Jump to content

Talk:The Pirate Bay/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

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)

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
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 aNote 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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)
  • 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?----
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2012‎
The Pirate Bay has various outages, and not all of them are mentioned in the article. Unless the site is down for a long period of time and there is some reliable sourcing referring to it, there is no need to mention every outage.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

--4walter4 (talk)

I also would like to know why the article was deleted completely, when you could have added a reference and stated that the claim was denied by TPB. Also, this was a true service issue, so your opinion of its importance is irrelevant and it belongs back in the article under service issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4walter4 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no need to list every outage on TPB per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER#2. The site was down for a few hours on 30 June and most people will have forgotten about it by now. The 16 May DDoS attack left the site down for around 24 hours and received much more coverage.[18]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Not even TorrentFreak covers the frequent, inconsequential, outages, or provider moves & OS shifts. --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree. If the site went down thanks to the leap second issue, then that might have been enough for inclusion here, but since it was just an other random outage, its has almost no lasting value for the article. Belorn (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pirate Bay now called "The Promo Bay"?

That's what it said when I went there today: 02JUL2012 @ 5:30 PM PST. 207.151.38.178 (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The site sometimes uses "The Promo Bay" on the main page to promote the work of upcoming artists, eg a screenshot of today's promotion is here. These promotional main pages usually last for around 24 hours before reverting to the traditional pirate ship logo. People have been confused by this in the past, although The Promo Bay is mentioned and sourced in the article.[19]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It is, perhaps too briefly, mentioned under Projects. --Lexein (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded that part of Projects, with RS for Paulo Coelho's promo. His was the first under the Promo Bay program, but that specific fact is not supported in text.
There is opposition to the Promo Bay project, but the closest I've seen to an RS is this unsigned article on this music anti-piracy site: "Smells Like Pirate Desperation, The Promo Bay now Elitist Gatekeeper". The Trichordist blog. April 7, 2012. --Lexein (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

thepiratebay.ee

As of 7 July 2012 or maybe earlier, that is the new address. It also means the site is no longer blocked in the UK (for now anyway) - unfortunately though it is now a subscription service ("only" £3.99 per month was what I was presented with after clicking a new Download button and waiting precisely 14 seconds, according to the countdown in the box that appeared.) --86.157.84.49 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, see above. Thepiratebay.ee is not on the "official" proxy list at [20] and has been criticised as a scam in TPB's blog at [21]. Anyway, proxies are unsuitable for the article as they fail WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
How about http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/ which has been linked to by The Guardian ? I can't see anything in WP:ELNO which prevents linking to proxies, and in fact .se is already "inaccessible to a substantial number of users" given how many readers are in the UK. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that proxies can be used for unpredictable and potentially harmful redirects. They are also unreliable, as they can be up one day and down the next, much like TPB itself. In order to avoid a situation where people constantly try to add proxies of the site - there are dozens - it is best to stick to the official address, which is thepiratebay.se. The article mentions that proxies and VPNs are popular ways of getting around a block.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In general proxies shouldn't be added, but in this case...a proxy set up specifically for this website by a registered UK political party specifically to circumvent UK law, I reckon is noteworthy in the UK block section. 92.15.86.49 (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alt text

I added alt text for complicated images, per WP:ALT, to describe the contents of the images in the context of this article. Alt text exists for anyone who cannot see the images: blind, vision impaired, or sighted (those with images off or unavailable), and is not designed to be seen at the same time as the image, only as a replacement for the image. In this anonymous revert, the edit comment "Rank propaganda. This is an encyclopedia, not a political opinion site" misunderstands the purpose of alt text, and goes directly against WP:ALT. IMHO, accessibility trumps. Discuss? --Lexein (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What you added seems to go against the very first sentence of Wikipedia:ALT#Basics, that alternative text should be short. Since it's a short-text alternative, those descriptions are way too long. I don't know if longdesc is used on Wikipedia images, but that much text would would be appropriate that that field, not in an alt field. - SudoGhost 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. At WT:ALT there is a lively discussion, needing more involvement from blind viewers and editors. One point made is that screenreader users are accustomed to skipping, and can skip alt text which is too long. See, for example Mir. "Short" is too short of a requirement, because circumstances alter cases, as can be seen in Mir, and, I think, cartoons with text. I am operating on this synthesis of W3C, WebAIM, and WP:ALT goals for alt text:
As short as possible to meaningfully describe the contents of the image, for the particular context in which it is used, for all of the image's five audiences: blind, formerly sighted, visually impaired, colorblind (where appropriate), and sighted (with images off, or not loading), without being redundant with the caption. Terse or no alt text may be appropriate for images with good descriptive captions for their use context.
TPB's context of filesharing and piracy, I thought, made the alt text for the Jubilee doodle appropriate, because many of the items in the image are discussed in the article, but that doodle is not discussed at length.
I think summarizing the political cartoon would be better than quoting, but is harder. See this edit.
AFAIK Wikimedia does not currently support short-desc or long-desc parameters (dunno if ever). --Lexein (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
You are both correct. In this case there is a need for a detailed alt text, as the images contain a lot of information (notably textual information). But I agree that a normal alt text field is not suitable for this. Longdesc is not implemented in MediaWiki, so we have no other solution than to go with Lexein's proposal. Actually, I don't believe longdesc should be implemented in MediaWiki at all, it might prove very complicated and tedious to use for average editors. Dodoïste (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. About ... normal alt text is not suitable for this: without shortdesc and longdesc, alt text is all there is, so it has to stand in for images, and should be able to vary in size depending on context (both which article and what's in the image), as discussed in standards and published opinion. Context is so important that there can't be a "normal" alt text use. To reassure people who rightly object to perhaps universal alt text bloat, the alt text for the Jubilee and political cartoons would be shorter anywhere else on Wikipedia. The political cartoon is a tough, unaddressed use case: how important is the literal text vs the intended message, for the vision-impaired, where the full text would be redundant in the caption and on the image's (Commons) page? That asked, I hope the modified alt text reaches a balance. --Lexein (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Malware

