Talk:The Pirate Bay

Illegal?

Is this site legal? How come they dont get shut down. They dont even play dumb and it looks like they know what they are doing [they use the word Pirate in their name! and they say living on the edge of intellectual proporty!

    1) Learn English.
    2) It's not illegal.
    3) Go away.

1) No one has to speak English perfectly in order to contribute here.

2) I think TPB's legal situation is a little more complex than that.

3) WP:CIVIL. --Tkynerd 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is someone telling me to learn a language I already know, and you shouldnt tell ppl to go away, no one asked you to troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by xy.123.xyz.abc (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1)Already know, but seem to have trouble with ("ppl"? Damn, writing "ppl" certainly proves your excelent grasp of english spelling).

It's internet spelling.

2)Tkynerd said it best: Complex is the word that best describes the PirateBay issue. Not everything is black and white, kiddo.

3)Spam Removed.

I posted a link Here and it was gone and it said Rv illegal link, but if he said it was legal why is it removed, I dont get it, if there is an article about the pirate bay, then why is a link to the pirate bay removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by xy.123.xyz.abc (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In Sweden it is illegal to download, and upload, copyrighted materials. It is not, however, illegal to provide torrent links. 85.226.97.142 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Site down / moving servers

If the raid is true... when are the idiots trying to shut down piracy websites learn? I guess never...

Anyone else having trouble getting onto the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.104.48 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

They moving to Stockholm and its down for awhile

Someone earlier said that swedish and norwegian media connected TPB to directconnect.no. This is not true for norwegian medias as far as the 5-6 articles I've read. Anyone got the source for this?

oh thats a relief. twas the best torrent site on the web. Hope they don't end up sued or Napsterated --   NERD42    EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  21:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the traffic is quite heavy the site can be hard to reach sometimes but it is upgraded and moved to Stockholm now. --Blenda Lovelace 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

k00l. It does actually have some perfectly legal uses, and perfectly legal material, in addition to the vast majority of pirated material. Perhaps the article should mention that. --Nerd42 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

US control

I don't get it. The USA OWNZ the 13 root servers and net controls. It would be as easy as saying entire Sweden is going to disappear from the net if you norse pirates continue to mess with our Hollywood money vault. Swedish economy is heavily dependent on the net and if the USA kicked them out of the root DNS within days they would be on their knees handing the headof those pirates on silver plates to Uncle Sam.

Can route around it. It isn't technically feasible to cut them off indefinitely.

If they were attempt to kick them off the DNS servers, people could simply change the hosts file for the IPs, or use a non-standard DNS server. Plus, ICANN runs the servers, not the US gov. 209.33.36.146 04:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Or simply the TBP site could be bombed by spies like the Rainbow Warrior ship was. America needs the damn money to buy arms for Iraq and Afghanistan and now Iraq, they should not tolerate big tax money losses to pirates. 195.70.32.136 11:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? --Closedmouth 12:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That the US isn't above committing terrorist acts to suit its own needs.

I am only guesing, but I think that Ms 195.70.32.136 is suggesting that the USA should continue to attempt to force its will, customs and local laws on the world outside its borders using any means available. The US is of course not the only minority group that tries this. DanielDemaret 10:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

funny they say they want to protect privacy and remove copyright at the same time. A person's private information is simply digital data, and can be copied like every other form of digital information. BTW, US cares because they are pirating products produced by US companies. If they only pirate Swedish stuff, no one would give a flying fuck.

plus, things like this will only accelerate the creation of an international internet police. Lots of big countries like USA and China would love to have more control over the internet.

Frokster 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Frokster, you seem to under the strange misapprehension that I am supporting one side or the other. I do not. I am merely attempting to interpret MS 195's message for Closemoths question. When it comes to the details of what the pirate party wants to do, one would have to look into the details of the reasons for what they want to do to understand why they people in Sweden are listening to them. Unfortunately, they have only listed these in any detail in swedish. They are, after all, mainly concern with local swedish politics here. From a swedish legal point of view, they clearly have a legal right under swedish law to do what they are doing. This international internet police that you are talking about makes me very curious. Do you have any special creation process or discussion in mind? I would love to read some reference about it. DanielDemaret 15:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a Donald Duck Party in Sweden too, doesn't mean people really want a donald duck to rule over Sweden. Frokster 03:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The Donald Duck Party doesnt have 3600 members... The PP is currently the second largest political party outside the parliament213.66.220.225 19:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As Frokster pointed out, parties of these kinds are made to cause discussion and to promote a point that will affect future voting and policy more directly (the donald duck party was presumably made to show direct discontent with the workings of politics themselves).

Afaik there is or was a root server in Sweden... 195.67.254.132 13:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i.root-servers.net is run by Swedish corporations Autonomica and NetNod. It's not hosted exclusively in Sweden anymore, though - it's distributed using Anycast. --TheFluff 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The US gov is not going to kick poeple off of DNS or make it so you cant route to them, that would be dick of them. But still we need to fight for a free internet (check out the EFF and donate money to them). The MPAA and RIAA fatcats care only about their money. Them and the artists gouge people of money thats why they have 20 cars.

