Talk:The Pirate Bay

HTTP vs. HTTPS

I archived this section. No consensus was reached concerning adding the htpps link, so the page will stay in its original state. If anyone is interested, I believe Lexein is still pursuing a site-wide policy change on this. Guy Macon 22:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Belated response: See below. --Lexein (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If indeed he is "pursuing a site-wide policy change on this," I would object to the archive. But, I can't find it. Only impolite notes that strain belief. And a recent discussion by Lexein on Dave van Ronk, a favorite of mine.Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to "properly" archive this for the sake of easily finding it for future reference. —fetch·comms 00:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

See /Archive 3. —fetch·comms 00:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! /Archive 3 is now visible in the talkheader, above. --Lexein (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1. "Site-wide policy change" is an incomplete description. Tomato/tomahto. I sought good faith clarification of WP:LINKVIO, an internally inconsistently worded policy section, which inconsistently interprets its foundation, a court ruling. IMHO. Careful serious AGF examination will help here. The result of that very short discussion, by the way, was "vagueness is useful."

2. "Impolite notes"? --> that talk page, please.

3. I arrived at Dave van Ronk's page after seeing a review he wrote, while researching a new article which hopefully won't suck.

--Lexein (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing my error (I attempted the cut and paste arching method but obviously made some sort of mistake) in archiving the HTPPS section appreciated. Archiving the entire talk page in the name of fixing that error, not so much. I was careful to ask if anyone objected to archiving the one section. Did you ask whether anyone objects to archiving all of the other sections? Guy Macon 08:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

documentary about TPB

A guy called Simon Klose is planning a documentary called "TPB AFK: The Pirate Bay – Away From Keyboard". To fund the project he raised over $25.000 within three days via kickstarter.com. (see their project space at: Projektseite auf kickstarter.com)

• This film will be released for free on TPB and other sites
• This film will be sold to people who wish to support the filmmakers
• This film will be released in Ogg Theora and other open source friendly formats
• Most parts of this film are in Swedish, subs will be available for translation

I suggest we include this information in the article. cheers --spitzl (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this has been known for some time, and is mentioned in External Links, but unfortunately not discussed on this talk page. After the film is released (or fully previewed) and covered in reliable, verifiable 3rd party sources (I expect the UK Guardian will cover it), it'll go right into the main article. Until then WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. --Lexein (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable legal releases via TPB

Should there be a section including notable, front page, RS'd, authorized releases of content via TPB? I'm thinking of Yes Men Take Over the World, and now Die Beauty (but probably not Michael Moore's smirky "go ahead, piss Weinstein off" pseudo-authorization of Sicko and Slacker Uprising.) Criteria would be:

• theatrical releases also released under CC (even a limited license),
• has own article
• front-page on thepiratebay.org

To date, there's been no attempt that I can recall, to list such. Less notable, but interesting would be the non-feature-length "Elephants Dream" and others. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is their own list of TPB releases. Though they released stuff earlier than this, check the doodle section for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.87.198 (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a helpful list from their database, not really a good prose primary source, but the blog and doodles may help a little. Best would be a reliable independent source supporting a few of those legit releases. --Lexein (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting info

The lead says that the site is the 93rd most popular website as ranked by Alexa, but the infobox says 91st. Which is correct? Dylan (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The infobox, having the link to Alexa, is updated more frequently by interested editors. The lead paragraph, per WP:MOSLEAD, shouldn't actually have any citations, but only concisely list major points which are supported(with citations) in the article body. Ideally, in my opinion, the exact Alexa rank shouldn't be in the lede, but instead some 3rd party source should be found which claims "top 100" or "top 90", or discusses TPB's ranking through the years; that should be in the body, cited, and in the lead, uncited. IMHO. --Lexein (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Info

The Acquisition Announcement section is a little pointless because it never happened. Does it really need to be mentioned? JackRendar (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New Raid