Should be some comment about how site is posioned by massive amounts of malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.236.203 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The site has some annoying pop-up adverts based on JavaScript, but this is not malware.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, any claims of malware should be supported by reliable sources, as usual. --Lexein (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I also wondered if this referred to programs offered by the site, which often have comments from users underneath saying "Don't download this, it's a trojan". The files are not on TPB, and are merely indexed by the site.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Piracy sites which do not perform virus scans are filled with links that install trojans, in particular SPAMbots. The location of the files is not relevant. This is how SPAMbots are distributed so widely. There are numerous discussions of problems with viruses related to TPB on various social and piracy fan sites. But, this isn’t something documented from a “reliable source” since the site is illegal anyway.173.56.43.127 (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
There is some reliable sourcing here. Keygens and cracked programs often contain malware, and in September 2010, TPB's advertising server was hacked and used to spread malware.[22]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
So a section on "malware" might have two sentences: "On the website itself,... " and "In files linked to by torrent files hosted at TPB, ...". I'd be happy to add that if there were more instances, or more sources, otherwise it seems a bit trivial; by that I mean vulnerable to deletion by deletionists. --Lexein (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has an article about TPB, I assume it is equally permissible to have links from articles to movies and suchlike at TPB - it could be a great help to researchers. Any thoughts?24.108.61.172 (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what this means. Links to torrents of copyrighted material would have WP:ELNEVER issues, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
in the general case, it is unlikely to be suitable, but there are exceptions. In the case where the official distribution of an movie is TPB, it might be cases where such link is appropriate. Its like with Youtube videos. 99% of the time it is unsuitable for linking. Belorn (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm full of tl;dr today, but my opinionated criteria for linking to TPB content-link pages are: legality, uniqueness, appropriateness for article, and the battleground:
  • We can't directly link to copyvio, so if we do link to TPB content link pages, they have to be to freely-licensed content, or authorized copyrighted content (such as the dual-licensed book on Richard Stallman, Free as in Freedom). Further, CC-BY-SA content should be on Commons anyways, no need to use TPB, but CC-BY-SA-NC can't be put on Commons, so if TPB is the only source, then a link might make sense.
  • TPB is usually not the only source for bittorrent access to content; it's unremarkable if TPB also has a download link.
  • The content should be really important to the article, such as the topic of the article, or as a cited source. It should not be just decoration. It may qualify as {{External media}}, in the same sense as "Further reading". So a link to a TPB download-link page about a particular movie wouldn't be particularly appropriate for the TPB article, unless it's primarily about TPB. There's the slight issue that TPB download-link pages are user-generated, so whoever uploaded the torrent should probably be either notable, or known reliable, the author/copyright holder, or all three.
  • If a page passes the above gauntlet, then it has to face the editors who think any link to TPB text puts Wikipedia in a bad light because they're pirates, and/or any link to TPB content-link pages puts Wikipedia in a bad light because so many links are to copyvio material
--Lexein (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

October 1 and 2 , 2012 outage

The site has been down for about 16 hours and is still offline at the moment. TPB says that it is a power outage, not a police raid.[23]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. That said, we tend, by consensus, not to report temporary outages, and other transient events, in agreement with WP:NOTNEWS. Discussion here of the sources and wording, if it becomes permanent, is very welcome. Discussion can avoid the unpleasantness of having one's good faith, but against-consensus, additions reverted with a kick in the ass and a dirty look.--Lexein (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This is turning into one of TPB's longer outages, although it should not be mentioned in the article at the moment. The site insists that it is nothing to do with the raid on PRQ.[24]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
(My remarks were intended solely for the adders, not you, ianmacm). So Torrentfreak now says it's up. --Lexein (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it's back. The Pirate Bay described itself as "minimally affected" by the PRQ raid, saying that "We have a relay there but not that much more." Nevertheless, some people found it to be an interesting coincidence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

TPB and commercial status

The ruling by the Swedish Supreme Court in February 2012 rejected an earlier claim by TPB, and upheld the claim by Judge Tomas Norstrom that the site has a commercial element.[25][26]. This is a legal ruling which the site denies.[27]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. That was the reason I originally added the news of the court decision as a ref in the infobox. Still, mention might be made in the article body of TPB claim(s) of being non-commercial, esp. if reported in RS. --Lexein (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
The majority of convicts deny overall guilt and aspects of the crime. Courts are Finders of Fact. The court declared the site commercial and the findings were upheld to the top court. Whether or not an organization is “commercial” is defined by and decided by the State. It is a legal term and impacts the sentence. The State says they are commercial. Ergo, they are commercial; and the fact that they still claim that they are not and that they broke no laws is irrelevant in a standardized infobox. Are there other Wiki summaries that mention the convicts’ protestations of innocence in the infobox? With respect, I don’t see the purpose of ambiguity or weasel words. The simple answer to the question “Are they commercial” is yes.173.56.43.127 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that a Swedish court ruled that TPB has a commercial element in its operations. A similar court case led to access to Newzbin being blocked in the UK. TPB denies that it has a commercial element, although its decision to revoke its .org (nonprofit) status in February 2012 has been seen as a reaction to the Swedish Supreme Court ruling.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Then why does the info box say According to TPB No, but the trial says yes? Should we alter all info boxes relating to criminals? Jeffrey Dahmer, Guilty: According to Dahmer, No, but the trial said yes. Of course the convicted criminals say they are innocent. If you wish, put that in the text. The current phrasing in the info box suggests that the trial is in error. You are using “weasel words.” It IS a commercial organization. Period. There is no cause to suggest anything other than the final ruling of the State represented by its Supreme Court.173.56.43.127 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it. Only one state goes in the infobox. Two court rulings trump what the defendant says. Discussion of disputed claims goes in the prose, probably near where advertising is mentioned. It would be best if a single very reliable source addressing both claims (commercial and non-commercial) could be found. IMHO, and IANAL, the site was noncommercial until they put up ads and sold merch, then it was commercial, solely because they never properly filed for non-commercial, charitable, or non-profit status. Why would they? They're pirates! (couldn't resist). --Lexein (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
TPB denies making a large profit [28] although there is little doubt that a substantial chunk of its revenue comes from selling pay per click advertising and merchandise. The "Funding" section looks at this in more detail, so the infobox is not the best place for a large amount of information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The infobox box looks to be unsuited to summarize the commercial status. We do not have the infobox of convicts like Rubin Carter saying "guilty = Yes". If we take a look at Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:NPOV with the WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, ignoring one side of reliable sourced claims is wrong. It does not matter if the information is in a info-box. Info-boxes are not excepted from NPOV. The info-box is there to help the reader, not to mislead or hide information. Belorn (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm W ell,attempting to leave it blank has never stuck. A quick scan up this page, please, for prior discussion about the commercial parameter. The predating TPB claim is superceded by two court decisions. Good luck. --Lexein (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess its time then to hit the books/news sites/research publications and look what reliable sources has to say on the matter. WP:NPOV is an nonnegotiable policy and all editors and articles must follow it. If this statement about commercial status is seriously contested, it should not be presented as fact. It does not matter if there are court decisions, the policy is nonnegotiable. Wikipedia is not the place to publish contested opinion as facts.Belorn (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
It's a matter of definition. A commercial organization has profit as its objective. The Piratebay is allegedly nonprofit, and Wikipedia's own article on the subject says that they are "permitted to generate surplus revenues, they must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or plans". So far this has not been looked into in detail and the site's finaces have not been audited, so even if it came from a court of law, it is still merely hearsay. This is not even close to being as clear cut as, say, MegaUpload's case. 201.74.184.202 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The books WERE audited by a special master appointed by the court. The court ruled that they were commercial and the fines calculated accordingly. Frankly, it is absurd to declare the ruling of a court as “hearsay.”74.108.115.191 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