Their URL

Nowhere on the page is a the web address http://thepiratebay.org (with the www is redirects here). So why was the last version reverted? Surely this information should be in the entry!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.163.100 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-31 01:04:42 (UTC)

Legal info

What is the motivation/source for the statement that the Pirate bay homepage is legal in Sweden? Is this only wishfull thinking? There should be some reference to some legal case in Swedish courts somewhere!?

83.253.17.240 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the motivation/source for the TPB to be illegal? They only distributed .torrent-files to people, files not including any copyrighted material at all. Why would there be a legal case when they are not breaking any laws? – Elisson • Talk 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happened to innocent untill proven guilty?--Orange62.168.125.219 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A case in 1999 declared that linking to copyrighted material is legal, however hosting it is illegal. Hence, the tracker is legal, the .torrent-files is legal. The only thing that is illegal is downloading and uploading the copyrighted material.

Hence the only person doing anything illegal is the uploader. Hence the entire reason for the raid was quite illicit.

I have tried to locate the Swedish 1999 case but failed. Which court? Of course, this is mostly of interest for Swedish subjects. Anyhow, the reason it could be seen is as illegal is this: By making .torrents-files which "link" to pirate content available you are aiding distribution of copyrighted content. And in Sweden, aiding certain crimes is a crime in itself.

83.253.17.240 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NJA 2000 s. 292 might be the case you're looking for. I'm not sure, but it sounds an awful lot like it. /Djonn 20:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Orange, there is a presumption of innocence under Swedish law, however, it probably does not have the same exact parameters as American law. Under either system a properly executed search warrant including seizure of evidence is legal. The warrant may not have been properly executed, though (Piratbyran server). --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Högsta Domstolen (the Swedish Supreme Court) NJA I 1996 page 79.--82.44.114.101 11:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cited in media

This page has been cited as a source in Swedish Television, (Sveriges Television) in the 23:45 31 may (local time) news report. The article was used in a video. Could someone please do as WP usually does, put in that yellow box in the top. I'm not so technical ;) 217.210.33.250 22:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There's probably some template to do that. But was the article really cited? Did they really use it for information? Last I saw, it was only used as "visual filler". I didn't see the 23:45 broadcast though.
--magetoo 00:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was a "visual filler". Kerosene 11:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)(I'm 217.210.33.250, just forgot to log on last time)

May 31st raid; should we start trimming now?

The section on the police raid keeps on growing. Should we start taking things out and let the Wikinews article have all the details instead? It has to be done sooner or later. On the other hand, this article is where people come when they have anything to add, so maybe it should stay.
--magetoo 00:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Leave it - trim it in a month when people know what's happened. -zappa.jake (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem PirateBay has already popped the joke--Brother William 10:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• agree w. zappa... leave it all for now 69.142.21.24 07:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-raid pictures

PRQ (I believe) has some pictures of empty server racks here. Perhaps it might be a good idea asking them if they can be used to illustrate the raid?
magetoo 06:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

-- Of course they can be used. Pirate Bay uses the "kopimi" (copy me) logotype, signifying a general pro-copying attitude that defenitely not excludes Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julmust (talk • contribs) 2006-06-03 04:14:58 (UTC)

Are you just guessing here, or do you know for a fact that the pictures belong to TPB? Remember that the TPB people were in police custody when these were supposedly taken.
magetoo 09:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (Edit at 11:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC): Fixed spelling mistake.)

Also added the video of the raid. barfly 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

IRC as a reference?

The use of IRC activity to determine the time of the raid, while probably accurate, is clearly original research. Unless these logs are posted somewhere and from a reputable user, we can't include that information. — GT 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "clearly". If anything, perhaps journalism. But sure, it would be nice to have a more complete excerpt, with perhaps some explanation on what is significant, somewhere. (I've heard that there are some people who don't use IRC.)
magetoo 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it constitutes original research any more than many other offline sources (that we can't link to) constitute original research. It is problematic in terms of verifiability. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Offline books have been published and are reliable sources, whereas IRC chats have not and are not. If it isn't original research, it's definitely an unreliable source. --BRIAN0918 21:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That would mean that Wikipedia could never discuss any event on IRC, at all. I don't see what the issue is here. Are we doubting that the IRC server went down, or the time that it did? Reword it as "IRC users reported ..." and ask for the IRC log to be posted in Talk if need be (similar rules are OK'd for biographical articles). --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said this method of finding the time of the raid is probably accurate, but is it up to Wikipedia's standards? The IRC logs are not verifiable. We can't just assume that the events transpired as given here; there has to be a good reliable source against which we can check this information, and no, word of mouth by anonymous IRC users is not considered a reliable source of information. — GT 21:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Black Wednesday" - POV

I consider the title "Black Wednesday" as POV. Should we revert it to "May 31st raid"? Kerosene 11:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and it would appear that someone has changed it already. Does anyone object to that? Modulus86 12:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hoax, Miswording?

The raid might be a hoax? http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=811

That's old news, check the date. 1 June 2005. :) – Elisson • Talk 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is something wrong with this paragraph:

"On June 1, 2005 The Pirate Bay posted a hoax on their webpage stating that they are permanently down since they have been raided by the Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau and IFPI. This initially caused some minor confusion through-out the BitTorrent community as to whether this closure might be a hoax. It was soon proved that it was not and news quickly spread across many high profile Internet news sites."