According to sources on Swedish radio tonight all Pirate Bay servers have been confiscated after new raids around the world. The site has now been down for 6 hours and yet my posting about this was removed from the main article. WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.71.176 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide WP:RS reliable, WP:V verifiable source(s), if at all possible, and it can go in. We English speakers can't verify Swedish radio, but do they have an online stream of their stories? Is it on any Swedish TV, radio, or newspaper websites yet? Remember that WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a news outlet, so "breaking news" should still be presented in a neutral, "encyclopedic" tone, from pre-existing reliable news sources. --Lexein (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like normal maintenance: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.133.197 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tonight's outage is a DDOS. http://erictric.com/2010/10/18/the-pirate-bay-is-down-due-to-maintenance-not-denial-of-service-attack/ Not really worth putting anything in the article at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.175.87 (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did you mean isn't a DDOS? Hardly matters - it's back up now, with no mention in tpb's blog. Sigh. --Lexein (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox commercial= parameter

This seems to be a subject of some edit warring, so is probably worth discussing. We need RS to declare whether it is or is not a commercial venture. I've seen it described as both a "hobby project" (by the principals) and as a moneymaking venture alleged to be worth millions (by prosecutors and copyright defenders), but no corporation registration in any country, nor any court decision firmly declaring for or against its commercial status. Perhaps it's both: advertising only to support rackspace rental and bandwidth costs. It doesn't seem to sell products, nor offer subscriptions for TPB itself. The t-shirt sales go to Piratbyran, according to ByteLove. Since it's in dispute, I'd support leaving the "commercial = " parameter blank or unclear, and making a^Note that it's in dispute, with a source for each. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this is incorrect on a few points. They do sell merchandise. They do sell subscriptions. They were declared a commercial enterprise by the Swedish courts and the court audit showed a large profit. See the original court decision. Yes, they claimed they were not a commercial enterprise in court. But, I don't think a claim by defendents in their trial carries much water since they were convicted. Corporate registration has no relevance. Millions of profitable companies are not incorporated.Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Usually participants in a discussion provide exact citations (link or cite#), with page #s if needed, to support claims they make. Per this source (Pirate bay founders convicted by Swedish Court Christian Science Monitor, April 17, 2009), The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of "extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form," said Thomas Nordström, chairman of the Stockholm district court, when he announced the ruling Friday morning. So, for now, "commercial" as concluded by the court, is supported. Not the usual avenue by which commerciality is determined by any stretch of the imagination; usually organizations determine their own status in this regard. The verdict isn't lawful final until the appeal is completed, but I guess we're stuck with this, unless it's reversed upon appeal. --Lexein (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The verdict is lawful; punishment is merely suspended pending right of appeal. Wikispan (talk) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe what Lexein is referring to is the claim on piracy fan sites that in Swedish law defendants are not considered guilty during appeal. This has been repeated to the extent that people now take it as fact. In fact, you are considered convicted during appeal in Swedish courts. Further, appeal to the Swedish Supreme Court is not to overturn a case, but to determine guidance in how other similar cases are to be adjudicated. (Appealing a criminal case) In any case, the courts have stated and reaffirmed that sites like TPB are illegal and that TPB itself is commercial.Objective3000 (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not base what I wrote on, nor read any such, "piracy fan sites". Per the Christian Science Monitor cited above "Under Swedish law, the jail terms and payment of damages are suspended until after an appeal has been heard, a process that could take several years." CSM is not likely a "fan site" of anything. (Aside from that, again tarring me or P2P news sites with the "piracy fan" brush isn't civil.) My prior wording was imprecise, and is corrected. BTW, your domstol.se cite does not support your assertion about the SSC, about which I made no comment. Yes, the court system is different in Sweden. Reversals occur. Moving on. --Lexein (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I really wish you would stop attacking editors. I did not "tar" you. I gave an opinion of why your inaccurate description was inaccurate, which I thought was very polite as I ascribed no ill will toward you and followed the WP “assume good faith” maxim. I assumed you made the error in good faith. You admit your wording was “imprecise.” And yet, you do NOT assume good faith on my part. And my “assertion” about the SSC is taken directly from the SSC site. You are correct that CSM is not a fan-site. I did not say it was and it did not say what you said it said, as you have now admitted. Seriously, you have a habit of this. Please reread WP:CIV.Objective3000 (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only suggest that you actually reread WP:CIV, WP:TIGERS, and WP:NOSPADE, since you persist in seeing what I write as an "attack", but nothing which you write. WP:CIV does not say "write using a veneer of civility", it says, bluntly, "be civil." If your intention is truly to assume good faith of others, it might have been better to surmise, perhaps Lexein meant "final," not "lawful," which was, in fact, the case. You wrote the domstol.se remark in a reply mainly to me, hence the reasonable perception that it had something to do with what I wrote. To separate discussion points which are in response-, from discussion points which are not in response-, to another editor's comment, simply outdent. It will in future be best for you not to in any way associate my words with "piracy fan sites", even indirectly. And I do not believe any accusation from you of incivility has merit here. --Lexein (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume good faith -- but, do not ignore the history of a person's edits. You have made numerous such attacks here which I have generally ignored but have been pointed out by someone else. And, if you think we should surmise that you meant another word, then your argument is with Wikispan, not me. The point is that the statement you wrote is in line with what piracy fan sites have been pushing for over a year and what was also stated in the WP Pirate Bay article. It is good that you corrected it.Objective3000 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