First off, found a source book that contradict the ruling (Record of the Communications Policy & Research Forum 2008 - ISBN 978-0-9804344-1-5 - p372). as mentioned earlier, neutrality of the article require that all major viewpoints represented in reliable sources are included. This should mean that either both are included in the infobox box, or neither. Both should also be included in the main body of the article. I also reread the current source that is used to support the claim that the site is being run as an commercial site. The source says: The ruling, which was harsher than many expected here, including the four who were convicted, stated that The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of "extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form,". This is borderline WP:OR as the source do not directly support that claim about the site itself, but rather states a claim about the conduct of the founders. Are there any reliable source that directly support the claim about the website as it currently is is commercial? I will keep looking around for sources, either that says commercial or non-commercial, and see if we can find some more quality in the verifiability of this. Last, I went through the history of the Reliable sources Noticeboard in regards to the question on how to treat court documents and court judgements. The consensus in the few times that issue has arrived has been that court judgments should be regarded as primary sources. Best practice is simply to avoid relying heavily on court decisions and instead use them to accompanying material from reliable sources. Thus, in a sense of WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable source and WP:NPOV all points to changing the current absolute claim towards a more descriptive text that explains the 4 different viewpoints (the book, the court, pirate bay's own published standpoint, the founders own standpoint). Belorn (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Commercial is a legal term defined by the State. The courts are the arbiters. A trial was held, a special master appointed, an audit performed, and the court ruled that the site was commercial. The defendants were convicted of commercial copyright violations and sentenced to prison. All appeals upheld the original ruling and appeals have been exhausted.
Seriously, this has gone on long enough. TPB and its fans claimed they were legal. When they were arrested, they said that haven’t been found guilty. When they were found guilty, they said the court was biased. When the court was found unbiased, they said it doesn’t count until the appeal. When they lost the appeal, they said it doesn’t count until the appeal to the Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against them, they say courts don’t count and are not good sources. Court after court has made the same ruling. In a civilized world, courts DO matter. And court rulings are obviously better sources than convicted criminals or anonymous sources hiding in unknown countries.74.108.115.191 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the argument that we should ignore Wikipedia policies of providing all major viewpoints, because, the state is the final decider and what it says is the truth and final truth? Maybe we should change change Wikipedia policy to say that we only provide neutral articles if and only if the government agree with what we say? Please, try to based any argument on something that doesn't mean ignoring the core principals of Wikipedia. Belorn (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Everything is disputed. No article enjoys 100% acceptance. And in particular, convicted criminals rarely agree with court rulings. The September 11 attacks article infobox states “Perpetrators: al-Qaeda.” It does NOT say, “Disputed, may have been a gov’t plot” despite the fact that a global poll showed that only 46% of those polled believe it was al-Q. No WP core principle is violated by failing to give equal credence to courts and convicts or anonymous sources. TPB famously lies. They have lied time and again about the location of their servers. They have lied time and again about their own involvement. When they were arrested, they said they would fight to the end to show TPB did nothing wrong. Then, one by one, they took the stand and denied that they had anything to do with the operation of TPB. The courts did not believe them and ruled according. There is nothing wrong with putting protestations of innocence in the article. But, the infobox should relate the official finding of fact.74.108.115.191 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy does address that issue, by calling 9/11 conspiracy theories Fringe theories. WP:FRINGE (please read it) instruct uss to not add claims to articles if their representation in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources are extremely rare. If you have, say 10 reliable sources that all show that all claims that The Pirate bay is commercial, that the one above secondary source and the one primary source of the site itself would indeed be viewed as fringe and should not get added to the article. So, do you have a multiple sources to show that the prominent view is that the site is commercial? Again, claiming that the state say's so is does not overrule the policy. The infobox main purpose is to provide an summery of the article, and thus must follow the same rule as the rest of the article. There is no "official" as by the government space on Wikipedia. If you want to claim that the infobox should only reflect what the government say's, please provide a Wikipedia policy that support that. Belorn (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Claims that 9/11 was a US or Israeli plot are hardly “extremely rare.” Polls state most people actually believe this. That does not mean it should be considered disputed.
Everyone has seen the clip that clearly shows the botched call in the Packers-Seahawks game. But, it was ruled a touchdown by the refs, and therefore it is a touchdown. It is not relevant that 95% of people dispute the touchdown. It is still a touchdown.
The sources that claim TPB is non-commercial consist of convicted criminals, anonymous sources, fans, and people trying to make a political point -- none of whom have audited the books. The courts audited the books and made an official ruling, upheld by other courts. The State of Sweden defined “commercial” and their finders of fact, the courts, found TPB commercial. Therefore, the site is commercial. People can argue this all they want. But, there has been a ruling by the final arbiters of fact in such matters. All appeals having been exhausted, there is no longer any dispute in the eyes of the State. And it is the ruling of the State that counts, since it is their definition and their sentencing guidelines that are used.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia do not measure prominence based on polls/opinion. It bases it on reliable sources. If a large portion of reliable sources would support the claims about a fringe theory, it no longer become fringe and then it get added to an article. Take the moon landing. It does not matter that 6-20% of the American population believe it to be an hoax. There aren't 20% reliable sources that support the claim. Maybe, just maybe, 0.1% of all reliable sources that mention the moon landing claims it to be an hoax, but that means its a fringe theory. Sources, non opinion is what matters. And sources, not the states opinion is what matters here. Sorry, you would have to provide some sources (as asked for above) if you want to prove that the non-commercial claim is an fringe theory. Belorn (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Whether or not an enterprise is commercial is defined by and adjudicated by the state. Each state has its own, exact definition of commercial. It is a matter of law and was ruled on by the state because it specifically affects the penalties and disposition of the case. The Swedish State ruled that TPB is commercial under Swedish law, and the ruling was affirmed at all levels of appeal. That means it is commercial. Just as a touchdown was made at the end of the STL game because the NFL refs ruled that a touchdown was made, and appeals were exhausted, even though everyone knows it was a bad call. The opinions of others are not relevant. What is relevant is the finding of the final arbiters in each case. You can argue that the NFL refs and the courts made bad decisions. But, you cannot argue that a touchdown was not made or TPB is not commercial, because the arbiters have made their rulings. Read the court findings. That is the reliable source.74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Have now created a whole section dedicated to this single question, with an long long long list of sources, and the section can still be improved! Having a single opinion in the infobox would now only be misleading, contradicting to the rest of the article, and go against the WP:NPOV policy. Before reaching for the revert button, do read through the sources. Remember, Wikipedia is not built on peoples personal believes, but rather is built on sources! Read them! Belorn (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

