Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Pirate Bay Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain

Posted by kdawson on Mon Oct 15, 2007 06:54 AM
from the heads-will-roll dept.
Media Music It's funny. Laugh.
palpatin writes to let us know that The Pirate Bay has now taken up residence at IFPI.com, a domain once owned by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. The Pirate Bay says the site will now promote the International Federation of Pirates Interests. IFPI can still be reached at ifpi.org. Torrentfreak has up a brief interview with Brokep, one of the administrators of The Pirate Bay, who says: "It's not a hack, someone just gave us the domain name. We have no idea how they got it, but it's ours and we're keeping it."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Piratebay take over anti-piracy website. by palpatin (94174)
[+] Your Rights Online: IFPI Domain Dispute Likely to Go To Court 90 comments
fgaliegue writes "Ars Technica has a follow-up on the ifpi.com domain takeover by The Pirate Bay. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ifpi.org, is quite unhappy that the .com is now a link to the (still not live) International Federation of Pirates Interests. The ifpi.com domain has been free as soon as March of this year, according to WebArchive. Nevertheless, the "real" IFPI wants to take it to the WIPO under the accusation of cybersquatting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Pirate Bay Takes Over Anti-Piracy Domain 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

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

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

  • Legality? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Monday October 15 2007, @06:59AM (#20980701) Homepage
    While I admire The Pirate Bay for taking advantage of Swedish law to freely host torrents, I wonder about the legality of this. How has Swedish law generally treated trademarks and domain names?

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Now, if the IFPI wants to claim that they could be mistaken for a bunch of 'pirates', this could be different...
      • You're talking about a case in Austria here, elsewhere the situation might be different.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by quanticle (843097)

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

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

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

        Nissan Motors vs. Uzi Nissan [wired.com]

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

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

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

          They were sued on grounds of being "to
    • Well, .com domains are registered via U.S. registrars, so U.S. courts may have jurisdiction here, although it's always possible, I suppose, that the plaintiffs could try to file suit in Sweden, since that's where TPB is located. At that point, it would be up to the Swedish judge to decide jurisdiction.

      As far as whether it's a trademark infringement, it's important to realize that 1) trademarks are territorial in nature (IFPI would have to have a trademark on the name 'IFPI' in Sweden and possibly the U.S.,
  • What about those of us who are ninjas? Where is our coalition for the protection of our interests?

  • dotcom (Score:5, Interesting)

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

      • Nononono (Score:5, Informative)

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

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MPolo (129811)
          Selling it at normal cost (that is, the $30 a year, or whatever you paid) shouldn't cause a problem. Mike Rowe's problem was naming a higher figure to pay for the work that he put into the site, which then branded him as a domain hijacker. Or at least that's how I understand the original story. I think Microsoft even offered to pay the registration fee when they originally demanded the domain in the first place.

  • Sweet RIAA Defense (Score:4, Funny)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

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

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

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

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

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

    So far their intimidating letters and scary tactics have fired back all the way. (I have seen one they sent to the guy at the Network managment of my uni a few years ago). I can just hail to the new domain!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • PETA.org (Score:3, Funny)

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

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

  • Irony (Score:4, Funny)

    by RomulusNR (29439) on Monday October 15 2007, @10:37AM (#20982831) Homepage
    Shouldn't it be TPB that has the .org (non-profit) and IFPI that has the .com (money-leeching corporate union)?

    • Where's the theft? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Monday October 15 2007, @07:53AM (#20981037)
      A domain was registered. This domain was transfered to TPB. Where is the theft?

      Who said that IFPI.com was ever owned by the IFPI?
      Who said that they still own it, provided they ever did?

      You have to register domains to have them. Having "your" domain isn't some sort of human right or part of your intrinsic rights when filing for corporation. Just because those four letters are some sort of acronym for your company/organisation/whatever doesn't mean you have all rights to those four letters and nobody else may ever create anything that could use that acronym and (god forbid) even register a domain name that consists of those four letters. There are actually only 26^4 ways to create four letter acronyms, and some (like ANAL or FUCK) ain't really useful. At least to most businesses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by McDutchie (151611)

        Who said that IFPI.com was ever owned by the IFPI?

        archive.org does: http://web.archive.org/*/http://www.ifpi.com [archive.org]

        Looks like the IFPI site was there from March 30, 2003 at the latest until October 19, 2006 at the earliest. Between that time and February 2, 2007 someone appears to have snagged it (legally or not, I have no idea). Then it briefly became a blog. I guess the blogger then gave it to TPB.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.