That second sentence makes me ill, and undermines the first: to dig up an old minor dispute which was in the vein of a complaint, not an actual attack (there's a difference), and to claim "numerous" and claim "attack", for which you did not seek dispute resolution of any sort, is, in my opinion, not fair-minded. If it's that important to you, get a ruling through any dispute resolution process you choose, on the record, we'll abide by it, and we'll move forward. We're here to improve the article, and its usefulness, relevance, and accuracy to readers. Which was the purpose of my question at the top of this discussion. --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The ruling was already made. Nothing for me to dispute. Hope you feel better in the future.Objective3000 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No such ruling by any Wikipedia dispute resolution process is in evidence. Link? --Lexein (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Commercial?

Calling the pirate bay commercial doesn't seem quite accurate, or at least indefinite. It's operators dispute that it's a for-profit operation,and the only reference to it being commercial in the citation is a quote from the trial verdict stating that they "infringed copyright in a commercial and organized fashion". Given that that this verdict is subject to appeal, and that the reference to it being commercial is simply the remarks of a judge, I would like to suggest that the commercial label be changed to "no" or, better yet, "disputed". 75.39.32.138 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the beginning of the discussion immediately above this one. --Lexein (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don’t understand the comment “simply the remarks of a judge.” Most people consider the judge’s written opinion at the conclusion of a criminal trial as a better resource than the claims of the defendants at risk in that trial. Particularly after the defendants have been found guilty of a crime. That is the point of a trial. The courts, after hearings and an audit of the books, have ruled that the organization is commercial. It really is not all that unusual for a court to rule an organization commercial while the defendants claim it isn’t. Occurs in tax courts and charity scams.Objective3000 (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Piratebay appears to be down.

Is this part of the Day of Protest? It isn't noted in the article. = Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It was on Jan 5-6. Other protests scheduled for Jan 15. --Lexein (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay appears to be unreachable. Hundreds of Twitter messages from all over the world confirm this. --91.56.131.236 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(Main) tracker status

Hey there fellow TPB guys, is the main tracker down for good? For months, I haven't been able to get an *active* connection to tracker.thepiratebay.org, albeit still referenced even in latest torrents that were uploaded. How come? And is it a known "issue"? [edit] forget about it, I could answer my own post. Offline since November 2009. Go figure. linky -andy 217.50.51.29 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tracker Status ? bump

BUMP that question I've been offline for months. Attempted to connect to TPB today (3-17-2011) and it was down. (checked with down for me or everyone and they confirmed it? Is this temporary or have they been shut down for some time ? This previous poster was in February of 2011? Has it been down since then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.76.202 (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The website is mostly up, on both https and http, sometimes down. They turned off their trackers a long time ago, to use DHT instead. --Lexein (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hosting section outdated; Serious Tubes Networks

The "Hosting" section currently states that The Pirate Bay is hosted by PRQ. However, according to several recent articles from May 12, Serious Tubes Networks now provides network connectivity for The Pirate Bay. It's not clear whether the servers are still physically at PRQ, or whether this new ISP also provides rack space. Does anyone better sauce on this? -- intgr [talk] 10:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, what gives? Chrome flags reports the IP address is in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.225.101.1 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook

I recently tried posting a link to thepiratebay.org and it didn't get removed. Dunno when they stopped removing links, or if its a manual take down thing. Archer Link (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

