[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:The Pirate Bay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleThe Pirate Bay was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 4, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

[edit]

Consensus was achieved on including the link, but I would like to further highlight some relevant policy:

From WP:ELNEVER:

External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the owner has licensed the content in a way that allows the website to use it; or the website uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it.

Obviously the site does not satisfy fair use. An argument was made that compares this to linking The Internet Archive but from WP:COPYLINK:

The copyright status of web archives in the United States is unclear. On Wikipedia it is currently acceptable to link to archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time.

I think the relevant passages supporting this consensus are also found in WP:COPYLINK:

If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Note the specific emphasis on particular works - I think an explicit exception is laid out for the overall site itself:

In articles about a website, it is acceptable to include a link to that website even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site.

Tule-hog (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Internet Archive, it is acceptable because any site can opt out of it using their robots.txt file. I do this myself on one of my sites as it is a forum and the copyright for all posts belong to the posters. As for TPB, realize that many Wikipedia editors do not believe in copyright and have no problem with people stealing the hard work of others. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Objective3000 You keep engaging in disruptive editing.
- You make personal attacks and assumptions about other editors.
- You keep disregarding the value of the previous RfC and refuse to engage with the arguments of others.
- You just completelly ignored the Wikipedia policy to which you replied.
- Lastly, you tried to add a warning based (again and again) on your own personal research.
I ask you, again, to stop. You are wasting other peoples time. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you responded to an eight-week old post in this manner. But I suggest that you strike these multiple false accusations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just explained why I answered. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

[edit]

This is from the artuicle:

In April 2009, the website's founders Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm were found guilty in the Pirate Bay trial in Sweden for assisting in copyright infringement and were sentenced to serve one year in prison and pay a fine. They were all released by 2015 after serving shortened sentences.

Weren't they imprisoned for a year? How come they are released 6 years after the trial while receiving shortened sentences? 121.122.122.247 (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them spent some time evading the authorities before being captured and made to serve their sentences. If you click through and read the citation it is explained. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

citation

[edit]

hello YisroelB501, thank you for coming to edit. I deleted your addition of a source because a medium blog will surelly be considered less reliable than a torrentfreak article. Also that blog is probalby feeding on torrentfreak itself for the reporting. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but there should be variaty of sorces. this article shouldnt rely on just Torrentfreak YisroelB501 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it shouldn't even use Torrentfreak due to its years of acting as a mouthpiece for TPB. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YisroelB501 The article doesn't just rely on torrentfreak. There already are other sources to establish the notability statement. What I am saying is that for that specific year, the random medium blog you added is probably feeding from torrentfreak. And a medium blog is not usually considered reliable. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URL warning

[edit]

Ianmacm, I agree with nearly all of your edits. But not the removal of a warning that your PC may be damaged if you click on a link. Following is one of the warnings I receive:

We blocked this dangerous page for your protection: https://astoundweighadjoining.com/ Dangerous pages attempt to install software that can harm the device, gather personal information or operate without your consent.

That is one of the links in popups that can be forced when you click on the link in our article. TPB rotates popups so which, if any, you get is not predictable. Here is the VirusTotal report on that link: [5]. I do not believe WP:NODISCLAIMERS applies as this is not a statement that the article is not appropriate, suitable, or guaranteed. It is a simple note that clicking on a specific link is dangerous without adequate and up to date antivirus software. If we must include a link that can damage your PC, the least we can do is warn that the link is dangerous. To not include a warning is irresponsible, at the least. rgds, O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am worried about WP:NODISCLAIMERS here, because all external links on Wikipedia cannot be guaranteed safe as Wikipedia has no control over them. All articles are covered by the General Disclaimer linked at the foot of every page, which says that "all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever." I was also looking at Talk:The_Pirate_Bay#Request_for_comment_for_The_Pirate_Bay_link_on_page, which did not reach a firm conclusion on whether the link was dangerous. As I said, I could not set off warnings with Bitdefender Traffic Light.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been getting warnings from BitDefender for three months on that link. They don't always occur. It depends on which popup their server forces. We have a boilerplate disclaimer because mistakes can be made. But like the false disclaimer on restaurant cloakrooms ("not responsible for lost or damaged items") such disclaimers have little meaning. Of course the restaurant is responsible and of course we are if we knowingly endanger a reader. Bitdefender Traffic Light is the free version. As I understand it, it flags links based on urls it has tested in the past. BitDefender marks the url thepiratebay/index.html as a safe url as there is no malware on that specific page. However, if you have the paid version of BitDefender, it also checks the forced popups, issues a warning and blocks any damage. This is why VirusTotal shows BitDefender claiming thepiratebay url as safe but the popups as malware. You need to pay to get the real antivirus version. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem here is WP:OR. There need to be secondary reliable sources, rather than experiments with antivirus programs and browser plugins. As I've said before, I'm not disputing that some antivirus programs may set off warnings about TPB, but there needs to be secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an OR problem if we state in the text your PC will be damaged. I don't know about a link warning. I think there are many sources that says TPB links to malware. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure those sources aren't talking about pop-up adds. Further actions would be needed to download software and damage a PC. Sketchy pop-up advertisements are a fact of the internet across many sites, and it's not a general practice to put disclaimers on links with such ads across Wikipedia. I'm not sure why we'd single out this site over others. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get popups every day without any notification from BitDefender. Except for TPB. Simply clicking on the link in this article, I get a message from BitDefender saying that it blocked a URL. The URL is launched by the TPB server. There is no needed action by the user other than clicking on the link here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie There is zero reason to have a disclaimer for pop up ads or alleged malware.
- WP:NODISCLAIMERS clearly states that:
For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates or text inserted into an article that duplicate the information at one of the five standard disclaimer pages:
WP:RISK
The authors may not be qualified to provide you with complete information or to inform you about adequate safety precautions and other measures to prevent injury, or other damage to your person, property, or reputation.
- This is blatant original reasearch that editor @Objective3000 has been pushing for months, without ever trying to correct their course of actions. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in our disclaimers that warn that your PC may be infected if you click on a link. Therefore, adding such a warning is not against NODISCLAIMERS. And please be civil in your responses. Following is a sampling of warnings about being infected by either downloading from, clicking on an ad served, or even being redirected by TPB without any action on your part: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the quotes I've put in green? Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you have linked refer to various different stories. Again, I ask very civilly, have you read them? Regarding that one instance in 2016:
Malvertisers place fraudulent ads with third-party ad networks, with the aim of having them distribute the ads to high-traffic sites.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/pirate-bay-visitors-infected-with-crypto-ransomware-via-bad-ads/
Malware in programs are a different story. The crypto script on homepage yet another different story.
What's the only thing that these stories have in common?
None of them grant for a disclaimer on an home page link, as Wikipedia policy clearly explains. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read them in their entirety, not just the small cherry-picked phrases you quoted comprising less than 1% of their text. You asked for sources. I provided ten (10) sources clearly warning that the site has been dangerous over a long period of time. This is NOT in any manner covered by the WP general disclaimer linked to in small letters at the very bottom of this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles from 2016 does not confirm your original research in 2024.
Anyway the policy is clear as to not have disclaimers of this kind. I've explained it enough.
I'll stop replying and just revert your edits since you have been tone deaf for months. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to need to stop these attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirate_Bay&oldid=1258955106"