BT ordered to block pirate links

kylew said:
People need to stop equating piracy to lost sales. A pirate doesn't automatically become a buyer if their pirating methods are stopped, you have no idea if they will buy or just go without.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the people I know who download this stuff only do so because it is free. If it wasn't they wouldn't/couldn't afford it and just wouldn't see most of it. Personally I think we need to feed cash back into the system if we want new films etc. They could have course price their stuff more reasonably ;)
 
If there was a legal way of getting media cheaply, everyone would do it. (I'm talking £1 an album/film/series).
 
Gutted about this, the internet is ment to be free and FULLY AVAILBLE to everyone, ok child abuse sites fine block those and bang up the people running them, but everything else should be there for us, who knows where this will end now :(
 
kylew said:
People need to stop equating piracy to lost sales. A pirate doesn't automatically become a buyer if their pirating methods are stopped, you have no idea if they will buy or just go without.
Click to expand...

A lot of new artists will miss out as well because of this (if they work out how to do it) I know people (not me of course :)) who have tried out songs or movies for unknown artists and liked their work and brought more from them.

Also if we are going to ban certain websites shouldn't they be concentrating on those that are more serious/harmful. They don't do they because they can't.

Not sure how you are going to police it to be honest. No one has the resources to police the internet. And if they block places they will just move to another server/location.
 
Cooners said:
Gutted about this, the internet is ment to be free and FULLY AVAILBLE to everyone, ok child abuse sites fine block those and bang up the people running them, but everything else should be there for us, who knows where this will end now :(
Click to expand...

Agreed about blocking child porn sites and stuff like that. They should also block all those sites that provide illegal downloads. Basically block all sites that have illegal content. The anonymity of the internet shouldn't be used to allow people to commit crimes. If they want free software/movies/music let them walk into a shop and acquire it illegally there (steal it, buy it with forged money, whatever). Lets see if they're as keen to do it when there's less anonymity involved.

Sorry, I jumped in right at the end of this thread so possibly missed main point of it :)

I'm guessing someone will be complaining that this makes it harder for them to indulge in illegal activities?
 
Dont get me wrong I'm not defending piracy, however the freedom of information at the core of the internet, is not freedom of access to copyrighted material.

It is up to the owner to decide how they distribute THEIR content, not someone uploading it for the whole world to 'SHARE'.

Freedom of information YES, freedom of access to copyrighted material NO.

Even you had written a thesis for uni, you spent 9 months on it, some **** stole your usb stick with a copy and uploaded on to the internet, now every one is using your work and modifying it for their own uses....

Without your consent you would be pretty ****ed no?

Basically we have reached a point in the evolution of copyright/internet where the ubiquitous nature of the digital realm is opposed to the physical reality, and the established business models do not know how to cope with the free nature of information on the internet.

So all they are doing is thrashing around like a fish caught in a fishermans net looking for anything for an answer.

They'v tried suing websites etc... it doesnt work... so now they are going to introduce national blacklists, EU firewall's etc.....

Already France and the USA have far worse things in place.

The UK is next, thanks to that pos bill the 'Digital Economy Act'.

Supposedly April 2011 was going to be the first round of letter to suspected filesharers, however they werent ready so I think they are due some time next year.

At the end of the day, ANY law will get passed as long as it goes through a democratic process.

There is a famous theory in political science called 'The Tyranny of the majority/masses'. In other words even a democratic process can be a form of oppression.
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
Futile, just use Tor, problem solved :-)

Here I've even uploaded the latest'ish browser pack as I can't seem to access Tor's main website atm!!!!!

Here's the link:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HYBY0E6D
Click to expand...

As with Tor, in its current state its far too slow.

What would happen when every one starts using it?

Aditionally if people did start using it to hide their activities, they could just bring in new laws to combat it, I mean why do you have to use tor if your not doing anything you shouldnt argument?

There is a current law actually with simialr meaning.

If you get accused of hiding your activity using encryption, you are by default GUILTY! if you fail to reveal the key upon request.

You cant hide from the law. The law owns you.
 
To use things like newsbin you need an account which normally costs at least £10 a month, why don't the movie, games, TV, music companys come up with a system that you could download this stuff and pay them say £20-30 a month then a lot of people would ditch piracy and pay for that instead surely.
 
Muel said:
That's basically what he said...
Click to expand...