All the sources lead to the same originating source; an unreliable, self-serving source as their claims were found to be false by the courts in their conviction. Please stop edit-warring. Discussion has not ended in any resolution to change text that was settled on long ago.74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I’m trying to be nice. But this is starting to sound like denial. The courts ruled that TPB is an illegal, commercial organization. The decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Sweden. This is not “merely hearsay.” It is not “people’s personal beliefs.” It is the official ruling of the State of Sweden upon which four people were sentenced to prison.74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Disregarding and instant reverting around 20 new sources and new section just because they dont agree with your opinion is very uncivil. By disregarding all the reliable sources, you are simply pushing for your own personal belief, and are acting disruptive to the process of writing an wikipedia article. By disregarding the fact that the source you re-add do not support the claim you are making, you are pushing false claims. In all, you are ignoring the core principals that every article on wikipedia is based on. Belorn (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, yours is the violation of WP:CIV as it was aimed at me instead of my edits. I am merely following WP rules and procedures to the best of my understanding. You did not have 20 new sources. You had multiple secondary sources reporting the same primary source, TPB. That’s one source. TPB’s claim is self-serving and was rejected by the courts giving reason to doubt its authenticity. See WP:SELFPUB. Your statement that sources “don’t agree with your position” is uncivil. It is not my position. It is the position of the final arbiters, the courts. It is not “my personal belief” as you state. It is the ruling of the court. I am not “re-adding” anything that I wrote. I am reverting to the text added by consensus by another editor when the subject was last discussed here, long ago. It is you that are making a change; and doing so without consensus. WP works on consensus. See WP:CON. Please try to realize that it is you that are trying to add your beliefs and you that are acting without consensus and you that are failing to understand what is a reliable source. Please reread these sections and assume good faith WP:FAITH and I’m sure that we can come to a civil consensus.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, I just read your statement on WP:3. It is a violation of WP:FAITH. Please be civil.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the multiple responses. You might also want to re-read the WP:3 rules.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, see WP:Verify. It does not matter if you believe that they are reporting based on what the site itself say's. Why should your belief override their reporting? Reverting and disregarding what secondary sources say is neither good faith or civil. Your actions are not civil or applying good faith, or you would have read the sources and argued based on the quality of the secondary reliable sources and not just discard them blankly. Belorn (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You are now accusing me of not reading your cites. Again you do not assume good faith. Please read WP:FAITH. I read the cites. They just report on what TPB, the convicted defendants in the case, said about themselves in their defense. These are not independent sources and they are not relevant to the question of whether TPB is or is not commercial in reality. And for the fifth time, this has NOTHING to do with what I believe. In fact, I DO believe that they correctly reported that TPB claims to be innocent of running an illegal, commercial site. But, TPB lost. The court said it is an illegal, commercial site. The ruling was made by the Supreme Court of Sweden, not me. As all appeals are exhausted, the question is closed and is no longer disputed. There exists a final resolution to the case. Please try to respond to what I post instead of repeating incorrect statements about me personally. This conversation will just go in circles as long as you fail to respond to what I actually post.74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you telling me that under the 20m (my fault, 1 whole hour) between I created the new section and you reverting it, you had time to: 1) see it, 2) read 15 new sources, including several books? I do assume that people do read faster than I, but that's a stretch even by my standards. Even so, they are independent sources, some published books by book publishers and universities. The are almost the definition of independent third-party sources. Belorn (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You are still doing it. You have not argued one single point that I have made. You just keep attacking the editor instead of the edits. Of course I did not read the entire books. I also gave up on the cites after seven because they were all the same. They all repeated claims made by TPB. They gave no additional info. That does not make them additional sources. The source is all the same -- a source that was found incorrect by the highest court in the land. Please, please, please, respond to what I have posted instead of making accusations.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
First, I think it is an error to post to WP:NPOVN when there is a post to WP:3O pending. You seem to be in a great hurry.:) This is a volunteer organization and there is hardly a time-sensitive nature to the question. Having said that, let me try to resolve this. I am not the editor that added the commercial item to the infobox. I assume it was added before the trial by someone intending to show that it was not commercial. Not a bad idea as commerciality was, indeed, a focus of the trial as the penalties and disposition of the case were partially based on the question of commerciality. Commerciality is a legal status defined by the state. The trials are over. The result was a finding that they are commercial. Hence, the change to the infobox from No to Yes. Frankly, it should have said Disputed before the trial. But, since all appeals have been exhausted, and there are no remaining legal paths of dispute, and it is a legal term, it is no longer disputed. Now, if you wish to argue that point, I think you have two ways. One, you can find reliable sources that the Supreme Court of Sweden did not make this ruling. Two, you can find resources that the Supreme Court of Sweden cannot make such a ruling. I really do not see another argument. In any case, I think that you need to argue the point that I keep making instead of claiming that I have some sort of devious agendum. Please make an effort to resolve this instead of filing complaints.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
My first comment above in the discussion was that this did not follow NPOV guidlines. I posted at WP:3O to get a third-party comment, but realized today after some nice sleep that WP:NPOVN is a more suitable place, thus the post there. There is no reason why one should not use the noticeboard most suited for the complain being made, even if one process has already started elsewhere. There is also some concern regards to the original research being made by translating "the founders was found have done" to "the site was found to be", but I am waiting with NPOV and 3O before addressing that concern. Second, my argument above (this is a bit meta, as it is discussing the discussion) but my post has addressed your claim, in where the argued point was that the third-party reliable sources should be discarded because they dont act independent. They do act independent, because ...(see the argued points above which has not been meet with any counter arguments). The reason why the Government do not override Wikipedia two base principals WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV has also been addressed earlier, which also has received no counter-arguments. Since wikipedia policies are being ignored, and arguments are not being meet with counter-arguments, just uncivility and reiteration of the arguments that goverment judgment makes what anyone else say unimportant no matter who says it, there is not much else to do beyond getting third-party comments and create a broader discussion. Belorn (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have discussed every point you have made and have violated zero WP policies. You still fail to say one word about my argument. Simply accusations. If you would just discuss, maybe we could resolve. It is your wish to change text that was created by consensus long ago. You have failed to create any new consensus to counter the previous consensus. So, the previous consensus stands. You should be attempting to come to some consensus on this page instead of reaching out to multiple other pages with false accusations of some sort of “agenda” on my part. Note that, in accordance with WP rules, I have not accused you of any agenda. Frankly, I can’t even imagine what my agendum might be.:) 74.108.115.191 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
As you keep saying we should, but do not do yourself, lets try then to avoid talking about the editor and focus on the content. For example, lets present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on this subject and let the reader form their own opinion if this site is commercial or not, as is so said by the WP:NPOV policy. Reliable sources as defined by WP:Verifiability and WP:RS state that an reliable source is a third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Books for example is in this area. University published book particularly is a good reliable source. When reliable sources disagree (as in this case), their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight. Again, this is to give the reader the choice to determent his or her own opinion of what is true and what is false. If there were anywhere in either of the policies anything that would indicate those sources should not qualify as an reliable source, any such section or part of the policy would be interesting to see here in the discussion. However, in the lack of any such support by the policy for the claim that those sources should not be regarded as reliable source, we must regard them as reliable source. Belorn (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I rewrote the 3O request per the instructions there. --Lexein (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
A good rewrite, but did not include the complete scope of the discussion. I added a mentioning of the new section being disputed, and gave a diff. Belorn (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Removed the 3O since more than 1 editor is now involved in the discussion. If the discussion does not find an solution, a WP:DRN can be opened.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Belorn (talk • contribs) 16:47, 7 October 2012

