paragraph is not only opinion -- it is simply wrong. This is not the place for a legal debate and the section should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the section. Unsourced and not specifically related to the TPB. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 11:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've boldly removed it. I request that anyone who intends to add it back to write it from scratch, citing sources that specifically discuss legal concerns about The Pirate Bay, not the P2P/torrenting community in general. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the child pornography section
I have removed the section concerning child pornography as it included some rather serious accusations about the Swedish police and The Pirate Bay, and contained a link to a very questionable torrent. On top of this, it was backed up only by primary sources (torrents, blog entries, tPB meta-pages) and contained original research, with some of the accusations not backed up by sources at all. I request, as with the section discussed above, that if it is to be added back, it is added back with information from reliable, third-party sources- I doubt many exist, as I don't think mainstream sources would really want to discuss that sort of thing. J Milburn (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, event is pretty well covered by swedish mainstream  and computer media (eg couple rounds in leading magazines with full verbal ammo from both sides). Also that what actually was found from TPB is covered by (afaik credible) third party source by now. Section just was totally awful, so i guess that removing it was OK --Zache (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the section is very important and should not have been removed. It is well-known and indicative of the character of the site. It is important to understand that the site defended the links to child-pornography and publically refused to remove the links until forced by the Swedish gov’t, in apparent contradiction to its stated manifesto. This action is at the heart of the site’s existence. If it was poorly written, it should have been fixed. Objective3000 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am happy for the section to be re-included if there are sources that backup what it said. However, there really should not be links to torrents both because it is a primary source and for the possible legal implications. Just looking around it seems that the child pornography drama was a big issue with the site, and should definitely have a section. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 01:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, this is a serious issue, and should not be included unless there are very good sources covering it. Until those sources are cited, we should not even mention it. And yes, linking to those torrents is poor for a number of reasons- primary sources, legal concerns over child pornography, legal concerns over copyright (if the images are legitimate, I suspect filesharing them is not legitimate) ethical concerns etc. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is crude sum up with sources if somebody with good english wants to rewrite the section. Swedish links are through Google translate.


 * Before trying to block pirate bay pro copyright people discussed about possibility to filter pirate bay. Also small kopimi-site were filtered for short time before TPB (i guess this was for testing the public reaction about filtering)


 * Plan to filter TPB leaked to media and after international media interested police retreated. Police publicly admitted that they were blacklisting TPB and that they didn't contact to operators of TPB about the illegal content or blacklisting beforehand.


 * Police didn't ever specify what they found from TPB. TPB's Peter Sunde in Guardian's interview said this: "There were three files in question, but it turned out that none of them contained child porn". The local wrote that there were torrents which description said that they contained pics of nude kids. (good non-wikipedia reliable source analysis about what was found is here, (contains nudity))


 * Afterwards police also have said that they doesn't suspect TPB itself about childporn, but are investigating some of TPB users.


 * In 2008 TPB published press release (translation in comments) where they said that even police say to media that they have child porn they haven't been informed and even when they are now more actively contacting to police to get opinion about legality of questionable content it is hard to get answers.


 * So whole thing was either smear campaing or just example how badly one can handle relations (both police and TPB)? Oscar Swartz conspiracy theory was that whole thing was revenge by ex-justice minister Thomas Bodström (now chairman of Ecpat Sweden which updetes the blacklist) and Håkan Roswall which both are huge fans of TPB (see Pirate bay 2006 raid).


 * Links to some newspapers commentary: DN: Do not touch the internet, HD.se: Chronicle: Child pornography as a weapon against file sharing

--Zache (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a collection of conspiracy theorists, fans of TPB and TPB's self-serving comments. Anybody have a legitimate Swedish news source? Objective3000 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is links to Dagens Nyheter (largest news-paper in sweden), Computer world sweden (one of largest computer medias) and The Local (the main swedish news site in english) in example; they are pretty much legitimate as you can get. And to me saying that Guardian and CNET is bunch of fanboys sounds like idle talking so give us better links or stop whining. --Zache (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is simply an interview with a defendent, not a news story. The Computer World article is not on point. Yes, CNET is a bunch of fanboys. I have read several articles in The Local before and find it acceptable. I read the Register every morning. But, I don't realy consider it a quotable source and have never used it as a reference. I can't find the Dagens Nyheter link. And why is this page so nasty? I am not "whining" as you say -- I am expressing a legitimate concern. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Computer world sweden: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Happy? - Source validity could be legitimate concern if there would be any doubt or debate about facts, but i don't think that there is. Except maybe TPB:s and Polices opinion, but it is solved just by mentioning both. --Zache (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Source validity could be legitimate concern if there would be any doubt or debate about facts"- nonsense. We don't include information if we do not have a reliable source. A number of reliable sources do seem to have been provided, and so I do not oppose a section being included, if it is carefully sourced. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A section makes sense, so long as it does not refer to conspiracy sites and piracy blogs making unfounded claims that the police put up child pornography in some sort of international conspiracy. Objective3000 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LATEST NEWS
Should we add a Latest-news section on the article? I think it will be helpful.

96.239.4.41 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You could, but I would think the latest news would just be added to the article along with a reference. Craig Montgomery (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No. current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not News reports. ~ Ameliorate  U T C @ 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think listing references relevant to the current status of a subject is the same thing as turning a page into a news report. When notable people die, we don't hesitate to add that information the day it's available to us on the basis that people shouldn't be treating those pages as news reports.  The current status of a thing is what drives a lot of wikipedia visits, and that can be satisfied without turning an article into a gossip page.76.226.173.174 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should not be constantly updated with "Latest news". If something is added as "news" it should be relevant and notable enough that it will stay there for the foreseeable future (ie. another raid, serious legal trouble). There should never be a "Latest News", that's what WikiNews is for. ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 02:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could just add this kind Wikinews box to the article, but for The Pirate Bay? It though needs somebody to write TPB news to wikinews (anybody interested?) and after that some bot magic. --Zache (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What about adding a part that mentions when hte site has been shut down (either for maitenance or other reasons) I only say it now because it is currently down, and I have seen it down a few times before. Maybe if we say 'Site was shut down from july 28 until the 30th for maintenance' or something like that. I know on movie pages it talks about going through development hell (which I suppose is similar to the site being down) Tydamann (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the article on Google, is there a section on every time that Google has gone offline for a while? How about IsoHunt? YouTube? Amazon.com? ~ Ame I iorate U T C @ 08:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is recentism at its worst. I strongly oppose a 'news' section- we're an encyclopedia, not a news service. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a link to an article with a title that refers to Italy as a fascist state? For that matter, should there be any links to the Pirate Bay blog? Or for that matter, a link that was created specifically to subvert an Italian court ruling? Objective3000 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, yes? We don't have any problem to link TPB blog, even if their verbal punch missed the mr Berlusconi. Ifpi and facist Italy era thing was nice touch though (it wouldn't be funny if it weren't true) :) btw. If you have too much time you could find a link to that Italian court ruling... --Zache (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this was an encyclopedia. Not a fan-boy site that calls European countries "fascist" when they don't like their widely-held court opinions. The current article contains a reference to Italy as a "Fascist state." Is this NPOV? Objective3000 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't not include those words; they are simply the title of a link that is used as a reference in this article. That title is automatically included by bots here, and the title does give credence to the context of that portion of the article.  NPOV doesn't play a role in this as the link is the best citation for the material described. Until a better citation is found, the blog entry is the best source of information, though it is biased.  In answer to your earlier comments, that entire section of Italian censorship is important to the context of the article. If countries are blocking access, and the site is making sites to regain access, this lends to the site's ultimate notability. Rurik (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A bad source of info should never be included simply because a better source cannot be found. Objective3000 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the "Raid" section
The "Raid" section really needs to be shortened; WP:UNDUE applies to this section in my opinion. It's far too long compared to the rest of the article. Either extraneous details need to be cut out, or it needs to be moved to its own article and then summarized here. Gary King ( talk ) 05:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like thats done now. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just went ahead and did it. Gary King ( talk ) 21:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pics
not sure if this was discussed, but the following pic might be appropriate in the article (GA criteria?)--SasiSasi (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting the child pornography section fixed
Here is the section as it looks right now. I post it here since it has been deleted quite a few time already. I have tried my best to get it as documented as possible. Are there anything which needs correction?