I want to solve things by simply changing the first "hoax" to "posted a notice" and change the "are permanently down" to just "have been shut down". But I don't know if that is what the original notice said. It wasn't a hoax that they were shut down, but it is not true that this was a permanent move. Any thoughts? Notbot 04:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the whole thing, since it was very confusing as it was, and the word "hoax" really didn't seem appropriate, so I subsituted "prank". A hoax, after all, is essentially a type of fraud. Weren't they just covering for some data center more or something? --Dhartung | Talk 05:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

the white house

The white house behind it all. http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=22620&a=602079

Is this a reliable source? Ashibaka tock 21:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

SVT in itself is a very reliable source in general. But if THEIR source is reliable is impossible to say. But as they seem to trust it then so do i.Slipzen 23:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No. --BRIAN0918 21:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? – Elisson • Talk 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

SVT - Sveriges Television is Sweden's counterpart of BBC. SVT arguably has the highest media-credibility in Sweden. Though, as aforementioned, the credibility of Their source is impossible to say.Martin Ulfvik 23:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As such, it's arguably the most reliable source this article has (as it's arguably the most reliable source in the country where the event occured). The video also states that the police initially said that the raid was of questionable legality, but were eventually made to do it regardless. It's unquestionably a political move. The Jade Knight 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How does that make the "white house" behind it all. First of all it was clearly not American police officers raiding the server farm. Second of all that's a very disambiguious statement. Perhaps someone connected to the U.S. gov made a request (since 90% of the stuff being pirated is American entertainment) to the Swedish gov to take the servers down but it was then up to the Swedish gov if they wanted to move on that request. Redeem

"Swedish gov if they wanted to move on that request." Swedish gov can't deside such a thing. It's illegal and now the Minister of Justice is in "great trouble".

Sources

Please start citing sources.. don't let this article get out of hand.

---

I waswondering why so many sources link to digg, instead of the original article. There should be a rule to reference the original source and not the site on digg on the source. --till 03:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is, i don't think that Digg is credible source. Though i have used it as source, but not for facts. --Zache 09:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DOS-Attack

I have the adress to the webpage that people use for the attack against the police - shall i include it in the text or would that be against some Wikipedia principles? Hallogallo 09:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia's principles, but I think it would be in bad taste to post a direct link. If there's an organization behind it, I guess it'd be ok to say something like "the organization <foo> encouraged people to launch a DDoS attack on the Swedish police's main web server", or some such. It might be worth mentioning that while Piratbyrån and Piratpartiet organized/are organizing a demonstration, others protest in the way they know. IMHO.
--magetoo 11:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the DOS page dude?

http://www.freewebs.com/polisrazzia/

Associated sites

This section seems to be 100% link spam. Does anyone else see a reason to keep it? Bo Lindbergh 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stock exchange

I hope file exchangers will not shut down Nasdaq or NYSE.

More in the Intro for novices, please!

I get the vague impression that The Pirate Bay is a place people can go to get copyrighted material, but this article does very little to enlighten me. Most people do not know what a BitTorrent or a .torrent is. Someone with more expertise, please edit the introduction to this article to make it clear what The Pirate Bay is about, and why people use it. Thanks. --Tisco 15:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Read BitTorrent tracker and BitTorrent. It's linked in the first sentence! --Blakeops 07:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed sources

With a reporter citing "unnamed sources" about potential US pressure, how do we know that the reporter's sources are at all knowledgable in light of the Sweedish government's denial of it? Jon 15:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, nothing. We have to judge between svt's credibility and honesty (arguably quite high regarding news) versus them just trying to produce anything newsworthy, and blaming someone else for the damage. Personally, I wouldn't value that source wery much, but I think it's the best we can do right now.❝Sverdrup❞ 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Expired copyrights

Many software contain their previous version on which they are upgraded. Earlier versions' of the said upgraded versions copyright(s) may be expired and thus shall be free for any commercial use, that is provided by applicable governing law.

see also abandonware. although this is slightly differnet from what you mentioned, it has a similar status. 81.221.179.69 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the Berne Convention, of which many countries are a member (Including Sweden), copyright protection must last for at least the life of the author, plus 50 years. Not a lot of software written before 1956 would be very useful nowadays. Hydroksyde 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Subsidies from taxpayers

Some applicable governing laws prohibit the exclusion of the use of the product or the service that is subsidied by taxpayers. Preventing such use of subsidied product is criminal and leeds to liability for damages. For example blocking the free movement on partially subsidied private-owned road; demanding passport from a citizen of Schengen-countries in a area that is provided in the Schengen agreement and in the Schengen convention.