Arbitrary break

The Swedish Supreme Court ruling was against the site's founders, not the website itself. This seems to be why there is a dispute over the infobox wording. It could be argued that since some of the founders are no longer actively involved with the site, it is misleading to use the Supreme Court ruling in the infobox. The problem is that there is not much reliable sourcing on how TPB obtains its funding, and the site plays its cards close to its chest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed so that the court ruling was against the sites founders behavior during the time period of 2003-2006, and to extrapolate that to the info box is thus misleading unverifiable. Thats why the suggested change would not have any authoritive decision in the wikipedia voice, but would rather present everyones viewpoint and let the users form its own opinion. This is being currently and actively hindered however. Belorn (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there isn’t even a reliable source that the founders do not continue to own TPB. Only their claims, which have proved wrong time and again. In fact, in the trial, all the defendants claimed under oath to have no hand in the operation. Peter Sunde continues to speak for them, even while claiming he has nothing to do with them. The court obviously didn’t believe them.
But, let us get to the nub. Clearly, you do not sentence a site to prison; you sentence those responsible. So obviously they sentenced people. But, it was the site they created that was illegal as stated in the first paragraph of the article: “ Pirate Bay is ‘one of the world's largest facilitators of illegal downloading.’” The appeals court found that "The Pirate Bay has facilitated illegal file sharing in a way that results in criminal liability for those who run the service"[1]. The site is illegal -- the operators are prosecuted. The site looks the same, has the same functionality, the same illegal purpose, and has the same type of advertising. What reliable source states that the site operates or is funded differently and has become non-commercial? What is it that has changed the status? Is there evidence that they have they applied for non-profit status?
I thank you for offering an actual response.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The commercial status was no because of the site, but the activities around it. This is why you won't find a source stating that the website itself was commercial, because its not in the court judgment or in the trial documents. What was found to be commercial activity was the founder behavior, by the creation of a for-profit company, the creation of an tv box, and so on. again, what can be used here is what is found in reliable sources, not the speculations by the editors of the article. Belorn (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The recent TPB outage is an example of this. TPB says that it is no longer hosted at PRQ, but it is wary of saying how it is hosted. Some of the site's founders say that they are no longer involved in the day to day running of the site. This leads to the question of who is running the site. Who is on the bridge of the pirate ship, me hearties?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It also shows the absurdity of taking TPB’s word for anything. They loudly claim that they are no longer hosted at PRQ. In fact, at various times, they have made claims about being hosted or planning to be hosted at an island they would buy, a country they would buy, an offshore oil platform, a satellite, inside the Swedish Parliament, and drones flying overhead; as well as numerous countries. Yet, when PRQ goes down, TPB goes down. When PRQ recovers, TPB recovers. They call this coincidence. It has become comical. There is no evidence that TPB has ever changed ownership or left Sweden.74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The suggested edit does not make a authoritative claim that they dont run it, or that they do, as either would require a reliable source to support that fact. Is there a source that claim that they are at this date running the site, and is doing so commercially? The court judgment's scope is about the duration between 2003-2006 and is about a time before most if not all the other reliable sources that address the non-profit status of the site. Belorn (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
There was a dispute. The prosecution claimed commercial, the defendants claimed non-profit. The court made a ruling settling the dispute. Sources prior to the ruling merely repeated the claim of TPB. I have seen no reliable source that anything has changed since the ruling. There are lots of piracy fan sites that ignore the ruling and just repeat whatever TPB says.74.108.115.191 (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you have not read the sources provided in the new section (though you say you did read them?). The book is made months after the court judgment, independentsentinel source is about 2012, and so it the daily tech. I think the DailyTech would object being called a piracy fan site. Citation needed for that libel assault. Belorn (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The court ruled that the site was commercial on 17 April 2009. The DailyTech article predated this by eleven months.
I can find nothing in the The independentsentinel article providing the commercial status of TPB. There is a nickname vaguely suggesting non-commerciality by unnamed “media.”
The book is a Record of the Communications Policy & Research Forum 2008, predating the ruling of the court. The publish date is not relevant. What is relevant is the date of the record.
It’s not relevant, but the first two cites have no place in an encyclopedia even if they were on point. They are conspiracy-laden articles.
Once again, I have read the sources. Your claims to the contrary are repeated violations of WP:FAITH. And please stop making false accusations against me. I have libeled no one. This is a serious violation of WP:CIV.74.108.115.191 (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The court judgement that, was announced 2009 was in regard to the period of 2003-2006 in regards to the pirate bay founders activities. Ie, those sources that published 2008, did so far after the period that the court deliberated and made a judgement about. Also, is there any sources that support the claim that those articles are conspiracy-laden or is that just personal opinion? Last, calling a site company like the DailyTech a "pirate fan site" is libel. I would advice to not throw comments like those around as lightly as done above. Belorn (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Good grief. Prior to the ruling, everyone was taking the word of TPB. How would they know what the ruling would say before it was published? The ruling was made in 2009.
I will ignore yet another personal attack by you.74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Here are three respected sources: ABC News, Huffingtonpost,and Law.com (with Associated Press). They report: “Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was ‘commercially driven’ when it made the ruling.”[2][3][4]74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
See the highlighted commercially driven. Ie, the jude found the founders to be running the site during the timeperiod between 2003 and 2006 commercially. Secondally, those sources only paraphrase what Judge Tomas Norstrom said. Thus, they are only good for an statement that state: "Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was ‘commercially driven’ when it made the ruling.”". It can not be used to state that "the pirate bay is commercial". Second, each 3 of those sources has copied large portion of the text from a single source, which means it only count as a single sources, not 3. Preferable, one would identify which/where the original source is. The source do also not makes any independent analyzes. This goes same for the reliable sources I presented before who paraphrased the pirate bay on who is running the site today. those same reliable sources (The guardian being one, posted 2012), can not be used to authoritative state who is running the site, but they can be used to support the statement that: "The pirate bay states that the site is run by an organisation rather than individuals, though as a non-profit. The organisation is registered in the Seychelles". Basically, if one should allow one form of paraphrasing, both should be included. ignoring one sources paraphrasing while accepting an other source same paraphrasing would be inconsistent, and pov pushing. But I am happy to see some more sources. It would be an excellent addition to the suggested new section, and add to the balance of it. Belorn (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source that support the claim that the earlier sources was taking the word of TPB? Verify that claim with a source. Belorn (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The Christian Science Monitor reports that the judge in the case stated “The Pirate Bay (TPB) founders were guilty of ‘extensive infringement of copyright law … in a commercial and organized form.’” ABC News reports “Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was ‘commercially driven’ when it made the ruling.” We have the ruling and the comments on the ruling by the presiding judge. This makes it crystal clear that the judge ruled the site was commercial. The secondary sources are two excellent sources. The primary source is the chairman of the Stockholm district court that presided over the trial finding them guilty. The findings were upheld on two appeals and appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. You can’t get much better a source than this.
We know that TPB claimed to be non-commercial. There was a trial and they lost. The state defines commercial, and ruled that they are commercial. Their claim was rejected by the state. Zero resources have been cited that TPB has changed to non-profit since the trial. It has the same type of ads as always. NONE of this fails NPOV. The court ruled. Appeals were exhausted. The dispute is over. Now, if TPB applies for non-profit status and the state accepts the application, then they will be considered non-profit. Until then, the state considers them commercial, and it is the state that makes that determination. Show me where the State of Sweden has changed the designation.74.108.115.191 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
please provide a reference from the wikipedia policy that require that the state of Sweden must first agree to representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources in an Wikipedia article. Belorn (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. The State of Sweden defines and adjudicates commerciality. They did so under their own rules. WP has no right to tell the State of Sweden how to run its courts. Do you have a ref that claims that the Swedish Courts did NOT rule in this manner or that they have changed their ruling? Because, they have the final say under Swedish law. WP cannot substitute its opinion for the rulings of Swedish courts.
The prose can, and does, state that TPB still protests innocence. But, the ruling stands and is no longer under any legal dispute.74.108.115.191 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy demands that we represent representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. You want to claim that it should not be done so, because the swedish court has the final word if something is commercial or not. I ask thus that you provide support from the policy that the Swedish court has the final word on an Wikipedia article. Last, just for the record, the case is still under legal disputed as the case has been appealed to the EU court. The case is final in Sweden, but it is under legal dispute. [5]Belorn (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Please stop saying that I said things I never said. Again, your cites are all either prior to the court ruling or have anonymous primary sources. Such “sources” certainly do not merit inclusion in the infobox, if anywhere. Such rulings by the EU court do NOT override a member country’s courts. The case is NOT under dispute in Sweden, and Sweden decides what is and is not commercial.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Most sources are not made prior to the ruling, or is from an anonymous source. That is false as shown several times in this discussion. Second, if The EU court would make a ruling, Sweden would have to follow its decision as its mandated so by Swedens own law. Last, Swedish courts only decides only it consider as commercial. Its power stop at the door to the court room. This encyclopedia is international, and does not require the swedish court to decide what can or can not be added to it. Again, you have not provided any references from the policy that would claim that the swedish court has that power over wikipedia. Belorn (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
This is simply not true. The refs that TPB is not commercial are anonymous or predate the ruling. I responded to each and every ref providing the dates. The fact that a book is published in 2012 does not mean its material is from 2012 when it specifically states in the book it is from 2008. The ruling was made in 2009 and no one could have known the ruling prior to its announcement. And again, I have no idea what you are talking about in the latter half of your edit. Sweden has no power over WP. That’s an absurd distraction. You went to the NPOV board and they said there were no NPOV issues. You went to the RS board, and they said the quotes that TPB is commercial have no RS issues, do indeed say TPB is commercial and the quotes from TPB “aren't reliable sources.” This is starting to look like forum-shopping.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
If the RSN board finds a consensus around the statement that "the pirate is commercial" is verifiable, and the two other statements would not be verifiable, then I will accept that. Belorn (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As per the discussion at WP:NPOVN, I created a question at the WP:RSN about the scope and usages of the sources mentioned here, and the CMS source used currently in the article. The quality of the sources in question is important, and could help steer the discussion to a solution. If possible, try to avoid bleeding the general discussion into the noticeboard, and only have the question about the quality of the sources there. Belorn (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Court decision