On a minor note, I have chosen the term "child porn", since the word "child pornography" is too long, and makes the text hard to read.


 * ==Content Policty==
 * The Pirate Bays' content policy was originally that they would never remove any correctly labeled content. As they said in their contact page: (added somewhere near 19.2.2007 ):
 * "We do not remove ANY content, what-so-ever, if it is not wrongly labeled. Seriously, NO content will be removed. Whatever it is. Do not even write to us about it."
 * In July 2007 it was announced that the Swedish police intended to put The Pirate Bay on their filter list of child pornography sites, thus blocking it from general access. This decision was later revoked with the police claiming that the trackers containing child porn had been removed. The Pirate Bay, on the other hand, claimed that the trackers they removed did not contain child porn.
 * After the Swedish police threatened to ban The Pirate Bay, the site changed the text on their contact page to this:
 * "Seriously, NO legal content will be removed. Whatever it is. Do not even write to us about it."
 * The Pirate Bay continues to track and index torrents of erotic but legal photos of children.
 * PRQ, who owns The Pirate bay, also host a site which defends pedophilia. Their reason they chosed to host the sites was that they don't share the views expressed on the site, but that they feel that that "When it comes to fear of paedophiles most things are set to one side."

--Kasper Hviid (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I have now added the above section to the article

--Kasper Hviid (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is NO WAY you can source the statement about the "erotic but legal photos" to a torrent. No way. When a decent news source mentions them, we can put them in. It's really not the kind of thing we want to be linking to anyway- I don't know what the torrents contain, but I suspect they will be illegal in some way. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section. It contains original research (interpretation of their official policies) and is sourced entirely to The Pirate Bay and some IT blog, not to mention the fact that the references are badly formatted. Have you any better references? Why do you feel this warrants a whole section? J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't link to a torrent. I link to a The Pirate Bay search on the word "preteen". Then everyone can follow the resulting links, and come to the conclusion that the information is correct. It don't requires "decent news source", since its so obvious. Please try it out, and tell me if you are in doubt. About your other complains, tell me which sentences you feel are wrong, and why.--Kasper Hviid (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not complaining about you being wrong, I am complaining about you synthesising material, giving undue weight to a minor view/incident and citing contentious material to unreliable sources. Until a reliable source reports about these images, there is no reason that we should mention them. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kasper, putting up claims for the readers to figure out isn't the point of Wikipedia. I follow TPB and am not seeing the outrage or media attention to this topic.  I'm confused by your intention in posting these details.  Child pornography (CP) is illegal and was found on there.  TPB removed CP.  TBP no longer hosts CP. That's exactly what your section says, and I don't see the importance of it.  It seems to be you're telling people to use your WP:OR to do their own WP:OR. What the section needs is a news outlet reporting on the issue, and then linking to that news report, if the issue exists. Rurik (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me what sentence you feel are wrong, why, and according to which rule. I can't correct anything here without that info--Kasper Hviid (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your section is filled with original research, including synthesis, and the sources are unreliable and/or do not prove the notability of this incident. Per this edit, it seems that you are bringing your personal off-wiki dispute with the article subject to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Prolog (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not being pro or con a section on child porn (or pro-"the section that was in the article but has been taken out"), but the subject of child pornography is important enough for TPB to explicitly mention it "To report child abuse or other similar unlawful activities please do so to your local authority. In Sweden you can contact childabuse@rkp.police.se to report child abuse matters. Please do so.". I saw a recent interview in which they state that they do take down child porn torrents and co-operate with the Swedish police on the matter (can find the source if needed) which is some way away from their original position that they will never take any torrent down. I think now they are saying that they will not take down any "legal" torrents.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, maybe a better solution (rather than an edit war) would be a section on their "content policy" (if you can call it that), which could also cover the autopsy photo issue (see below).--SasiSasi (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I could agree with such a section in principle (it probably wouldn't be in the incidents section) but I think it would be best if it was based on secondary sources only, not what the site says its policy is/did say what its policy is, and especially not on our interpretation of their policy. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, def not in incidents. Maybe another short section after Website setup. I agree that the section should not include interpretation. Although I do think if you write about "policy" you can include primary sources. For example, the fact that TPB does ask users to report "child abuse or other similar unlawful activities" to local authorities could be in the article. Most articles on "organisations" in wikipedia do use some primary sources, especially with regards to organisational information, policy, governance etc. I am not hung up on the child porn thing, but I think the section would cover certain aspects which are central to TPB without sensationalising them. By the way, I think that the autopsy photo thing was picked up by the mainstream media in Sweden.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Content Policy or a similar headline would be better. While I think the primary sources should stay, I have to admit that the interpretation is indeed an interpretation, and have to go. I have changed the section, but keeps it on this page for now. --Kasper Hviid (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Autopsy photos
In the grand scheme of things, this seems to be a pretty minor incident. Was it picked up on by any larger press sources? If not, I do not feel it deserves a whole section to itself. Perhaps it could be slipped in somewhere else, or just removed outright? J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In finland internet magazines Digitoday/ITViikko covered the event pretty well, , and there were links to TV4, Svenska Dagbladet and The Local. Also Swedish media commissioner Yrsa Stenius predicted that event will change laws/conventions in sweden about what is public and what is not. From wikipedia article; Sunde was in SVT's Debatt program, which is swedish national TV:s prime time program. So, yeah, i guess that there  would be more to found in swedish mainstream media if one would search. --Zache (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, the Arboga child murder case is the big news thing in Sweden and that somebody released (legally) ALL preliminary investigation documents of case, not just autopsy photos via pirate bay is one side event of that story. --Zache (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, that does seem to imply the event is significant. Perhaps it would be worth knocking up an article on the murders to link to? J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead link.
PirateBay.org has been down for about a month. There's a piratebay.com though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The website is thepiratebay.org. :) -Kgasso (talk) 11:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Project section
somebody should check the "projects" section for duplicate definitions of baywords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartig1 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whole New Page For Trial
I believe wikipedia needs a whole new separate page for the Pirate Bay trial taking place this month. This is the biggest trial to date in the P2P world. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There exist blogs where you can chat about this. Seems a bit premature to add an article to an encyclopedia about a trial that has yet to take place.Objective3000 (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in "chatting" about this. Despite the trial has taken place, there is still already a lot of facts and important happenings in it that really affect the P2P world, even the internet as a whole for that matter. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The trial can have no effect on the I'Net in general. If you think somehow it can, wait until the trial is over instead of adding speculation to an encyclopedia.Objective3000 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not going to claim any such thing in the article. And yes it can.  This is another big case that basically revolves around the issue of policing the internet. JeremyWJ (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an opinion. This is an encyclopedia.Objective3000 (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to discuss it anymore here. I already created the article two days ago and now have the backing of two Wikiprojects involved with the page. JeremyWJ (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it used to be an encyclopedia. This page is embarrassing enough.Objective3000 (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia has a rule against linking to illegal content. Does that include their official website?
Isn't it against wikipedia rules to link to a website like The Pirate Bay? Even if you are talking about it, can you link to its official website, without violating the rules?  D r e a m Focus  23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC):