• What does this have to do with anything? Hydroksyde 23:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Indefinately"

I removed the word "indefinately" from the second paragraph, as there is nothing available at this time to suggest that TPB is gone for good. Even the Antipiratbyrån have admitted in interviews [[1]] that TPB was technically legal (and thus, their servers should be returned once the investigation is over), and that the real target was the copyright reform organization, Piratbyrån (although the Antipiratbyrån have claimed they were misquoted about this). KiTA 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely means unclear; vague; lacking precise limits; uncertain; undecided--it does not neccesarily mean forever.—jiy (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

JO

jo (Justitieombudsmännen) is going to investigate the raid and every thing that has something to do with it. From top(Minister of Justice) to bottom. They even going to investigate the investigation. http://www.jo.se/Page.aspx?Language=sv&ObjectClass=DynamX_Document&Id=2002

What exactly does this mean? Is the Justitieombudsmännen some form of legal watchdog group in Sweden? KiTA 01:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, kinda, you can find more information about JO here [2] --84.217.118.162 01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a ombudsman under the Swedish Department of Justice. 80.203.21.164 17:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

JO is not under the department of justice, nor under any other part of the Government. They respond directly to the Parliament. Spakoj 15:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Arrest?

> The MPAA release goes on to say there were three arrests while in actuality they were only held for questioning.

Last I checked, being held for questioning usually involves being arrested or receieving a written summon from the courts. I think that it is misleading to include this phrase because I am pretty sure that the people involved were actually arrested to be held for questioning, but then later released not being accused of a crime within a certain time period necessary to be incarcerated.

Arrest means: An arrest is the action of the police, or person acting under the color of law, to take a person into custody so that they may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of a crime. Adam Gradzki 03:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In either case, they are not in custody, and have not been since late on the 31st of May. --TheFluff 14:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Being arrested and being charged are two different things. You're arrested on suspicion of doing something, and charged with it if the police (or whatever government department decides such things) thinks they can make a case against you based on the evidence they have. EAi 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Back up!

The Bay's back up, hurrah! Does anyone know what the deal is on their servers; are they being hosted elsewhere, or what? They're not saying anything obvious on the site, which is odd, to say the least. Wooster (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved to Amsterdam, last steps of the traceroute are: 11 so-6-0-0.cr2.lga1.us.above.net (64.125.27.34) 84.130 ms 84.926 ms 85.565 ms 12 so-1-0-0.cr1.lga1.us.above.net (64.125.28.233) 94.034 ms 84.830 ms 85.545 ms 13 so-7-0-0.mpr3.ams1.nl.above.net (64.125.27.186) 171.013 ms 170.611 ms 169.876 ms 14 ge1-1.sr1.esy.nl.leaseweb.net (82.98.247.34) 204.903 ms 209.248 ms 210.615 ms I believe the mininova tracker is also currently hosted in the Netherlands. Thewalrus 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Today, The Pirate Bay (TPB) informed us that the site will be back up tonight or tomorrow [June 2nd or 3rd]. They also said there will be four copies of the site in Holland, Russia, Ukraine and another country within the EU. This statement was delivered during an address of Rasmus Fleischer of Piratbyrån and a representative from The Pirate Bay (TPB) here at the Reboot conference in Copenhagen." Source - FormerSelf

Hollywood logo

Check it out, would this be useful in the article? hollywood image

--Blakeops 07:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem to have dropped that logo in favour of one that looks like a stylized phoenix. heqs 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess where http://thephoenixbay.org redirects to. heqs 17:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Top lawyer

I haven't seen it mentioned, so it may be worth pointing out that Sweden's perhaps most famous lawyer, Leif Silbersky has agreed to defend the crew behind The Pirate Bay. Rumour also has it that Captain anakata has ordered the 300-pound cannons reloaded and taken aim on Hollywood and the MPAA. Aaaarggh! :) Filur 12:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

edit thing. Where it says "the site was down till 12:55..." i changed it to "the pirate bay website was down till...". Reason being is that it could of used a little more clarity. when reading it before i got confused as to wether they were talking about The Pirate Bay or the police website untill it talked about the search function. - Theropissed

TorrentSpy

Pirate Bay may be gone, but TorrentSpy is still out there. Have they been raided yet? Rabid Bunny 20:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Torrentspy received a cease and desist order from the MPAA or a movie company I believe but Torrentspy ignored this because they are in full accordance with the DMCA guidelines (Copyright act in the USA). I’ll see if I can get some sources for you.--Lesty 00:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres are Source--Lesty 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The citation #6 refering to the "neptune quit" has a Citation Needed tag. How can a citation need a citation? EAi 03:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because how are we supposed to verify whether those IRC timestamps are accurate or not? Without channel logs from a reputable source that "citation" is of little use. I would have removed that by now but I'm still holding out hope that someone will come through with a reliable source. — GT 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The "50 police" bit

This seems to be a common exaggeration in the media surrounding the case. The correct wording would be that over 50 police officers were involved in the entire search & seizure part of the investigation, which spanned several major cities in Sweden and entailed (obviously harassment-oriented) searches and seizures of equipment from people only vaguely connected to TPB; the ex-girlfriend of one of the administrators is a frequently quoted example. This is to say that no, fifty cops didn't turn up at PRQ's door. The swedish filth, incompetent as they may be, don't do the "sub-machine guns switched to full auto, flashbang, smoke grenade, on the ground now assholes arrrrgh!" thing for anything short of a hostage situation with confirmed explosives involved. 88.112.2.159 14:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, 50 policer-officers didn't knock on PRQs door, 50 police-officers was the total amount of officers in the raids against 10 different addresses at the same time. Zarkow 203.144.160.243 02:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Consequences?