HTTPS link

This was debated at enormous length. There should be no HTTPS links, and such links were removed. They have been snuck in again. These are violations of WP rules and do not add to the article in any way other than to promote illegal activity, as has already been debated to death.Objective3000 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, "they" were not snuck in again, it (singular) remained after all discussion stopped, due to citing in RS, and rough consensus. See following reprise. --Lexein (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

https discussion review

The long discussion about the literal use of https, initially everywhere throughout the article, then only in the infobox, and finally, only in the article once, if at all, reached:

• Consensus against widespread throughout the article use (while still discussing single use).
• Stalemate incomplete consensus against use in the infobox (few discussing, one holdout for).
• Stalemate incomplete consensus for use once in the article (few discussing, one holdout against). So it stayed in the article, as a link, as cited in three reliable sources, of which 1 news reliable source and 1 RS-about-P2P-news source remain in the article. If I read that right.

Per Bold, revert, discuss, I just reverted (after waiting 20 minutes) these two edits which seemed to go against that consensus, and broke the Slyck news ref. Slyck has been mostly consensed as reliable about P2P news, used with care, so that seems uncontroversial to fix and keep.

In my opinion, the news coverage was wide enough to merit inclusion of https in a live link, and that too-rigid application of rules (guideline against live links in prose) would prevent the article from literally fully informing the reader. In this article, which is not generally about SSL or https, without the explicit mention of https, a general reader will not know to mentally link SSL with an https: URL, and will not intuit the full TPB url. Communicatus interruptus, if you will.

The contention that the mention of https adds "nothing to the article" stands in direct opposition to what the 3 reliable sources (more, really) had to say about it. The contention that it "promotes illegal activity" was not deemed particularly applicable by other editors in the discussion. --Lexein (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have seen and discussed your opinions at great length. But, you could not gain concensus and a decision was made to leave the article as it was before the addition. The addition violated WP rules, as it appears even you agreed.Objective3000 (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make it about editors (I learned a bit about that last go-around), per one of the five pillars, WP:Civility. The article was actually left as it was after the addition, in the prose, but not in the infobox. If there was "a decision" made, it wasn't in consensus. The discussion stopped. Action on that sentence stopped. There simply was no "rules" violation, because as policy states: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules": there are pillars, policies, guidelines, essays, and consensus. When I said, "rules", I mean, as usual, "overzealous treatment of these as rules". When a "rule" stands in the way of Wikipedia doing its job, of reporting what reliable sources say with an eye toward helping the reader, there is ignore all rules, another of the WP:five pillars. This, we have all employed on occasion, when it appears that the purpose of Wikipedia is being thwarted by too-rigid focus on "rules." There is a balance to be struck, and given that we have cooperated in the past, I think you are interested in that. --Lexein (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay blocked in Belgium

I just saw that when we try accessing thepiratebay.org in Belgium, we're greeted with this message (in 4 languages) :

"The access to this website is blocked in conformity with a decision of the Antwerp Court of Appeal dated 26 September 2011.

For any additional information, you can contact the Belgian Anti-piracy Federation (BAF), at Almaplein 3 P.O. Box 10, 1200 Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe - http://www.anti-piracy.be/en/."

If anyone would be kind enough to edit the article... ? 91.179.63.138 (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disregard that. I hadn't seen the Belgium section in the article.. But it's there already ! 91.179.63.138 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The page states that "Currently, the The Pirate Bay is using conventional methods accessible by the Belgian population." The author probably means that TPB currently is NOT accessible via conventional methods in Belgium. The belgian URL and even the IP addresses lead to the swedish URL, which triggers a stop page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.209.142 (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. This section needed some tidying up. The stop page shown to users in Belgium is described here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Depiraatbaai.be is not blocked. The information provided on the page was false, a news article with wrong information is still not a "good" source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.233.236 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a news story here which says that Depiraatbaai.be is accessible in Belgium again. This is in Dutch, so some help is needed for a proper English translation. It appears that Depiraatbaai.be is redirecting to the .se version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom and blocking

atm only BT mobile is mentioned, but I stumbled onto this article which implies that Orange, O2, T-Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Vodafone and 3 are also blocking TPB. Not sure how correct it is, but if someone see a source that confirm this, please post it. Belorn (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The UK mobile block seems to be based on over 18 content rather than copyright infringement. My T-Mobile phone gives this content lock for sites which have an 18+ rating. There are currently no court injunctions making it illegal to access The Pirate Bay in the UK, although this may change in the future.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: On Monday 20 February 2012, the High Court in London ruled that TPB facilitates copyright infringement.[2] This is likely to lead to a block on accessing the site from a UK IP address, similar to the block on Newzbin in 2011. However, a decision on a block will not be taken until June, so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The full text of this legal ruling is here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• TalkTalk ave now blocked it going by the fact I can no longer access it without using a proxy — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedGoldfish (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Domain name change and .ee mirror site?