 * The website itself is not illegal. Some of the content on it is considered to be illegal, but the main page of the site would not be illegal as the main page contains no copyrighted content. Captain   panda  23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In no way whatsoever is their site illegal. No is there any illegal content there.  The misconception that sites like theirs is illegal is just a lie feed to you by the MPAA and RIAA and other big giants like them.  Linking to them on Wikipedia is okay. JeremyWJ (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is not relevant. They are currently in court charged with crimes for running the site and identical trials in several countries have unequivocally stated that these sites are illegal. This is an encyclopedia not an opinion forum. I do not understand why such a large number of links to a site run by defendants in a criminal trial are presented as fact.Objective3000 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually your opinion is not relevant. They are no more legal or illegal than google.com or any other search engine which all also link DIRECTLY to illegal content such as child pornography, torrents (actually not illegal), copyrighted media downloads, and such.  Torrents are not illegal and thus there is nothing illegal hosted on their site.  Its not an opinion of mine.  No, not at all.  Its just a fact. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that their site is not on trial. You need to get the facts.  They are on trial for assisting copyright infringement.  Even if they lose the trial their site would remain up.  Yes, remain up.  Reason: the legality of their site IS NOT in question.  It's their personal profiting off of it.  They could be forced to run it without making any money (no ads) which would probably shut it down (actually move it outside Sweden), but the site itself would remain legal. JeremyWJ (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The site may or may not be legal. That's not for us to judge. However, it is not obviously illegal, and does not appear to host any illegal material. Linking to a website on an article about said website is entirely appropriate- if a website is taken offline, then we can stop linking to it. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If its a site that exist for no other reason than to link to illegal content, is it allowed? You aren't allowed to link to a site that list links to where illegal scans of manga can be found, or other copyrighted media.  Google is a search engine, which has many things you can find with it.  The Pirate Bay only shows torrents, which honestly, are going to almost always be to illegal content.  You can link to a website with information about a topic, but not a website that links to copyrighted media, such as certain manga review sites.   D r e a m Focus  02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pirate Bay links to no illegal, or copyrighted data. No torrent is illegal.  There has never been a single torrent created that was illegal in any form anywhere on this planet.  As for the content these torrents are used to obtain, many of them (hundreds of thousands of them) on The Pirate Bay are for legal content such as opensource projects. Despite your view on torrents, linking to The Pirate Bay on Wikipedia is okay. Just like with google as The Pirate Bay, their links can lead to both legal and nonlegal media.  Many of the links on The Pirate Bay link to illegal, as with google.  Many of the links on The Pirate Bay link to legal stuff, as with google.  For that matter, this analogy applies to not only google and The Pirate Bay, but to the WWW as a whole.  JeremyWJ (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets remember that The Pirate Bay links to torrents (which are in no way illegal). Google links to websites.  Since torrents and websites both link to other stuff, lets just assume The Pirate Bay and Google both only link to websites.  A website (or torrent) that is linked to by The Pirate Bay or Google can be perfectly legal.  However, that legal media (the linked website or torrent) could link to illegal content.  This is the case for not only google, but for torrents.  With your idea of thinking, every site on the internet that links to another site that links to another site, that links .....  Is illegal.  Therefore Wikipedia can not link to any website on the internet because that site MIGHT link to illegal content (or to another site that does such). JeremyWJ (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a simple fact though: There is no illegal content on The Pirate Bay. It may be linked to if its relevant to the article. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting argument, but I just went to Pirate Bay, and clicked on "browse torrents," and then clicking on movies, and then games, I saw a list of copyrighted materials to illegally download. It isn't just a search engine for torrents.  It is a list of links to illegal things, or to torrents which will allow you to get illegal copies of things, if you want to be specific.   D r e a m Focus  03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course Google can also be used to find these same torrents. In fact, uTorrent (a bittorrent client) even has built in function to use Google to find torrents for its users.  Keep in mind that those links you found on The Pirate Bay that looked like illegal content, was actually just any old normal (legal) torrent file.  That file contains no copyright material, just trackers to people serving up content through their own home internet connections (yes that content may be illegal, but nothing in the torrent is). JeremyWJ (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a little experiment for you: Open up google, pick your favorite movie.  In the google search bar type: movie name torrent ...  So if your favorite movie is Die Hard, type: Die Hard Torrent.  Enjoy google linking you to almost every die hard (or whatever movie you choose) torrent out there (huh, kind of like The Pirate Bay huh?). JeremyWJ (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you go to www.google.com it doesn't show you a list of where to get torrents for illegal files. Your example is not valid.  If you had to actually type in something to search for, then your argument would work.  But when they list it out there like that, I believe it is against wikipedia rules.   D r e a m Focus  03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Those torrents The Pirate Bay links to WHICH ARE NOT ILLEGAL do not tell you where to put them in a client to download stuff.  So your claim is not valid. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, even if TPB links directly to torrents on its front page, its still not anything illegal. You have to take that torrent, load it up into a bittorrent client, that client has to go to trackers to get a list of peers to download something totally unrealted to what you obtained from the pirate bay.  Just like google. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I really wish people could get it through their heads that there is nothing illegal about torrents. Torrents just show you where people are who have media to offer, just like google or any other search engine. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect. That is based upon a country's legal system, and in many it is completely illegal .  They are not hosting the material themselves, but they do run the tracker and are connecting people together to commit copyright infringement.  This is somewhat legal under Swedish law, but is completely illegal in the US.  The popular analogy made is with narcotics.  If someone asks you where to buy heroin, and you pull out a black book and say "Go 3 blocks down and talk to Reggie.  If he doesn't have any, go next door and see Cindy", that is still abetting in the crime.  There are many aspects of this case, and you're making wide beliefs based off a singular aspect. There's a definitive difference between a search engine, a tracker, and a peer.  Google is a search engine.  TPB is a search engine and tracker.  These are the issues that are currently under review in court cases.
 * Overall, it's a moot point. Wikipedia Talk pages are not here to discuss the merits of legality of a topic, but to discuss the content of the page.  The legality of BT cannot be debated, it's to be decided in a court.  Wikipedia's job is to note the decisions made by the court. Rurik (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You keep stating over and over and over that torrents are legal. Are you a copyright lawyer? Courts in several countries have stated that they ARE illegal. Again it is your opinion that they are legal. The courts disagree.Objective3000 (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? Where have they been deemed illegal? J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No court in any country has ever said torrents are illegal. I urge to source your claim like the last guy suggested. JeremyWJ (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Torrent sites used for piracy have been shut down by the courts in several European countries and in the US and Canada. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. You continue to inject your opinions as fact.Objective3000 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference? Further, even if that was true, it wouldn't make torrents themselves illegal, which is what you were stating. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not understand. You are trying to state your opinion as fact. I have no interest in argueing the point. I am only trying to maintain a NPOV.Objective3000 (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to ask you for sources for what you are saying. I'm not stating any opinion. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You stated "In no way whatsoever is their site illegal." And yet they are in court. Prosecutors obviously disagree with you. Clearly you are stating an opinion, not fact. This is an encylopedia, not an opinion forum.Objective3000 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never stated any such thing- there's more than one person in this conversation. You have still not provided any references to demonstrate that torrents are considered illegal anywhere. Please provide a source for what you are saying if you want us to consider it. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In a fair amount of research, there doesn't seem to be any cases that have solidified that torrent files are illegal to host. There are ongoing cases that are operating on the this assumption, but none of which that have been decided in court. Rurik (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that pirate sites using torrents have been shut down by the courts in Canada and the U.S. I have also read several countries in Europe have shut them down. I have never heard of a piracy site using torrents winning in court. In any case, it is rather obviously an opinion to state that TPB is legal since they are in court. An encyclopedia should not rule for the courts.Objective3000 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? Why is it so difficult for you to provide sources for what you are saying? Further, as the defendants are innocent until proven guilty, it would be even worse to state that the site is acting illegally while it is in court. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me where I said that. I said it is OPINION. Please, for the last time, I am trying to keep a NPOV.Objective3000 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You did say "and in many it is completely illegal", but it's nice to see you've finally retracted that. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know why it is my job to prove something when all I wish to do is stop unequivocable, unproved statements like "TPB did nothing illegal." However, if you wish to see a few of the hundreds of shutdowns of pirate torrents, look at -- U.S. http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-admin-sent-to-prison/