I believe there needs to be more focus on the reaction of The Pirate Bay owners and supporters towards the police. Obviously someone will go far enough to take down a Government website. What i am trying to lead to is this: The actions of these events, of the servers being seized and of the massive cyberattack upon the Swedish Police, could possible be a precursor to things to come. Maybe not necessarily linked with the pirate bay, but quite possibly similar cyberattacks, and possibly worse attacks, will start to happen as more and more of these sites are pulled down....as the internet starts to become "policed" by seizing servers and such, im pretty sure that there will be an equal and opposite reaction to this. My point is, even though cybercrime is nothing new, it could be more widespread, and more publically visible....or at least become so.....the pirate bay incident is worldwide news. And as more and more people connect to the internet, more people will learn the intricities of technology, more people will have these abilities.....and then whenever someone does something someone does not like....say RIAA shuts down The Pirate Bay for good.....or other places such as torrentspy or an entire IRC network.....wouldnt that lead to more cybercrimes and cyberwarfare? I believe that these possibilities, and all possibilities, should be discussed more intricately by people who know what they are talking about. I do not claim to know what i am talking about, i probably might just be thinking things, but i dont think that what i am talking about is just a flight of fantasy, nor should it be ignored. We could be potentially on the verge of an entire new way of going about the internet, of using technology, of cyberpolice and cybercrime. Real cyber-warfare IS a possibility. If someone, or a group of someones, with enough know-how, decide that the best defense against RIAA or any government agency is one damn good offense.....it's going to get messy. For innocent and guilty. - Theropissed.

Emptied

Under the picture it says "Picture from one of PRQ's "emptied" data centers.". Why is emptied quoted?

well they are not totally empty - the racks are still there ;) 81.221.156.100 19:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Three people questioned?

The one aged 21 is Anakata, the one aged 28 is TiAMO, but who is the 24-year-old?

And secondly, would it be improper for the article to link to the people (we do have articles on them), as opposed to just listing them as "the 21-year-old", and so on? On the one hand there's the issue of protecting the identity and privacy of people who haven't been convicted of any crime, on the other there's the issue of providing accurate and complete information for an encyclopedic article.

I personally feel the article in the section about the raid should list and link to the articles on the persons brought in for questioning, does anybody object? —Gabbe 10:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Found this article [3] saying that the third man held was legal advisor Mikael Viborg. —Gabbe

I feel the article should link to the people since they been open about who they are both whilst running TPB and during/after the raid. All three of them have mada several public announcments after the raid. /Lokal Profil 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

New Logo

If you head on down to thepiratebay website they've changed their logo. I'd put it straight up here but the new logo doesn't show the "Home Taping is Killing Music" logo, nor am i sure they'll be keeping this (very funky) logo. Because i'm not a big contributer here, i'll leave some of the bigger editors to decide what is best. -Benbread 12:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its called the phoenix bay/pirate bay now. Seems to be a fad though. 202.134.181.196 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The main page shows the pirate ship and the phoenix, but their page thumbnail still shows the "Home Taping is Killing Music" logo. -- Миборовский 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They've reverted the logo back to there original. Maby this should be noted on the wiki?

Article Neutrality

There are a few points I am concerned about:

"Even though only the servers running The Pirate Bay were evidence for possible copyright violations, "

"In addition, lots of equipment that couldn't be useful as evidence of file sharing was also seized, such as hardware routers, switches, blank CDs and faxes regarding the air conditioning. Whether the police were simply expected to trust the labels the server administrators had placed as to which server ran which site, or if their thorough sweep of evidence was precautionary or even legal remains unknown at this time."

"it also contained an unfounded statement from John G. Malcolm,"

Many words in these three sample sentences are loaded and lead the reader to a certain point of view. As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, all articles must be kept neutral. I would suggest that less loaded words be used, as well as sentences restructured to state the facts, but not actually push a reader into a certain viewpoint.

Have these statements been edited -- I couldn't find them. If they have been removed can we delete this section? MrDre 04:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably irrelevant

Trying to access TPB gets you an HTML error now? Google returns an error page when you search for TPB also?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 12:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. – Elisson • Talk 14:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Very strange, I try to click on the link google gives me and I get:

Fatal error: Cannot redeclare geoip_load_shared_mem() (previously ...Fatal error: Cannot redeclare geoip_load_shared_mem() (previously declared in /var/tracker/www/include/geoip.inc:200) in /var/tracker/www/include/geoip.inc ...

Yeah thats a PHP error. It looks like the errors given on a fairly ramdom basis but they'll probably sort out sooner or later. ( Davehard 10:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC) )

But if I refresh it all works. Weird.