The address www.thepiratebay.org now redirects to www.thepiratebay.se. Recently (only in the past few weeks as far as I can tell) a mirror site has sprung up at http://thepiratebay.ee/ , with .ee being the country code of Estonia. There is some debate about whether this is official or not.[3][4] Unfortunately there is very little reliable sourcing on this, so it is unsuitable for the article at the moment. Does anyone have some more info about this version of the site?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment it is unclear whether http://thepiratebay.ee/ has official status as a mirror site. It looks accurate enough, but does not offer magnet links, only torrent files.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The website title text

I am not sure how important it is to have the website's title text ("The galaxy's most resilient BitTorrent site") in the lead. It seams to me better to simply state that "The Pirate Bay is the world largest BitTorrent site", and use the iht news article as source. Is this a too large claim for that source or would everyone be happy with that change? Belorn (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

TPB has the highest Alexa rank of any torrent site. The slogan "The galaxy's most resilient BitTorrent site" has some relevance wen taken in context with its legal battles and the demise of sites such as Mininova and BTJunkie. The "resilient" slogan could be somewhere in the article, but perhaps not in the WP:LEAD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Low Orbit Server Station

Wouldn't it be adequate to write here about the declaration by The Pirate Bay of its intent to put Raspberry Pi servers on low orbit drones and serve all content from space? Rafael Calsaverini (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign it)

The Guardian seriously doubted the feasibility of this idea.[5] Unless this actually happened, there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What I think is important here, is if the press release itself will have enduring notability long term enough to warrant inclusion (WP:NOT#NEWS). It clearly is covered by third-party sources, but if its forgotten in a few days then we should not include it. I would wait and see a bit, and if its still referenced/mentioned then yes, it should be included. Belorn (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a chance they were being (perhaps intentionally) inaccurate? I mean, I'm guessing a very well programmed smartphone packed full of magnet links could do sort of what TPB does; maybe you could hang it from a helium balloon and let it waft from cell to cell across the countryside. TPB tends to make itself look big, and censors don't want to reveal the true intrusion of their plan, but as I understand it, basically their goal is to prohibit anyone from putting a 50-odd byte 'magnet link' online anywhere in the world, lest you use it to find something interesting. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"NOTHOWTO"

I had an edit of mine reverted [6]. I'm semi-willing to leave out the quote of the blog response because it is a little unclear how formal that is as a TPB position, but I'm not going to abandon any mention of how people in the UK get around the ban. WP:NOTHOWTO means you don't write an article as a how-to guide ("Step 1. Visit IPredator at this URL. Have your credit card ready...") It emphatically does not mean to leave out any information that might be abused, according to UK authorities. I should point out that we cover Internet censorship circumvention; we have for a long time described "Evasion" under the Great Firewall of China - the rules don't change just because the country happens to be the UK. Unless and until Wikipedia is under legal compulsion to censor basic information about why a ban isn't going to work, we cover the facts. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This was copyedited to use a secondary source (BBC News) rather than the blog piece from TPB. It is beyond the scope of the article to give a list of ways round the block, and it also has legal issues. VPNs are not infallible anyway, as the LulzSec hacker case showed last year. Some VPN companies will inform on their customers at the first sign of trouble.[7]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The scope of our coverage should not be limited to that of the BBC article, which was basically that VPNs might be the next thing British authorities try to ban. As such, it mentioned the first part of the post about VPNs, demonstrating its importance as a direct response by The Pirate Bay - we can and should finish it up with the other news source and the primary source. Wnt (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added three times and Ianmacm has taken out three times (See [8]) the stuff about TOR and I2P and IPredator and OpenDNS using Google's name servers. It's time to get some other people to form a consensus. I believe that Wikipedia has no duty to pay attention to UK legal issues, and given that the BBC, as Ianmacm cited, has quoted them that a VPN can be used to evade the block, I don't think there are legal issues even in Britain. I don't get why the British would ban saying you can use TOR if their own state media is allowed to say you can use VPN - it's just silly. There is, of course, a strong political issue, namely, if you present there as being only one way to circumvent copyright laws, you can keep up the illusion that the next Act of Parliament (or other legal action) will end the problem. But the source is what we should go by; it's not up to us to hide information. Wnt (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not confined to the UK, and explaining how to download the latest Madonna album illegally is not what a Wikipedia article is for. There are clear WP:NOTHOWTO and legal issues here, which is why there is a need for caution.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tor does not recommend using its service for Bittorrent downloads [9] , while the claim that switching the DNS will work contains an element of WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• This article, The pirate bay, should include verifiable content which describe The Pirate Bay, the number of users who use The Pirate Bay, and describe methods employ by people to go around the blocks that deny access to The Pirate Bay. There is no legal issue in doing so!. If anyone are sure there is a legal issue, please contact Wikipedia foundation and get a lawyer to look at it or else hold your peace. There is also no issues with WP:NOTHOWTO. as writing about the verifiable methods people employ to avoid blocks in accessing TPB is encyclopedic. So long it is written in a neutral tone, avoiding how-to" style of owners manual and advice column, it will pass the reader as content describing TPB. Belorn (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the not censored angle, but please bear in mind the following:

1. The Pirate Bay is not a neutral source about itself. It makes money from Pay per click, so any statement relating to its business model needs to be checked for a potential conflict of interest. Ipredator is a good example, as it is run by The Pirate Bay as a commercial operation with a view to hiding copyright infringement from the authorities.
2. The LulzSec hacker case showed that VPNs should be taken with a pinch of salt. Anyone who pays for a VPN with a credit card and logs in from their home IP address is taking a risk, regardless of what the VPN's terms of service says.
3. Tor says "Under no circumstances is it safe to use BitTorrent and Tor together, however. There is a risk of giving the reader poor advice if this is ignored.
4. Articles should be based on reliable secondary sources as far as possible. Blogs generally have WP:SPS issues.
5. Wikipedia articles do not give legal advice, and this is an area where caution is needed. A Wikipedia article should not imply that the law in country X is bad, so it is OK to break it by doing Y.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 00:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I can agree on most of those points. Primary sources need to be used with caution and be replaced when ever possible. Torrentfreak has several articles one could cite. Plenty of news sites include articles talking about how people bypassing TPB blocks. This article was in top 10 when google searching for it. We should also make sure to not imply safety (or danger) of bypassing blocks. I would suggest checking up WP:SAID so to phrase things clearly, like: Article X explains/describes method Y. As for VPNs, we can't use OR but if there is verifiable sources saying there is danger, then those sources are highly relevant and should be included. Belorn (talk) 02:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I think discussion of how effective the blocking will be is needed for a complete article. Detailed discussion of circumvention that isn't specific to TPB may be better on Internet censorship in the United Kingdom (or cleanfeed if that's how it's actually implemented).