Iceland http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/12011.cfm Italy http://thenextweb.com/2008/07/30/police-takes-down-italian-pirate-bay/ The Netherlands http://torrentfreak.com/oink-uploaders-sentenced-to-community-service-090123/ Malaysia http://sharifulhafizi.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/malaysian-government-orders-torrent-sites-shutdown/ Canada http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9631/QuebecTorrent+Shutdown+by+Canadian+Entertainment+Industry This is just a quick search. Search is difficult because of all the Pirate Bay trial noise. BREIN says they have taken down 131 sites thus far. It is simply ludicrous to claim that pirates torrents are legal. That is the only point that I am trying to make. But this is a losing battle. This page has no semblence of NPOV.Objective3000 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the legal settings here jump all over the place. None of the charges here were related to the running of a Torrent site; instead they are limited to the usage and seeding of information.  The only exception is Alan Ellis of Oink's Pink Palace, and he hasn't formally been charged, yet (case delayed until March).  Some of these others I'm intimately familiar with and deal with the actual spreading of copyrighted information as a peer and not as a torrent site or tracker.  The trackers were taken down based upon civil charges or through existing laws that allow for hardware to be seized or disable pending results of a trial.  I don't think it's been officially established, yet, that running a torrent site is completely illegal, through a court of law. Rurik (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is nothing wrong with running a torrent site that is not used to distribute illegal works. But, over 100 pirate torrent sites have been shut down by the courts in many countries. People can try to find all the excuses they wish -- but to make an unequivocal statement, as was made in this thread, that sites like TPB break no laws is clearly opinion.Objective3000 (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

<-What do you feel is non-neutral in the current article? J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, torrents sites have been found legal in Spain. So the question is indeed non obvious. Lerichard (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Objective3000, You have to clarify. Firstly, you are saying that all torrents are illegal, which clearly they are not as they can be used to distribute freeware and uncopywrited material. Thats like calling the internet illegal. Secondly, the statement was made directly about TPB and not sites like* TPB as you are suggesting and claim have been shut down. TPB are still operating legally and are innocent until proven guilty (Law 101) and to state otherwise is incorrect. As Rurik already said, it would be highly incorrect and also an opinion to say that TPB have been acting illegally when the case is still in court and has not been ruled on. C Traynor 01:00 GMT, 19 February 2009 (UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.133.141 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, do not put words in my mouth. Secondly, You state that it would be incorrect to make a statement on legality while the case is in court, and yet that is eaqctly what you did. You cannot state that they are operating legally. Again, I am trying to maintain NPOV.Objective3000 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Innocent until proven guilty means that their activity is not considered illegal unless ruled to be in court 75.162.11.52 (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Innocent until proved guilty means that they have not personally been found guilty and therefore cannot be treated as guilty by the government. It does not mean the act is legal or that no crime has taken place. If someone is in court for murder, this does not mean that murder is legal or that no murder took place.Objective3000 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but that's not the question. Instead, the question is whether it is fair to call them a murderer, which it is not, until they are proven to be so. However, this seems to be an entirely academic excercise. Does anyone genuinely believe that we should not link the website? Until the website itself has been shown to be illegal, we should not treat it as if it is. J Milburn (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Update
UPDATE: Swedish prosecutors have dropped all criminal charges against The Pirate Bay on day two of the trial. All that remains is civil chargers of making available. Of course this will be dropped to because they make nothing but torrents available. The prosecuter was forced to drop these charges after realizing torrents are not illegal. http://torrentfreak.com/50-of-charges-against-pirate-bay-dropped-090217/ JeremyWJ (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JeremyWJ, that you may be posting on the wrong articles for this information. This article is about the site itself, not the legality of torrents or (mostly) about the trial itself.  Some of your issues may have a better home at Legal issues with BitTorrent and The Pirate Bay trial, as well as File sharing and the law.  Additionally, you're missing one of the notes about why some of the charges were dropped.  Quoted from the trial page: "The prosecutor was unable to prove that the .torrent files used as evidence actually used The Pirate Bay’s tracker."  This did not declare that torrent files were legal or illegal, just that they could not be introduced into the case because it could not be proved that they did not directly connect to the defendant's tracker server. Rurik (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Funding - Expanded Upon
Since ThePirateBay is not releasing info about how much money they're actually making, there is a good deal that is suspect -- this fact is important (non-transparent finances, which has used charitable funding, such as the Sealand fund).

Second, we know their revenue is in excess of 3 million, maybe 10 million, yearly, by standard Alexa.com standards -- if you're in the top 100 websites visited, you're easily looking at several million revenue. The only response to this, however, is that thepiratebay is spending this all on bandwidth. Wouldn't it be possible to put just a short bandwidth assessment here? (i.e.: (1) a standard website in the top 100 websites uses X gigabytes upload/Y gigabytes download of bandwidth, (2) if thepiratebay used all three million yearly revenue on its bandwidth, that would mean they're uploading/downloading more than the size of the entire internet; or something like that.)