I get the same error too. Even Google gets it. To get onto TPB, I type "pirate bay recent" into google, which takes you to a different page that doesn't have the error. --Tim1988 ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Someone deleted part of an edit from me stating << Several Journalists investigations suggest that the site is making money on a level that far exceeds its operating costs, and that the Pirate Bay is actually more engaged in making profit than supporting people's "rights". >> (+ refereneces)

The later part << the Pirate Bay is actually more engaged in making profit than supporting people's "rights". >> was deleted as it was claimed to bo POV. It is not POV, it is just some of the journalists' claims. They don't object to the fact that the Pirate Bay is making money, they object to the fact that they pretend they do not do it for money, while they are effectively making money (see references for details). So removing the later part of the sentence is changing what the critics actually said. To make things things clearer I added "according to them". Critics could be POV, but they should still be refered to. (In this case, they are not POV - read the article). (Of course it may not have anything to do with my personal opinion, which is irrelevant) Herve661 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"(the linked article may require a fact check: it claims that there are single ads running for $25,000/day (for the Scandinavian market), adding up to a total revenue of about $21,000/month (again for the Scandinavian market))"

The above editorial comment was added to the Criticisms section of the article on 05:25, 27 July 2006 (diff) by 84.210.16.121 (talk) (contribs). The linked article referred to by the comment is on the file sharing blog Zeropaid.com at this link. Although I agree with 84.210.16.121 that the blogger's claims are dubious and poorly sourced, I've removed the comment to this page for discussion. Matt Fitzpatrick 01:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre legal "logic"

"In some countries, offering such torrents could be considered an illegal aiding of copyright infringement,[5] but in Sweden and other countries this is not the case.[6]"

Well, the first argument has support from a US Supreme Court decision. I could add that the Norwegian Supreme Court (neighbouring Sweden, with a significant amount of legal "harmonizing" of laws) decided roughly the same way in the "napster.no" case.

The second argument only sees support from a lower court in Spain; this would probably not be a binding decision in Spain, much less in Sweden (?!)!

I have NEVER heard about any harmonizing of laws between Sweden and Norway, that is just absurd. The only harmonizing of laws in Sweden is between Sweden and the EUSlipzen 03:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Illegal aiding of a crime", in Sweden, requires that the crime itself is punished by prison. No file-sharing cases in Sweden has ever resulted i a prison sentence. The prosecutor would be required to prove that such a severe copyright-crime had occured (that would render prison) before there could even be a case of "illegal aiding of copyright infringement". This would possible also require an actual prison sentence for a copyright infringement case over TPB, because no one knows exactly where the limit is - there is no precedent. A more likely case would be (even though Håkan Roswall, the prosecuter seem to have missed it) a violation of "Lag (1998:112) om ansvar för elektroniska anslagstavlor", in english: "Law (1998:112) about responabilities for electronic bulletin boards", which requires the owner to remove (or hide) posts that violates the law (copyright infringement and certain types of racism, for example).

And there is no harmonization between Swedish and Norwegian laws, that I know of anyway.

Kricke 10:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

criticism-> ad revenue

This says that the site is getting $25, 000 per day from a single add, yet their revenue is $4, 000 Less than that per month, so unless they are only sellign a fraction of one ad, something is wrong with this. Readig the source, the numbers here are the same, but it is painfully obvious that something needs to be changed.

Site is down??

Torrents do not seem to be working as of this timestamp, and uploads seem to have stopped hours ago. Legal problems again??--24.210.119.37 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Turkey

The site is banned in Turkey with a court order. Mavromatis 16:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

top Google result

Just an FYI, this page has moved up to the top Google result for "pirate bay" and "the pirate bay"...I now come here when I type these into the FF address bar. - Minkus 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia has moved down to the second result...odd. - Minkus 09:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PirateBay.org Wants to Be Own Country

The group of people that run PirateBay.org have announced plans to purchase the man-made island called Sealand. The structure sitting out at sea was originally called HM Fort Roughs and was formally a Maunsell Sea Fort off the coast of England. Although Sealand does not have a government that is recognized by any country, the small population that it holds -- roughly ten -- does claim rights to sovereignty.

With that in mind, the owners of PirateBay.org plan to move their operation over to Sealand so that they can remain separated by any foreign government jurisdiction. Of course, there's one main reason why this is in the works to begin with and it all has to do with avoiding copyright laws. According to the PirateBay.org group:

With the help of all the kopimists on Internets, we want to buy Sealand. Donate money and you will become a citizien. We’ve set up a forum to discuss how the country is supposed to function. It should be a great place for everybody, with high-speed Internets access, no copyright laws and vip accounts to The Pirate Bay.

At this point in time, the number of donations are unknown and it is still unknown whether all this will even be possible. Even if the group claims Sealand to be their own, its government body may not be recognized by international treaties and countries. Despite this, the PirateBay.org group has a plan: "If we do not get enough money required to buy the micronation of Sealand, we will try to buy another small island somwhere and claim it as our own country (prices start from USD 50 000)."

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5692 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand --68.207.206.69 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

-Check http://www.buysealand.com 142.167.109.112 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Current Event

How is this article a current event? I can understand the "Sealand" section being one but not the entire article. 65.95.188.182 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I reverted the deletion of this question not because I necessarily agree with the opinion behind it (I don't really have much of an opinion either way on this particular issue), but because issues raised on the talk page should be discussed, not deleted. --[[User:Tky

==nerd|Tkynerd]] 23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Asymptotic Notation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay#_note-1

"The author claims almost linear - O(1) - performance scaling."

If the server is O(1), constant time, then it also has an upper bound of O(n), linear time. If the server is O(n), then it is not necessarily O(1).