Tor's concern with bittorrent (apart from traffic) is that it will expose your real ip address, which is not a problem if you only want to use it as a non-anonymous proxy. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom section should not become bogged down with how to avoid the block, as the information is just as relevant to other countries where a block occurs. The May 2012 block is purely on visiting thepiratebay.se from a UK IP address. Downloading the latest Madonna album from The Pirate Bay (or anywhere else) is just as much illegal copyright infringement as it was last month. It is trivially easy for anyone to get round the block and visit the site if they are determined to do so, but [10] shows why blogs are unsuitable sources. It suggests entering the IP address of the site manually, this does not work, I've tried it. The Pirate Bay website is a shop window, and the real problem would come if a person downloaded any of the copyrighted material that it offers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This message is how TPB responded to this block. It might not be applicable to other methods of blocking in other countries. Indeed, as you say, it might not be applicable to blocking as you encounter it in the UK. What your difficulty tells me is that there's some second method of blocking being used by your ISP which is not the method being advertised, and that is noteworthy. If the ISPs are not content to do censorship simply by denying people a proper IP lookup (which always was stupid even on the censorship continuum) then people should know that. (I'm not suggesting to add it as purely OR though) This discussion has now turned up three different sources which quote this The Pirate Bay blog post, and so we definitely should offer people this direct "horse's mouth" link in addition to the secondary coverage. Your repeated calls to exclude this information based on UK law grow ever more absurd - the BBC and you yourself have posted information about how to evade it, you say it's not hard to evade, so why should Wikipedia honor your request to leave out this information when for most of us it isn't even our law? Wnt (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The inability to access the site in the UK may be the result of Cleanfeed or a similar system. This is mentioned in the BBC article about VPNs.[11] I agree that it makes little difference to block access to the site in the UK, as this was largely a legal gesture for the record companies. The real problem is reliable sourcing, most of the detailed articles on how to evade the block seem to be blogs, and some of them are giving dubious advice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the primary source quoted by the BBC and the others is relevant, and we should include how Pirate Bay responded to the ban, both in terms of the success of this song it quoted, and in terms of all the workarounds they mention. I'm not sure how reliable some of the techie sources are (not sure I'd call them blogs) - if you want, we can RS/N them, if we have agreement that if they are usable then we can include them. (Otherwise it's kind of wasting their time, isn't it?) Wnt (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The part about Cleanfeed was added. TPB's news release says "music released and promoted exclusively here on TPB is currently in the brittish top charts"[12]. However, Dan Bull's "Sharing is Caring" is not available exclusively on TPB, and has several other download locations.[13] Also, trying to access TPB in the UK by using Google Public DNS or OpenDNS does not work either. This is another confirmation of why WP:SPS material should be handled with caution. Anyways, I've added the link to the full TPB press release to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Contradictions are good. We should not try to tell one story, but many stories. It may be that these measures do work on certain ISPs, or they did work and then a second unreported censorship action occurred, or many other such things. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, only Virgin Media is blocking TPB, producing this message. The other UK ISPs are expected to follow in the next few weeks. There are parallels here with Newzbin and Wikipedia's article Virgin Killer, both of which ran into problems with the UK government.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what meaning I should take from your mention of Virgin Killer; to me this shows that indeed Wikipedia does not follow British censorship law. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Back in December 2008, Cleanfeed was used to prevent people in the UK from accessing Virgin Killer, which caused a heap of problems. There seems to be a similar DNS/IP block on accessing TPB. None of this is likely to stop a determined UK person from obtaining their illegal goodies from The Pirate Bay. The Wikipedia article The Pirate Bay is not affected by the current block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Map

Can someone please create a map with the countries in which tpb is blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.92.26.151 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Map could show for example, "currently blocked", "previously blocked," "blocked by some ISPs", etc in different shades. It would be a much easier way to digest blocking information than the alternative of reading the half of this article dedicated to the subject. Edit: I'd be happy to give it a go if no one responds to this for a while... ProfNax (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A map showing the countries where TPB is blocked would be easier said than done. It would probably go out of date very quickly, eg the situation in Belgium, Holland and India is constantly changing and still unclear. Also, where a block occurs, not all ISPs may be enforcing it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I still like the idea. Even though the map wouldn't be up to date every second, it could be useful. Jonskunator (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to be specifically useful to people attempting to circumvent the laws of their countries. It may even put WP in the same position as TPB, an organization found illegal because it was created to be useful to people attempting to circumvent law, and whose founders have been sentenced to prison.173.56.43.127 (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proxies

Re this edit: http://bich.in/ is one of a long list of proxies at [14], and there is no need to give this one rather than the others. Proxies generally fail WP:EL as they are unstable and may contain malware or scams.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

India, blocks and proxies

There have been numerous edits about the block on TPB by ISPs in India. These should be reliably sourced. TPB has been encouraging people to set up proxies of the site, and there is an "official" list of the proxies here. Per WP:EL, proxies are unsuitable as external links or citations. For the purposes of the article, thepiratebay.se is the official address of the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom blocking messages

The message shown in this Wired article is specific to TalkTalk.[15] Other ISPs have different messages, e.g. Virgin Media.[16]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

30 June outage

The claim that the 30 June outage was caused by a leap second added at the end of June was subsequently denied by TPB, which blamed a server issue.[17] The site was down for a few hours, which people noticed, but this is not unusual when there are technical problems. Overall, the 30 June outage is probably not notable enough for a mention in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur. --Lexein (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask: how is it that the new section I added entitled "piratebay down as of 27JUN2012" was completely obliterated; are you guys part of the Obama/Nazi Administration or something?----