The facts don't fit; they don't nearly fit, and since there's just a bunch of inconsistencies, I thought I'd post it, and then let someone else figure it out. -- 209.213.84.10 (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
The images in this article are making the article look more and more like a Pirate Bay fan site. The images including fat copyright holders surrounded by moneybags who hate children and human rights push a POV and are unneeded, insulting characatures. This is no more acceptable than someone posting an image of Nazis alluding to the 40% of Pirate Bay owned by Carl Lundstrom and his background with skinheads, anti-immigration and far-right politics. I do not see the need for inflammatory cartoonsObjective3000 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's ridiculous to call this cartoon "insulting", but I agree that it is not necessary for this article; it doesn't really have anything to do with the Pirate Bay (except for being displayed on their front page for a few days), but rather seems to be a response to the section 92A. -- memset (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I really dont understand why the issues of Nazis is coming up again... there is an article you can work on if you are interested in the subject, and Carl Lundstrom has an article as well.
 * and since you are interested, the relevant article does display the Swastika. In the majority of countries the display of the Swastika is legal, in Germany it is not legal to display Nazi symbols because the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations prohibited. That means that not the symbols, but it’s the use in a context suggestive of association with outlawed organizations is prohibited. The history of the swastika can be followed back to ancient times and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Mithraism. So, what have we learned: if someone replaces the written content (but not the swastika) of the Nazi Wikipedia article with the words “Heil Hitler”, Wikipedia becomes illegal in Germany until the vandalism is removed. And that means that in that time, all ISPs, in the entire world, have to blog access to Wikipedia. Which would mean that nobody could edit the page to remove the vandalism (that’s when wikipedians are disappointed with a server down message). Which means that the UN security council has to pass a resolution to inform Andy Wales, who then has to remove the vandalism and once this has been verified by the Chinese cyber police, which has a permanent observer seat at the UN security council, all ISPs can allow access to Wikipedia again. Following that all ISPs have to submit three certified paper copies of a response assessment outlining the incident and their appropriate and immediate reaction to the UN General Assembly, which then decide whether each individual ISP has acted legally by majority vote. They usually turn this round fairly fast, because it has been established that so many media interns base the articles they write on Wikipedia articles that all news companies would go bankrupt without Wikipedia, since the cost of employing real journalists is so high that the health and safety  budgets would have to be cut to dangerously low levels, endangering the interns, and nobody wants that.
 * regarding wikipedia rules and procedures on dealing with, lets call it "controversial" subjects, shall we, you can find further info here: Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability,  Reliable sources , Citing sources, What Wikipedia is not , External links, Spam,  Vandalism,  Deletion policy,  Conflict of interest,  Notability, Build consensus , Resolve disputes,  Assume good faith,  Civility , Etiquette,  No personal attacks, and No legal threats
 * --SasiSasi (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about or how it is relevant. I in no way suggested anything remotely like what you are talking about. Quite the opposite.Objective3000 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW: If you say that the image in the article racism is included, because “it helps to show the evil in racism″ than this contradicts WP:NPOV, because an image is included to illustrate a subject, not to form the opinion of the reader. --Church of emacs (Talk) 20:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't WP:MORALIZE. The cartoon shows the political orientation of TPB. If the MPAA or RIAA make cartoons suggesting that TPB is supported and owned by far-right politicians, and they release that image under are free license, you are welcome to include it as well. But until then this is WP:OR. (see also this discussion) --Church of emacs (Talk) 16:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I completely agree with the Church of emacs. This is a free image that The Pirate Bay used to defend itself. If the opponents of tPB publish a free image, then that can be included too. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would I want to post a cartoon by the RIAA? I already said I am looking for neutrality and it would be wrong to post such an image. I am NOT looking for a cartoon war displaying grossly, offensive characatures to push some point of view. I am not moralizing. The person including the image is moralizing. This is NOT a notable image.Objective3000 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment “A fat man surrounded by moneybags saying human rights are worth nothing is NOT illustrative. This is way out of line.” suggests that you make a moral judgment on the image. Please provide evidence that I am moralizing and what moral statements I gave. I simply thought that a fact should be illustrated, and that fact is the attitude of TPB towards the media industry. --Church of emacs (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is making a moral judgement, not I. I am pointing out the obvious inflammatory content of characterizing all copyright holders as hating children and human rights. How is this cartoon notable? It appeared for a couple of days.Objective3000 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the cartoon is moralising, that's why we're including it. Compare to this racist image, used on racism. The picture itself may not be notable, but so what? We don't want an article on it. It is by a notable author, and was published on this website as illustrative of their views. As it's free, what better way for us to illustrate their views? J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the racist cartoon that you linked to was that the cartoon was extremely offensive and evil and the caption in the article specifically says that the cartoon was racist. It is reasonable to post a racist cartoon in an article about racism, because it helps to show the evil in racism and the lack of respect for the rights of other races described in the article. If the point in including the anti-copyright holder cartoon is that Pirate Bay is evil and does not respect the rights of copyright holders, and the caption is changed to state the offensive nature of the cartoon, then your argument makes sense. (I am not suggesting this be done.) Otherwise, I don't think you have made a legitimmate comparison.Objective3000 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, point taken. Perhaps a better comparison would be the inclusion of The Creation of Adam on Creationism. Its use there does not mean that Wikipedia endorses the opinion expressed within it (and no doubt many creationists would not view it as an accurate representation of their beliefs, for various reasons) but its use does not violate the neutral point of view- it does not mean that Wikipedia is endorsing that view. It is merely acting as an illustration of the view. Other possible examples include this image- it is being used to illustrate the history of a quasi-political organisation, and could be deemed extremely offensive- as with this. Perhaps File:Darwin ape.jpg- admittedly, these are older images, but most free pictures from major groups are. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Same argument for the latter two images. For the first, I hardly think a recent cartoon rises to the level of the Michelangelo no matter what your beliefs.Objective3000 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that if your argument is valid, then it would also invalidate the use of The Creation of Adam. What's the difference? J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to answer this. Do you actually think a famous painting by Michelangelo compares somehow to a cartoon that was up for a couple days. And I don't see any comparison at all. I think Creationism is nutty. But how does this painting portray non-Creationists as evil people? Did Michelangelo mean to offend people with this painting? Does it portray people that don't believe in Creationism as hating children or hating human rights or in any way whatever? Where is the offensive nature? It is a pro-religious painting, not an anti-non-Creationist cartoon characterizing non-believers as evil.Objective3000 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the use of that image is not problematic from a NPOV/POV stance, then this image can not be problematic. If there are other issues, then discuss them, but the NPOV argument would apply equally well to the painting. That's the point I'm making- it's not even an argument ad absurdum, it's what you're actually saying. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Creation of Adam painting did not characterize non-Creationists in any way, much less an offensive, absurd way.Objective3000 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that image might be offensive is irrelevant. See my arguments below --Church of emacs (Talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Okay, then what do you think about the image in this paragraph. The poster is advertising the subject that is being discussed in the article. The poster is pure POV. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is in favor of the Marshall Plan. It just illustrates the arguments that one side gives.
 * You are talking about famous images from a half-century ago. Not a cartoon that was up for a couple days last week. And you will note that the Marshall Plan article contains a substantial Criticism section.Objective3000 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it shouldn't; criticism sections should be incorporated into the main body of the article. Of course this cartoon is less significant than that- by the same token, tPB is less significant than the Marshall Plan... J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Marshall Plan images were pro-Marshall plan, not anti- anything. Yes they were propaganda and a part of history. But they did not characterize people that didn't like the plan as evil, child-haters. And even if they did, they would be presented as offensive. Really, the cartoon is way out of line and simply does not compare to any of these examples.Objective3000 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see we're not getting anywhere with counter examples above, so, Objective3000, could you please list the reasons that you are opposed to this image? I think myself and Church of emacs may not actually realise what you are saying. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. It is not illustrative of the article. The article does not say that all copyright holders are rich, hate children and hate human rights.
 * 2. It is specifically designed to be offensive. I see no reason for the inclusion of offensive material unless it has some value other than the article needs more images. The fact that Pirate Bay posts offensive material on their site is no reason to copy it here.
 * 3. It is not notable. It was simply a cartoon posted for a couple of days.
 * 4. Note: three other people did not see a reason for this cartoon's inclusion on Anti-Copyright where you also want it included.Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 5. The image makes the article even less neutral than it already is.Objective3000 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. It does, the main point of the cartoon is the perceived ridiculousness of enforcing copyrights online. The negative portrayal of copyright holders is part of a comedy of the image, not part of the political message.
 * 2. Offensiveness is subjective, and, in any case, Wikipedia is not censored. As this is not aimed at anyone in particular, BLP does not apply. There is no policy basis in this argument.
 * 3. Notability applies only to article subjects. This has been published, and is by a notable cartoonist, and so it is suitable to use as an illustration, though not necessarily suitable to be the subject of an article itself.
 * 4. Not relevant. Not only do we not vote, but here, we are talking about this article.
 * 5. No, it doesn't. This image is not presented as part of the article, it is presented as an illustration of the views of tPB. Placing "she is gorgeous" in an article about a model is a NPOV violation, adding an image of her is not. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. No, the main point of the cartoon is that copyright-holders are rich, hate children and hate human rights.
 * 2. It is most certainly aimed at huge numbers of people and offensive to them. What is the gain in offending all these people?
 * 3. I never heard of the cartoonist.
 * 4. The article inclusion of the cartoon is clearly controversial.
 * 5. I see nothing in the article about copyright-holders hating children and human rights. The image adds a clear POV.
 * Why do you insist on adding this clearly offensive cartoon? If you think there are not enough images, can't you find one that is not so offensive to so many people?Objective3000 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This cartoon is about copyright holders hating children and human rights? Seriously, are you trolling? Are you actually familiar with the idea of caricatures? The cartoonist does not believe that copyright holders have those qualities, they are just exaggerating negative features in order to make it clear that they are acting as the "villain". The fact you've never heard of the cartoonist counts for nothing; neither have I. Nor have I heard of the majority of cities in the world; doesn't stop them being significant. I hate to say this, as it's a term that is brutally abused on Wikipedia, but yours is a clear straw man argument. No one is pretending that the article says anything about copyright holders hating children or hating human rights. That's not the point of the cartoon, the obvious exaggeration is part of the comedy. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) 1. First, this is your interpretation. While it might be a valid one, please acknowledge that it is not the only possible interpretation. Second, even if the images main point is that copyright-holders are rich, hate children and hate human rights, this would still illustrate the POV of TBP on copyright-holders and therefor be relevant.
 * 2. Please see Muhammed and the intro of Talk:Muhammad. Images of Muhammed offend many people, still the images are present in the articles. The fact that an image might be offensive is not an argument for its removal, as Wikipedia is not censored.
 * 3. Fine. But that doesn't prove that he isn't relevant, does it?
 * 4. That's why we are having this discussion. This is not an argument for its removal.
 * 5. The article describes (among other things) the political orientation of TPB. How does it matter if they are left-wing, right-wing, child-haters, human right opponents or whatever? Wikipedia describes their POV but it does not judge about it. If the reader sees the images in the way you see them, I am quite sure he'll make up his own opinion on TPB. --Church of emacs (Talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The image is grossly offensive, grossly exagerates, is not notable, is not illustrative of the text, and is clearly placed here to represent a POV. If you really want to add an image, why not find one that represents the text, and is not so offensive to so many people?Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well of course it is placed to represent a POV. That's what an encyclopedia does: It describes points of views. BTW, you don't bring any new arguments, it seems to me you just repeat them --Church of emacs (Talk) 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I could say the same about you, but I don't wish to violate WP:CIV. No, encyclopedias do not represent POV. Please respond to my entire sentence. Or not. As for "what an encyclopedia does" refer to the same discussion on the discussion page at Anti-copyright.Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the Pirate Bay. It is not about whether you think file-sharing is correct or not. Its about the Pirate Bay. Its not about what people think of the legality of torrents. Its about the pirate bay. Its not about any copyright issues. Its about the pirate bay. Its not about people who have opinions that are in opposition of the pirate bay. Its about the pirate bay. Clear on that now Objective3000?