We already have a quote from Thomas Nordström, chairman of the Stockholm district court, summarising the ruling (i.e. copyright infringement in a commercial form). Here are two additional sources directly quoting Judge Tomas Norström:

Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling.[29]

"The crime has been committed in a commercial and organized form," Judge Tomas Norström said in a Web broadcast from a press conference in Stockholm.[30]

Certainly there should be no doubt the court considered TPB a commercial operation. Andrew Orlowski has reported extensively on the TPB trial, notably the lack of English language courtroom reporters,[31] and Carl Lundström, whom he desribed as "the most visible of the Pirate Bay four [overseeing] the internet sites' business operations, helping to funnel revenue overseas to avoid paying corporation tax".[32] Bert Karlsson has also uncovered various aspects of Carl Lundström's bussiness involvement.[33] TPB spokesman Tobias Andersson looked visibly unsettled when faced by Karlsson. — ThePowerofX 21:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute in regards to what the court consider. I would welcome with open arms if the article said exactly as you described it. Its the authoritative, in wiki-voice, absolute claim that the site is commercial and that there is no other significant views that have been published by reliable sources which is in dispute. My suggestion is to have a sub-section to the founding section that includes all the significant views that has been published by reliable sources on subject of the commercial nature of the site. This would solve all issues I have with the article, and allow the reader to form their own opinion. Even if we just added the words "according to the court judgment" in the info box, that would also solve most of the issue address earlier. Belorn (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Findings of the court

Quoting from page 53 of Tomas Norström's judgment:

Financing

The written evidence, in the form of invoices and information on payment transfers, submitted by the District Prosecutor, shows that a total of at least SEK 1,200,000 has been paid to the defendants for advertising space on The Pirate Bay’s website. The utilization of the copyright-protected performances and works must therefore, in the opinion of the District Court, be regarded has having taken place within the framework of a commercial purpose.[34]

It was indeed a finding of fact that TBP operated commercially. Judge Norström also set out how Peter Sunde intended to create a media company (Random Media) to develop and expand operations, complete with shareholders (including Carl Lundström) who expected to receive a share of the profits.

Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi has, according to his own information, also suggested measures which, in his opinion, ought to be taken to make The Pirate Bay website even more popular and profitable. He also signed the agreement aimed at setting up the company, Random Media, the principal task of which would have been to operate and develop The Pirate Bay’s operations. [...] Carl Lundström has confirmed that he, initially, was interested in becoming a shareholder in companies associated with The Pirate Bay... According to Carl Lundström, he decided to pull out of the plans for a shareholding in The Pirate Bay when, after discussions with legal representatives, he became aware that the operation was illegal. Since then, he has, however, been in contact with the authorities and lawyers in Russia and Argentina, among others, to investigate whether it would be possible to relocate the operation there. During these contacts, he has, according to the e-mail correspondence presented by the District Prosecutor, claimed to represent The Pirate Bay.

— ThePowerofX 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wp:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". The document cited is primary. ThePowerofX's assertion that these excerpts demonstrate 'findings of the court' regarding the commercial nature of TPB is contrary to policy. And incidentally, note also that the document carries a disclaimer: "Please note this translation was commissioned by IFPI and it has not been endorsed by the Stockholm District Court". Using an IFPI document in this way is less than ideal, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
While waiting to see if the consensus at RSN will stay on the proposed conclusion by Lexein, I have not much more to say. So long context of who, what and when is included, I have no issues with the article. Ie, it should say who (the court), said what (they found the site operating commercial) when (the 2009 court decision). Including that context is hopefully a compromise everyone could agree with? Belorn (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on IP editor's insistence on breaking indent flow, and not summarizing what they are agreeing with (0&1 verified, 2 not verified) or (0 verified, 1&2 not verified), it continues to be impossible to tell what consensus is. Thanks, folks. --Lexein (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I did not insist on anything. I agreed with the proposed conclusion. (0 verified, 1&2 not verified). In a court of law, the judge trumps the defendants. The judge is qouted by reliable sources stating that the site is commercial. Commerciality is a factor in the law, as pointed out by the Ministry of Justice. Commerciality means that an attempt is made at making a profit. I have tried to explain this to Grump, but he has repeatedly told me to Go away.74.108.115.191 (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
We aren't interested in your WP:OR. Go away... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
1. Quoting a judge is not WP:OR. 2. This is the third time that Grump has ordered me to go away. This is a gross violation of WP:CIV and he apparently will continue this boorish behavior. It has worked. I have no interest in being the subject of cyber-bullying. If WP allows repeated bullying, I am outta here. My respect to those that have engaged in civil discussion. Good bye.74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The goal should be to find a WP:Compromise, while still adhering to Wikipedia's principles. The suggested compromise to add context (adding who said what when) to the statements looks to me as the way to go as it add accuracy, while still retaining the statements suggested by ThePowerofX. I personally would want more, including what reliable sources have said before the court judgement, and what the site itself says now. but I realize that in the face of 5-6 other editors, each with different wills and suggestions, compromises is the way to go. If we can't find a suitable solution, there is always WP:DRN, WP:Mediation or last WP:arbitration, but an suitable compromises should be favored goal first. Belorn (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note

I have removed the disputed statement regarding commercial status from the infobox. It is entirely inappropriate to include material in an infobox that isn't an uncontroversial assertion of fact. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and we don't decide which side of a controversy is 'the truth'. This is a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia policy, and if necessary I will raise the matter elsewhere to see that policy is adhered to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur on all points. --Lexein (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
WP is not a court of law. The Swedish court systems are. The judge stated that the site is commercial and that this fact was factored into the judgement. No dispute has been shown after the date of the judgement, accept for the self-serving statements of the defendants that has been called non-reliable on the RS board. If WP is not a court of law; shouldn't WP accept judgments of actual courts of law?74.108.115.191 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
No matter how many times you repeat this false assertion, it doesn't become true. The Swedish court made no official 'judgement' regarding the commercial status of TPB. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The Stockholm district court answered precisely this question.