Kip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiplingw (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Confiscated Servers

Does anyone know if they got them back? mr_happyhour 06 02 07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.19.21.168 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

This article says no, the court says they don't get their servers back until the trial in may. Fieari 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the logos

Where are they released as free for anyone to use?Geni 18:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory

"A kopimist (or kopimist intellectual) is a person that holds the philosophical belief that all information should be freely distributed, as well as unrestricted. This philosophy opposes copyrights in all forms and encourages piracy of all types of media, including music, movies, TV shows, and software. Kopimists have resented being involved with computer piracy and the distribution of copyrighted materials with the use of peer-to-peer software."

If the philosophy encourages piracy, why do people that hold the philosophical beliefs resent being involved with it?backstabb 18:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not contradictory. There is a clear difference between believing a law is wrong and advocating its abolition or modification and advocating breaking such a law. The sentence you've quoted indicates that these kopimists feel that copyright laws ought to be changed, but that so long as they remain in force, citizens of nations that maintain such laws ought to respect them in deference to the principle of rule of law. SS451 09:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

North Korea

So now they're moving to North Korea? They're joking or is it for real? We have to get the article updated. --Arad 06:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah it was a joke! ;) --DrugoNOT 13:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• it was rv'd as vandalism much too quickly :p , IMO --Lexein 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems

Most information here is wrong.

1. "The Pirate Bay" and "The Pirate Bureau" is two separate organizations.
2. The Pirate Bureau do not want to abolish copyright, but renew the system to what they believe is more sane and up-to-date.

Sorry for posting this here, but I wasn't sure how to post in the discussion-section. Hopefully an admin or something could verify and correct this article. Thanks.

This is taken from the article which was placed by an anonymous/unfamiliar user.--The Negotiator 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

hypercube httpd server URL

The link to hypercube httpd server is down (404 Not Found). Look at footnote 4: The Pirate Bay#_note-3 --CrazyTerabyte 03:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of 4/30

This diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pirate_Bay&diff=127183869&oldid=127115166) shows an unexplained deletion on 4/30 which was not reverted at the time. I couldn't immediately find any reason why all this stuff was deleted, and given the edit was made by an anonymous user I rather suspect it may have been a POV edit. Several edits have occured in the interim, and I don't have time right at the moment to integrate the deleted text back into the current version of the article. I will probably put this text back sometime in the next couple days if no one can provide a reason as to why it was deleted. SS451 09:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacks on TPB

about the attacks :

The articles states that AUH is claiming responsibility for the attack on TPB . This incorrect . They actually said that they "would take revenge on those who did it "

Also , TPB claims that AUH has nothing to do with the attack .

I would like that change that part so it's more correct .

Kdemetter 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:August 30logo.PNG

Image:August 30logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This image has had it's rights released, like all TPB logos. Look on their doodles page, you'll see it there. I'm changing it now. (No, I'm not expecting the bot to reply, of course!)--Planetary 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I changed the image info, but someone should put it back on the actual article's page. --Planetary 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole process (tagging image and posting here) is done by the bot BetacommandBot (talk · contribs). I can't imagine TPB suing someone for copyright violations, though :-) --h2g2bob (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The images were actually removed (diff) by someone saying they're non-notable. I agree - it's not really encyclopedic. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree they're not notable. The logos have been TPB's main channel of communication since the beginning - their logos send a pictoral message, which needs to be seen in this article, if you are to *get* what TPB is about. In fact I looked up this article to find them here during my research. So I reinserted them right back. --MortenB 16:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the term "notable" in context. We're talking about Wikipedia's notability policy, which states that the logos should be the subject of multiple, independent published works. Even if we accept your argument that they're notable as the main method of communication for the website, Wikipedia is not in the business of merely repeating verbatim what other organisations say (or draw) without comment. As it stands the logo gallery is simply an unannotated list of pictures. If they're such an important form of communication, then why is there no accompanying commentary? I have once again removed the gallery. —Psychonaut 04:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand that WP:N is, as its first sentence says, an article inclusion policy. There is no requirement that every item in an article be notable. --Tkynerd 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, where does it say the rights are released? doodles just lists the images. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the other images on our page. See their tag? That should be quite clear enough.--Planetary 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Biggest torrent tracker

"(...) "the world's largest BitTorrent tracker" (though it is not)" Any sources for this statement? I am running a torrent index myself, and I can say for sure that the trackers of thepiratebay is by far the most used ones. 80.217.171.230 13:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can Legal action be taken

Can Legal Action be taken against users of illegal torrents, or just the torrent itself?--76.0.89.122 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes, legal action can be taken against users of illegal torrents (of course this depends on the legislation of the country you're in).Slipzen 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "legal action"?--Svetovid 12:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone be arrested or prosecuted for downloading a .torrent file (in the United States)? --24.162.154.40 22:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to this long ignored question, No. Action can NOT be taken on someone who downloads a .torrent File. .Torrent files are not Illegal however Using them to download Copyrighted software without the permission of the copyright holder IS Illegal. Also please note that Neither myself nor Wikipedia is a proper legal counsel. Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer 65.24.55.197 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Include text

We should work on including the text In Sweden, the site is more than just an electronic speak-easy; it's the flagship of a national file-sharing movement that's generating an intense national debate, and has even spawned a pro-filesharing political party Pirate Party. into another part of the article. Currently it is just indented at the top of the Pirate Bay section and seems odd. --Credema 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It would actually be nice if someone with more knowledge about the importance of The Pirate Bay in Sweden could expand this short part of the article. --Credema 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed reference to "erotic but legal photos of children"

The Pirate Bay continues to track and index torrents of erotic but legal photos of children.