That cartoon was published by The Pirate Bay on their site. It has no issue being here on Wikipedia to show the stance of the Pirate Bay. It does not matter if other people have opposing views. This article is about ... well, do I need to say it? JeremyWJ (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be argumentative, but I saw no point in your statement nor why it was aimed at me. When did I say anything about legality of torrents or whether file-sharing is correct or any of the things you said? Can't we be civil here?Objective3000 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just making the point that there is no neutrality issue here, at all. Your argument is that the article only depicts the support of the pirate bay and what it does and stands for which is basically the things I covered.  Since neutrality on those subjects DOES NOT APPLY to this article, this entire discussion is pointless.  This article is about The Pirate Bay.  Therefor, their views, beliefs, and whatnot are what this article does, and should, depict.  JeremyWJ (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also mention that there is no problem adding a "criticism" section that includes views from the "other side" if you really want the other side's stance shown. It must however all be completely relevant to The Pirate Bay. JeremyWJ (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stated that I have no interest in presenting any opposing view. You are making assumptions about my beliefs. My interest is in neutrality, and I do not think that neutrality means an article with competing cartoons. WP is not a discussion site. NPOV ALWAYS applies. My views are irrelevant. I am trying to make argument for NPOV and you are trying to argue with what you suppose are my views. The cartoon is offensive. It is nonproductive. It is not illustrative. Just find a less offensive image.Objective3000 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa once again. I never said what I believe your views are.  I do not know.  Nor do I give once single bit of a care.  My point is there is no neutrality issues in this article.  The cartoon greatly depicts the view of the pirate bay and cleary shows their stance with those groups.  It is a great picture for the article.  NPOV does not apply when discussing the views that are of what the article is about.  JeremyWJ (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to explain what exactly does not apply real quick: This article is not about any of those controversial issues, therefor other views on them do not have to be expressed.  If this article was about File Sharing for instance, then both sides would have to be presented.  If its just an opinion of file sharing (or any other controversial area) by those that the article is about, no other views or opposition to that has to be made.  The article is free to only depict the views and opinions of what those that the article is about.  NPOV DOES NOT say that in this case you must express the other side.  You could link to the article about that controversial area which would express both sides, or you could add a "critism" section as I mention earlier.  However, even as it is now, the article in no way violates NPOV.  Therefor there is no NPOV violation here, and no neutrality issue either. JeremyWJ (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A WP article is not supposed to support a viewpoint. A political cartoon is a very poor way of describing a position since it exagerates and ridicules. And, I see nothing in the article suggesting that The Pirate Bay's raison d'être is copyright-holders hate children and human rights. In the U.S., there are many Republicans and Democrats that believe that the opposite sides hate children and human rights. And their is an abundance of political cartoons pushing these beliefs. But, you do not see these carttons in Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States). You see balanced writeups of these two parties. Each contains one notable political cartoon from the 19th Century that could not possibly offend anyone. The image is not notable, not illustrative, offensive, and pushes a POV not expressed in the article.Objective3000 (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those topics are too broad. If, by chance, a free image that was used by one of the parties to ridicule the other became available, it would certainly fit in somewhere. Of course, tPB is not nearly as big a topic, and so the cartoon fits in here. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is still offensive, not illustrative, and pushes a POV not expressed in the article. You did not answer any of these. The text does not claim that copyright-holders are child-hating, human-rights hating fat rich people. What is the point of this cartoon if it does not illustrate anything in the article? It only serves to inflame.Objective3000 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * POV does not apply here. That applies to controversial subjects.  There is one point of view for this article, that is that of The Pirate Bay.  The article is about the pirate bay, what they do, what they have done, what they have made (that image), what they believe, and so on and so forth.  Its not about what others thinks, who thinks they are offensive, and so forth.  JeremyWJ (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That image greatly depicts, as I said earlier, the view, standpoint, and beliefs of The Pirate Bay. It has great value to the article, and it violates no polices. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * POV always applies. It is one thing for an article to report on a POV, it is another for it to push a POV. Further, I still cannot find anything in the article that claims TPB has these views. If they do, they should be in the text, not only in a cartoon image. Again, the cartoon is not illustrative. It exagerates. It goes beyond the text. It gives undue weight to a belief that copyright-holders hate children and human rights. Why do you insist on adding an offensive image that does not represent the text of the article?Objective3000 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, again.


 * At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. 