The indictment for complicity also includes other allegations which the District Court must examine: whether the majority of the films made available for filesharing through The Pirate Bay contain works and performances protected by copyright, and whether, and to what extent, it is a question of commercial use of the said works and performances. pg. 37

And indexed under 'Findings of the court' it continues...

The written evidence, in the form of invoices and information on payment transfers, submitted by the District Prosecutor, shows that a total of at least SEK 1,200,000 has been paid to the defendants for advertising space on The Pirate Bay’s website. The utilization of the copyright-protected performances and works must therefore, in the opinion of the District Court, be regarded has having taken place within the framework of a commercial purpose.pg. 53

Hence the judges public remarks regarding the commercial nature of The Pirate Bay. — ThePowerofX 17:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
'Public remarks' are not a legal ruling. No legal ruling has been made concerning the commercial status of TPB. Repeating the same false statements won't make them true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Why do you persist with this red herring? I explicitly said 'ruling' is the wrong term. (diff) It was in fact a 'Finding of the court' (a judgement). So your comment above is plainly false. — ThePowerofX 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:OR based on a questionable primary source - you've read the disclaimer. That document is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
We have reliable sources that convey the opinion of the court (AP, CSM and c|net) therefore I do not propose we use the original court document as a source. I'm producing these excerpts to correct the large number of incorrect statements you have made. — ThePowerofX 20:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
So long the context is preserved, they (but not the IFPI documents!) should be useable. The above ifpi document has as much reliability as one of the founders blogs would have. They are not reliable to translate anything, least the actually court document in which they were rewarded millions at. I would not bring a random blog post of Peter Sunde and say "look this prove things!". lest just slowly back away from those documents and go back to reliable sources and what they have to say. Nothing good can come from having a discussion which is based on documents produced by one of the involved parties. Since the ap/csm/cnet document made citations, to preserve the context, we should do citation ourself (or we are likely to end up doing interpretations our self, which by OR we simply should not do). we should thus include who said what and when and then a suitable citation from one of the sources. Reading the official document (In Swedish), I found that my comments about the time frame of the founders activities the court reviewed was not 2003-2006. it was from mid 2005 to 31 maj 2006. Any period before or after was not the subject of consideration of the court. Even the court document themselves find it important enough to add in the introduction in very clear and direct way. Early 1s google search gave me this pdf. if its not enough, i should be able to find more (in worst case, I am rather sure Swedish newspapers printed it). Belorn (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Found Ny Teknik and a dn.se article, both are swedish newspapers, both describing in their own words the same thing. The trial was about activities that happened between the 1st july 2005 - 31 maj 2006. The dn.se article is particular intressteing as it is not written in the article author name, but rather stated as fact in the voice of the news paper (in the right column called "The Pirate Bay - Bakgrund"). Should be worth adding both here and to the trial article. Belorn (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of commercial

I think several people in this discussion are confused about what commercial means in the court ruling. In international copyright law, commercial copyright infringement is a specific concept, and does not consider whether the individual, organization, or company makes a profit. Contrasting this usage of commercial with non-profit is simply wrong. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  10:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Since all of this is too complicated for a simple yes/no answer in the infobox, it should not be added there. This now seems to be the consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree. However, there never was an official court ruling on the commercial nature of The Pirate Bay anyway. The trial wasn't held to determine the commercial nature of The Pirate Bay. The trial was held to determine whether the defendants had broken Swedish copyright law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with all above. Context as was discussed earlier is an powerful thing to put definition into words. Since this is an international Wikipedia, context becomes even more important when Swedish legal terms get translated into English. Exact and clear context, and the article quality goes up. Belorn (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
One of the things that makes understanding law difficult is that words often don't mean what you expect. For example, in many Massachusetts laws, “owner” does not actually mean the person who holds the deed to the property (if it's a rental property)! —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  11:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is why we don't allow WP:OR to determine the content of articles based on our own interpretations of legal cases. Though come to think of it, we don't allow WP:OR anywhere else, either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
In this context, adding the word "judge said: on so and so the court found that ..." and ".. where the legal definition of commercial is based on Swedish law article §X:Y" should solve the issue of defining commercial copyright infringement. The date of the statement would also help in giving things context. I would also prefer if it included the time frame the court based their judgement on (the founders activities of the years 2003-2006), but as I am trying to think in a open mindset to compromises, I am not pushing for it beyond requesting it in a polite tone :). Belorn (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You are straying well into synthesis territory there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, AndyTheGrump, please propose text. At some point, arguing against has to stop, and progress forward has to be suggested, otherwise it's just whack-a-mole. I think literally quoting the sources is safest, without paraphrasing or any attempt at interpretation, and goes far to avoid synth. --Lexein (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really overly keen on getting involved further with detailed disputes concerning what goes into the body of the article text - as long as it makes clear that there are differing opinions regarding the commercial status of TPB, and doesn't contravene policy by resorting to WP:OR based on improper sources, that is fine by me. My sole concern here has been to ensure that the infobox wasn't misused by making assertions to the effect that one opinion or another was 'fact', based on fictitious 'court rulings' or 'judgements'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
What reliable sources say there is no commercial element to The Pirate Bay? The simple fact is, commodities were offered for sale (mugs, t-shirts, advertising space). You say there 'are differing opinions regarding the commercial status of TPB'. Please produce sources that establish there is a difference of opinion. — ThePowerofX 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the slightest bit interested in your vacuous blather. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This happens to be important. The only references I have seen provided say the site is non-profit and that all revenue is set aside for upgrades and maintenance. However, TPB is not designated as not-for-profit and there is no transparency. Reliable sources repeat the self-proclaimed non-profit status, so they must be taken into account, but I have yet to see a single source that disputes the commercial nature of this website. It's possible I missed them. Saying something is disputed alone is not enough; it has to be disputed by producing reliable sources. Please stop abusing editors and kindly do so. — ThePowerofX 21:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Given the different levels of emotional investments that exist in this discussion, Lexein looks to be the most neutral and Impartial toned contributor here. His idea of using inline citation looks to be a clear safe choice to move forward with (and, being a compromise that moves towards accuracy, maybe something we can all live with). I would suggest that we start with that and see if that will end the dispute. If different commentators here want to continue, we can keep doing that afterward. If such edit end up being rejected, one can always go to DRN and have a administrator takes a definitive decision. I believe the discussion has raged on long enough that we all should try that lite extra to find a solution everyone can live with. Belorn (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
This is very odd. We have reliable sources that report the opinion of the Swedish court saying TPB is commercial in nature, but nobody has produced a single RS supporting the opposite view (only sources saying profits go back into the website, which is not the same thing). And now I press people to provide solid references, I am being given the move on, nothing to see here treatment. — ThePowerofX 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There are sources prior to the ruling talking about non-profit status, and there are sources after the ruling doing citations only. There is also primary sources, on both sides which do contradict each other. Given that we cant do any interpretation our self (any such interpretation need to be done by reliable sources), we are left with was we got; Citations which is reliable verifiable or primary sources. If we present the information from the citation as meer facts with no context, then it is interpretation. What they might mean or imply are thus off limits until reliable sources has made those interpretations. To exemplify, if New York times would publish the books of Shakespeare, our articles on Denmark history should not be changed with "facts" drawn from Hamlet. It does not matter if Hamlet said: "The serpent that did sting thy father's life Now wears his crown". Even if its published by a reliable source. We do not drag statements out of context and place it as an fact. That would clearly be original research. However, if we include who said it, where and when, (informs the users that its from the book Hamlet written by Shakespeare), it does allow us to use the citation, within the right context, in places like the Hamlet article. Context matter for verifiability as much as the sources own reliability.
ThePowerofX, would you accept if Lexein make an bold attempt to write an solution to the dispute, or would you prefer it goes directly to WP:DRN? Further dragging of the discussion is unlikely to give a swing in the consensus, or finding of new sources. It is time to start looking for a solution that can end the dispute. A edit by a impartial editor can do that, or a full blown process of DRN. I vote the impartial editor, but I will go down road of the DRN if needed be. Belorn (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The official verdict announcement can be found on the Swedish Courts website at Conviction in the so-called Pirate Bay case. It is in Swedish, but you can hit Translate using Chrome. "Straffet (påföljden) har bestämts med hänsyn till att de åtalades medhjälp inneburit ett omfattande tillgängliggörande av andras rättigheter och med hänsyn tagen att verksamheten bedrivits kommersiellt och i en organiserad form." translates to "The punishment (sentence) has been determined taking into account that the accused complicity involved extensive available of the rights of others, and taking into account that the business conducted commercially and in an organized form." using Google translate. The verdict announcement also states several times that it is The Pirate Bay Website that is at the heart of the violations. The translation might be considered WP:OR, but WP rules must have some acceptable method of translating such a small amount of text if the IFPI commissioned translation is not accepted. (Although, it has been three years and I cannot find any RS criticizing the widely circulated IFPI translation.) It is the official judgement of the Swedish Courts that The Pirate Bay business was conducted commercially, and no source has been provided that this has changed. The source is the website of the Sveriges Domstoler (Swedish Courts). I cannot imagine a better source. All it may require is verification of the translation.
Grump will now tell me for the fourth time that quotes are original research, and to go away and will call ThePowerofX a troll if he responds.74.108.115.191 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward

We seem all to agree that attribution is important. Operators of The Pirate Bay have said that revenue is invested back into running the website. We already have a quote in the article to convey this point of view. The IFPI, the police and the prosecution dispute this, pointing to a TPB account in the British Virgin Islands used for tax evasion, and e-mails where members of TPB are recorded arranging for sums to be transferred to their personal accounts. Here are some quotes of relevance:

The Pirate Bay’s owners claim they spend all the revenue from advertising on legal and web hosting costs, but Ms Wadsted does not believe this is the case and her legal team estimates that the Pirate Bay accumulate 1,2 million SEK (£100,000) per year in advertising revenue. “We have found out that they have set up a company on the British Virgin Islands, but we are not able to find out how much are in these accounts,” Ms Wadsted said.


Comments of Monique Wadsted, lawyer representing Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, MGM and Columbia, February 2009.[35]

There are other illegal operations in the world that operate along similar lines to The Pirate Bay, generating money from advertising revenue while making music, films and games available without permission or payment to rights holders. It can be a lucrative model – The Pirate Bay’s operators set up a shell company in the British Virgin Islands and a bank account in Guernsey to process the money they made – which is why legal penalties against such criminal enterprises need to be serious.


Interview with John Kennedy, chairman of the IFPI, May 2009.[36]

However, the court case may have dented the Pirate Bay's image, with prosecutors releasing e-mails detailing its offshore bank accounts in the British Virgin Islands and acceptance of advertising from gambling sites and adult chat rooms.


Billboard magazine, February 2009.

The court saw The Pirate Bay as a commercial service geared to making profits. “The defendants themselves admitted that at least part of the costs were covered by advertising revenues.” The court discovered emails and receipts for transfers and payments to the defendants. Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi, who assured the court that he was ignorant of any advertising income, had even set up a company to look after the advertising-related payments. [...] In the raid in 2006 the police confiscated email correspondence in which the main executives were pondering how the money should be divided and kept. They also found mail in the pirates’ computers in which the site’s Israeli advertisement sales agent Oded Daniel reported sales income figures of over USD 72,000 and USD 85,000 for February and March 2006, respectively. He is also in charge of the advertisement sales for certain large torrent-based porn sites. Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, who was also convicted at the trial, had, according to a preserved email of January 2006, asked Daniel to send him “about USD 3,000 out of my share of The Pirate Bay’s profits”, but “tax-free” and not via the Western Union money-transfer service. In his reply, David promised the funds would be paid into Svartholm Warg’s account in the British Virgin Islands. Only fragmentary information and estimates exist concerning The Pirate Bay advertising sales revenue, as the money moves between foreign accounts in tax havens.


Teosto article, Finnish performance rights organization, August 2010.[37]

Not all of these sources are useful, but absent the official court document (original or IFPI commissioned translation) they help explain why The Pirate Bay was found to be operating in a commercial manner. Perhaps we can move on to some actual text. — ThePowerofX 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving on would be indeed useful. We could be here a long time discussing the court documents as there are some real gold nuggets in it with some really obscure legal references in them. I have read both court documents (not that hard tbh, if somewhat dry reading), but I am still looking to find a single report by law professors that has analyzed the case. So lets just move towards how to actually add something to the article. I suggest we have start with adding a short paragraph in the "Legal issues" section, or Alternative, one could add one in the "Founding" section. We include one of the cites talked about earlier, like the one posted by cnet or the huffingtonpost source, and have the words "Judge Tomas Norström said" either before or after. If the context doesnt already include it (depend where we put this thing), it might need to include a mentioning that this is from the first trial by the district court (tingsrätt) of Stockholm. Depending again on context, one might want to add what time frame the court made this decision on. What are you own concrete idea on how to practicually add all this information to the article? Belorn (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/pirate_bay_appeal_verdict/
  2. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=7368379&page=1
  3. ^ http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleFriendlyIntl.jsp?id=1202429986380
  4. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/pirate-bay-4-convicted-in_n_188152.html
  5. ^ http://gigaom.com/2012/06/20/the-pirate-bay-co-founders-file-appeal-with-eu-court/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pirate_Bay/Archive_4&oldid=791785600"