Citing a .torrent isn't enough.

1. It is original research.
2. Uncited.

Bai. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 04:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with orginal research. Saying a clear fact and backed it up with proof is ok. Though at the time when sentence was added situation was this "We sent a mail asking if this content are [sic] illegal or not in Sweden. Until there is a reply, the torrent stays." ... "I don't give a shit if you folks are upset. Me and the other moderators job are NOT to have an opinion about if it is imoral or not." [4] and now there should be some answer about legality by now(?). So it would be nice if somebody from sweden could write something about how things ended? --Zache 06:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)\

Whatever the case, cartoons cannot be child porn, because child porn is of real children. Cartoons are never, and can never be children. So that does not count, and is irrelevant to the article. Therefore, I agree with the removal of this phrase.--A 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the images cartoons or photos? The article don't tell. "full nudity of young girls" sounds more like photos. Also, the phrase "not porn" are generally used to keep photos of children the right side of the law. Cartoons are not illegal, so it is notable that the treat of beeing blocked for child porn made Fredrik Neij remove the files. This would be a rather strange thing to do, if the files were cartoons = legal. (Of course, this is original research/speculation) --213.237.70.11 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK: Photos, if descriptions and comments of torrents files were correct. Those which were named on The Local (or Expressen? or ... can't remember anymore) were Child modeling (erotic) -pics (and propably legal in their origin country USA). I newer tried to download files, so i can't say if they were real thing or downloadable, but i checked info of those torrents from another torrent review site than TPB and they were marked there also as CP photos (and boobytrapped with trojan). Also I am pretty sure that it can be reffed from swedish news that case was about pics of real childrens and not about cartoons if somebody wants to dig more proof. --Zache 22:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Prince suing The Pirate Bay

I found a news story about how Prince is attempting to sue The Pirate Bay here. Is it possible for this event to be posted under "Legal Threats and Actions"? It does say it is "likely the largest civil challenge the Web site has ever faced." --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 18:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because a newspaper source says that it is big, it does not automatically make it big.--A 02:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shadow cars are pirates' friends!

For a few weeks now TPB members are often followed by undercover police in cars wherever they go (which is not mentioned in this article for some reason). TPB guys said they feel it is intimidation. In fact it is done to protect them! Swedish state security services have learned that the US A-G has signed a secret warrant to render them (i.e. you disappear off the street like that poor italian muslim clearic and mysteriously re-appear in US hands, sans you legal rights). The pirates should be glad the police is protecting their freedom at public expense.

American IRS is mighty upset how much taxes they fail to collect due to diving CD and DVD sales. The taxes go to financing the Iraq and Afghan wars, less taxes = less US force superiority via military spending. At a time when re-dictatorizing Russia is swimming in oil money this understandably makes Uncle Sam nervous. Erasing TBP alone would net 5 billion USD more sales for record and movie labels, which is at least one billion more USD in taxes, enough to create a new US Marines regiment from the ground up. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Suprbaylogo.png

Image:Suprbaylogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing links to The Pirate Bay

By this, it is is clear that

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.
However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. 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 [5]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, however. It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine.

As such, while not carrying the works themselves, clearly The Pirate Bay is linking to copyright infringements. Therefore, it may be a possibility that we cannot link to this website, and so I have removed the links. I am not sure of this decision, so if anyone disagrees with me, I will not resist any reverting of this change. However, I just want to make this clear that it is an issue which I think exists, and I also want to clarify the issue. If it is reverted but I feel that it is not discussed adequately, then I will reinstate the removal.--A 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay does not carry an author's work - it links to a file/parts of a file which is/are hosted elsewhere. So links to the Piratebay are just as valid here on WIkipedia as links to Google are. Sfacets 05:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment was copied over from here - please do CLICK this link. Guess I'm going to have to make it more clear then: Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a place that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States. The site in question still holds a link to bittorent files, which is contributory infringement on their part, and yours; removing again on this basis.--A 13:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You missed the key element with your bolding: "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Besides of that we weren't linking to any specific work, but to the site itself or nothing that is copyright violation it is perfectly clear that in wikipedia we can link to the home page of the topic of the article. It doesn't matter if the site or organisation doings are legal or not. (Like homepages of Al-qaida, Hells angels, Kavkaz Center, CIA, etc etc,,,) You also deleted valid references which pointed to the pirate bay is prohibited in all cases to do. (kind of even if link is not anymore working Wikipedia:Citing_sources) Also TPB is one of most active party in discussion how copyright law is developed in nordic countries (and thus it reflects to EU also) and magazines like Wired, Cnet, Slasdot etc etc doesn't have any problem to link to it, so why should wikipedia have? --Zache 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But the Pirate Bay doesn't violate copyright. No copyrighted material is found on their servers. They are a search engine for torrents. Sfacets 14:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)