 * I am done messing with you beyond this. You obviously have a misunderstanding of almost all WP policies and when/how they apply.  You have been told how it is by me and probably 5-10 other people thus far.  You choose to not understand.  If you want a policy that does apply to this, try WP:CON.  Case closed. JeremyWJ (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. What 5-10 people? It was you that found that you had a misunderstanding of WP policies on this exact image on another article and backed down. You also told me I was wrong on that talk page. You are now again demanding that I "have a misunderstanding of almost ALL WP policies" and making an insulting claim I "choose to not understand." That is another violation of WP:CIV. You have failed to respond to my statements that the image is not illustrative. You just keep saying I am wrong. Please be civil. No one has explained how this article illustrates the article.Objective3000 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to take a look at this issue by Obj3k. In my opinion, NPOV always applies, regardless of the nature or scope of the article.  It is not our job to repeat or amplify the arguments of tpb in this article, just as it is not our job to repeat or amplify the arguments of the MPAA in that article.  I can see an argument for keeping this image based on its relationship to the website, not based on the fact that it expounds upon their position.  I may not be completely neutral, as I have argued against placing the image in the anti-copyright article, but I still feel my position is reasonable. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments. In my mind, the relationship is tenuous. The author of the cartoon lives in New Zealand and is not a part of the Swedish Pirate Party or TPB. The cartoon apparently very briefly appeared on TPB, and then was taken down. I never saw it, although I look at the site often. The cartoon appears to significantly expand on the text and does not appear to represent any of the views expounded by TPB during their recent trial. It also does not appear to make any points against copyrights, although the TPB is an anti-copyright organization.Objective3000 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, NPOV applies to all articles. But that doesn't mean that the image shouldn't be included. NPOV does not mean "no point of view", it means "neutral point of view". Wikipedia describes facts. It does not judge if those facts are true, good or whatever. So, saying "the media industry is evil" violates NPOV. However, citing a relevant source for a relevant opinion is okay. For example: "[some important organization or company] expressed their opinion on the copyright controversy. Spokesman [someperson] said '[somequote]'.[1]" Wikipedia doesn't have to agree or disagree what the person says. The information that the person said something is not an opinion, but a fact. The content the person says might be an opinion, but that doesn't matter, as we don't claim this opinion is good/right, we just claim that the person said it. There is no great difference between text and images here. As long as we include a citation, we do not endorse the claims the image makes. To the does-an-encyclopedia-include-opinions part of the discussion: Yes and no. Wikipedia does not favor any opinion, it doesn't say who is right and who is wrong on a controversial subjects. Opinions get included as part of a factual citation. Again, it is a fact that some people are against copyrights. It is not a fact that copyright is evil (that's an opinion). Wikipedia doesn't include opinions directly, just indirectly through quotes and other citations. --Church of emacs (Talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. Except that Pirate Bay just underwent a trial and I do not believe expressed the opinions in this cartoon. Nor does the article express any of these opinions. So, the cartoon amplifies and extends the article.Objective3000 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting really painful. If you look at your last 500 edits to wikipedia and find that more than 90 percent are on talk pages it may be that you are approaching this the wrong way. It’s not easy contributing to wikipedia and most wikipedians go through a steep learning curve. Obviously controversial subjects are probably not the best place to get your head round wikipedia.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that you would respond in this manner. Even if it were true. Responding to my comments instead of falsely characterizing them would seem more useful. It should also be clear that the majority of people that edit controversial articles have a pro bias toward that article and that obviously requires many responses.Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * if you check out What Wikipedia is not than you will maybe realise that nobody is obliged to respond to your "comments". Talk pages are for discussions around how to improve an article as per Wikipedia quality standards. This is not your blog and looking at the talk page it appears to me that a lot of wikipedians have been exceedingly generous with their time and patience.
 * Also, if you really think that "it should also be clear that the majority of people that edit controversial articles have a pro bias toward that article and that obviously requires many responses" than its maybe time to put on the tinfoil head. In my experience people who contribute to controversial articles mostly intent to make a valuable contribution to the article (which may or may not comply with wikipedia quality standards).
 * the outcome of your "objective" crusade against the "clearly" bias majority that edits the TPB article may just be that people get on with contributing to articles and not respond to your “comments”. --SasiSasi (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anyone is obliged to do anything. I am trying to improve the article and have no interest in a blog on the subject, as I have said many times. Again, you are just throwing insults my way like putting "tinfoil" on my head and not responding to my question about how the cartoon is illustrative or fits the article. If you would like to respond to that, I may answer. I will not answer to any more of your "tinfoil" characterizations as I have no interest in engaging in personal attacks.Objective3000 (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

UN-Objective3000
This is not the forum for discussing user conduct. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an uninterested observer drawn here by an internal link on torrents and a peruser of discussion boards I must say the above named editor is nothing but a troll.

Despite the user's name - reading the posts that they make - it seems to me that they have no intention of neutrality.

Most of the time it's fallacious arguments based on ad hominems and when that fails, association fallacies promoting red herrings.

In summation, from what I have read, The Pirate Bay are an organization involved in a contentious issue - internet piracy, therefore everything they do is going to be pertaining to a certain point of view.

If you don't like it get over it!! It's The Pirate Bay and their standpoint, it's their argument.

Not yours UN-Objective3000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.214.105 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He is not a troll, just misunderstands some of the WP policies and how/when they apply. His intentions are good. Although he does have a problem accepting he is wrong. JeremyWJ (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear violations of WP:CIVObjective3000 (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This section contains false accusations and should be removed as per WP:CIV.Objective3000 (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although you are correct, in that it is a complete false assumption, nowhere in this section does it say that the comments should be removed unless they are obviously vandalism or trolling. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Malware
I went to thepiratebay.org and my spysweeper internet secuitry essentials (mind my spelling) detected malware  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.195.20 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no malware on thepiratebay.org. Your spysweeper probably just has that domain blacklisted.  There could be spyware in the files you download using the torrents you find on the site ... but none of this is located at thepiratebay.org.  JeremyWJ (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/thepiratebay.org/summary/ <-- This is a service I normally trust for this kind of stuff. Keep in mind though that this is not a forum.  If you were suggesting added a malware section then its okay.  Otherwise you should really discuss this elsewhere. JeremyWJ (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I guess I was wrong. It appears thepiratebay.org is having problems with some pages being reported as malware because of their embedded ads. Thus, while the malware is not coming from The Pirate Bay, it is coming from their ads. This might be a notable thing to add to the article also. See here for my source: http://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-user-pages-blocked-by-google-090315/ JeremyWJ (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Official site
Why does this article's infobox link to the secured site (https)? -Lwc (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly why, but that edit is here with the reason of "switched to the more secure SSL-encrypted protocol". Personally, I think it should be switched back. Rurik (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I'm quite sure that the guys at TPB would prefer us to access the site over SSL 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitplane (talk • contribs)

Knock-Off Site?
I note the existence of the site "PirateBay.Com" which offers access to download sites for a "membership fee". Discovered by me while looking for "the" piratebay.org site, and before landing on this Wiki article, I wonder if this .Com site is one of many moving in on PirateBay's tradename.

I would offer that it, and others domains that may be like it, would be worthy of some discussion in the main article [not merely for the irony... but to distinguish PirateBay.Org and its history from those other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRuskin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Protesters demonstrating the trial?
What does this mean? I guess that it means "demontrating against the trial". Am I right? If so, could someone make the photo caption say so? APW (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider it sorted. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sealand
Under the projects section it might be a good idea to include that they were thinking about buying Sealand and moving hosting there, to circumvent certain laws. I mean its even included on the image on the right.--SelfQ (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is mentio0ned in the funding section I think. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  12:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I seem to have read past it. never mind then.--SelfQ (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually mentioned under booth funding and purchases. Having this information spread out is probably a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested
"It has been suggested that the website is extremely profitable, and that The Pirate Bay is more engaged in making profit than supporting people's rights."

This is the kind of wording which makes people not trust Fox. We don't need phrases like "It has been suggested" without proper quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.190.69 (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pirate Bay website shut down?
I'm confused with this category. Isn't everybody making a big deal on the fact that, despite the decision of the court, the Pirate Bay is still up and 100% working. I heard that there will be more legal battles ahead, but the shutting down of the site is almost impossible, whatever the end result. Their servers are outside of the country, and not even a police raid got them down. So, what does this category means? Can someone explain me why this category should stay up? Maziotis (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What about demonoid? It's in this category too. The Wurdalak (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point. I will remove the category. The Wurdalak (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote this introduction for the category "The following Internet services have been shutdown by a legal challenge at some point in their server history." The Wurdalak (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not the site that was on trial, it was four persons, and the alleged crime was copying of 20 songs, 9 movies and 4 games. A guilty sentence (should it happen in the end, ten years of appeals down the line), will not affect the site, though it might force them to take down those specific torrents. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"the website has been unaffected"
the main paragraph in the article says that "The defendants will appeal against the verdict, and the website has been unaffected" but I can't open it. I use firefox and I get a "page load error / network timeout". Is the website shut down or is there something wrong with my computer ? --George (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * - http://thepiratebay.org/ this page?


 * It opens fine with mine. So, I guess the page is indeed still up. I don't know if it is somehow more limited or not. My guess would be no. I think there is something wrong with your connection. Maybe you should try and ask this question in the help desk reference, on the computer section. It is open just for this kind of problems. If indeed it turns out that the access to this page has changed, then we should definitely reflect that on the article. Maziotis (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's working now, but it didn't open before. maybe the website was closed for maintenance or something... --George (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since it was a timeout error, it was more than likely overburned with connections. A few sites pertaining to the trial and the Operation Baylout raid set for this Thursday/Friday have been slow.70.83.80.39 (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Pirate Bay site has been totally unaffected by the verdict. Nothing will happen to TPB for at least 6 years when the appeals process is over.  If they still have lost after that, the site will move outside of sweden (possibly).  No user noticeable changes however will even take place in that event. People should understand that at no point has the site ever been on trial.  The people on trial are the main ones behind the site, however the site itself is actually not on trial and perfectly legal.  If it was the site on trial it would've been Prosection against The Pirate Bay.  Not prosecution against the four individuals.  JeremyWJ (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Website Setup
Can someone please verify or reference the claim that says that "The thepiratebay.org has 23 april 2009 taken over by the Swedish Anti-pirate group and is now used to harvest ip addresses"? Reapinghavoc (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * we can probably be confident that it's just vandalism, reverted chandler ··· 22:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, its vandalism. JeremyWJ (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Reapinghavoc (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Site and trackers down all today!?!
Anyone know why the site is down? Trackers are down, too. Both this article and the trial one doesn't mention anything. Did something new happen? Or just a DDoS? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

same here. I thought it was just me Derelix (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also here, and I use opendns' servers. :/ Reapinghavoc (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Offline to me too. Portugal-Europe SF007 (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DNS resolves to 91.191.138.15, but I can't get any response. Anyone know if this is a Swedish government action, or something innocuous? Treedel (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, they're having technical problems - something to do with a fibre link - and it only affects IPV4 connections. You can still access the site through an IPV4->IPV6 tunnel (which I can't post because Wikipedia has the root domain blacklisted). You can find out more at http://suprbay.org/showthread.php?t=32588&page=46. Hydrostatic (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Normal link is already up, sirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffsez (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, sir! :D Reapinghavoc (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. When will they take Pirate Bay off the net? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.96.224 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC) who said its being taken down? Derelix (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * lolnever. Also, NOT#FORUM, etc etc.  Aar  ►  06:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty soon since it violetes every kind of copyright law. They owe billions to various companies. 88.112.96.224 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They owe billions? According to who/what? J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the capitalist elite. Just think what those billions of lost dollars have deprived them of: 200 foot yachts, mansions bigger than the White House, summer homes in over 30 countries, and ice statues of David urinating Stolichnaya vodka. It's a travesty! We better hurry up and squeeze those billions out of a couple of Swedish guys whose net worth is less than my pet turtle.Fuzzform (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Site again down 5-6-09
I've been checking it and the IPv6 site (that was up and working a few days ago when the PB reported fiber optic trouble) and they both are down. Can't find any current as of today news on why it's down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.238.202 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn...after trying for over 30 minutes and using a site called down for just me or everyone - they confirmed it was down. BUT it's back up again; now.
 * It was a PRQ routing issue again. They are back like you said.  Don't worry, if it was ever an issue like they were forced offline (by legal action) it would be in the news. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fundings
The question I'm wondering is how do Gottfrid Svartholm, Fredrik Neij and Peter Sunde earn a living ? Do they have a job, aside of the piratebay ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by allllpha (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think not. They're the only guys who actually maintain the website; Piratbyran just backs it. The website is funded by ads on the sides of every page, but they still operate at a loss. That's an interesting question, so you should look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.141.217 (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That statement is the only thing I cannot believable about the Pirate Bay trial. I hope they win the trial but there is no way they operate at a loss. My friend operates a website that draws 500000 people per month on average. With the same or less ad coverage as pirate bay, he earns 1 US dollar for every thousand visitors. For pirate bay, this equates to 1 thousand dollars for every visitor they have. They claim 25 million active members, so figure a lower number of 5-10 million per day. This brings in as high as $10000 per day if I'm staying conservative. This is not counting donations and likely better ad deals due to the large numbers of people being drawn and time of each person spent on the website (ie, multiple hits by a person per day). So the amount of money being drawn in per day has a lower limit of 10 grand. 365 days in a year, unless these people are complete morons they should be bringing in at least a million per year gross income. More likely several million. With these numbers, if they only get a million hits per day, which is well within everyone's, including piratebay's, estimations, then they would still be making on the order of $365000 per year. There is no way operational costs equal or exceed this value even if they bought brand new servers every other year, which doesn't seem logical given my knowledge of networking. Now they might be incorporating expansion costs, ie the new server banks in Russia and other countries, and other related costs to expansion in costs of business when saying they operate at a loss. Hate to break it to ya, this means they're just spending money they already earned. So yes, they do in fact earn that much money, they just spend it as fast as they earn it. 192.12.88.2 (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bt block
Well im in the uk and use bt, and the pirate bay isnt blocked, should the reference be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.178.214 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It says BT mobile, not BT. All mobile providers in the UK censor websites for over 18s by default, until you ring up and prove your age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitplane (talk • contribs) 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

China block
This site was blocked in mainland China for years, yet no one mention it? 13:19, 24 June 2009
 * Do you have a citation for this? Really it could have been faults on I.P's not an 'official' blocking. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  18:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

site seems to be down since the trial was completed today?
I was reading through the comments section on TPB to see what the boys had to say about everything, and POOF! Gone! I can't ping or resolve anything there myself.. Anyone else? dphilp75


 * The comment above is from 18:15, 26 June 2009, but the site is up right now. UltraEdit (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible acquisition by the company GGF
It says in the article that TPB has been bought by GGF on 30 june 2009. That is NOT true! It's a deal in the making and a lot of things will have to be accomplished before a the deal is closed. The page is semiprotected so I can't change it myself though :-( --EzelMannen (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Users Jumping-off Ship
When the Site Sell was announced .. the users announced it as an sellout and it was outrageous and wrong decision. It even appeared on torrentfreak and TPB blog.. But No mention of it is done in the article .. and even nothing much said about the 7.8 mil $ selling of site.

Swedish copyright law
i think there should be a section on swedish law which allowed such massive piracy for so long. Are there any loopholes in copyright law of sweden. Or is too soft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.230.149 (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the Swedish law permits the use of a server to store legal data (in this case large amounts of adresses) even though it may be used as a reference to illegal data (obtained from the computers with those adresses). This law hasn't changed, so it's still legal to do so as far as I know.93.125.198.182 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And what do you mean by "massive piracy"? That is, what crime do you suggest swedish law does not prevent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.131.89 (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)