Sorry I must have misread "I agree its not a 1 to 1 ratio, but I does = lots sales." as meaning "whilst it's not a 1:1 ratio that it does equal a lot of sale" in the sense of a lot of sales lost due to the piracy.
 
It's scary how people are willing to take peoples freedom away just to make a buck. Guess it's always been done and will always be attempted.
 
From a technical perspective, how could it be any other way?
The providers of content have no technical control over access to different sites or services, so how could they possibly stop it? Legitimise DDoS as a punishment for suspected copyright infringement?

The impact, however, is as deleterious, invasive and regressive as you could expect.
The article succinctly highlights all of the problems with the judgement, and justifiably so.

In the end, piracy is just the result of a failure to deliver products into the hands of potential customers. They cannot get the product they want, either due to ridiculous licensing arrangements or artificial restrictions, so they pirate it. These individuals will continue to pirate it, unless you bring them into the system.
Carrot, not stick.
 
Cooners said:
Gutted about this, the internet is ment to be free and FULLY AVAILBLE to everyone, ok child abuse sites fine block those and bang up the people running them, but everything else should be there for us, who knows where this will end now :(
Click to expand...

See this is where the argument falls down. You are either for or against the Internet not being regulated. Now i find the concept of child porn absolutely disgusting and as you say anyone downloading it or involved in it should have the full force of the law upon them.

But at its most basic level what we are talking about is the downloading of illegal material. What you are saying is "allow the stuff i like but stop the stuff i disagree with" ie Child porn - disgusting = regulate, copyrighted material - actually quite handy = Dont regulate. The bar is usually set at whatever point the person finds the material acceptable.

Im not sure this makes any sense and maybe child pron is too emotive an example to use really but what im saying is you can punish the creater and the end user be it child porn or copyrighted material but it becomes difficult to argue that the point of the internet is that it cant be policed but then ask for it to be policed for things that are obviously distasteful.

Does that make sense? Im not sure!
 
placeholder said:
See this is where the argument falls down. You are either for or against the Internet not being regulated. Now i find the concept of child porn absolutely disgusting and as you say anyone downloading it or involved in it should have the full force of the law upon them.

But at its most basic level what we are talking about is the downloading of illegal material. What you are saying is "allow the stuff i like but stop the stuff i disagree with" ie Child porn - disgusting = regulate, copyrighted material - actually quite handy = Dont regulate. The bar is usually set at whatever point the person finds the material acceptable.

Im not sure this makes any sense and maybe child pron is too emotive an example to use really but what im saying is you can punish the creater and the end user be it child porn or copyrighted material but it becomes difficult to argue that the point of the internet is that it cant be policed but then ask for it to be policed for things that are obviously distasteful.

Does that make sense? Im not sure!
Click to expand...

Every time there is a debate anywhere about copyright infringement, I have to point out the same thing. It is NOT illegal, not a crime. You can be sued for it by a private entity, but that is a civil issue, NOT a criminal one. No one has a criminal record that says "Copyright infringement". - And to preempt the usual attack on this, we are talking about downloading for personal use here, not burning and selling

*Edit - Also, until some actual evidence can be presented to refute it, can we all agree that downloading does not cost the various industry's anything - I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm saying I've never seen any valid research to say it does.
 
placeholder said:
See this is where the argument falls down. You are either for or against the Internet not being regulated. Now i find the concept of child porn absolutely disgusting and as you say anyone downloading it or involved in it should have the full force of the law upon them.

But at its most basic level what we are talking about is the downloading of illegal material. What you are saying is "allow the stuff i like but stop the stuff i disagree with" ie Child porn - disgusting = regulate, copyrighted material - actually quite handy = Dont regulate. The bar is usually set at whatever point the person finds the material acceptable.

Im not sure this makes any sense and maybe child pron is too emotive an example to use really but what im saying is you can punish the creater and the end user be it child porn or copyrighted material but it becomes difficult to argue that the point of the internet is that it cant be policed but then ask for it to be policed for things that are obviously distasteful.

Does that make sense? Im not sure!
Click to expand...

Yup, sure does, you're bang on. Once you start censorship it becomes subjective depending entirely on the prejudices of the people calling the shots... the fact that some things should be restricted is immaterial, once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back in and different groups campaign for things they see as being "bad" being controlled... this week it's piracy.
 
They shouldn't block websites. If they block pirating websites, why not other websites? The internet should be a source of free information and not be limited in anyway.

Pirating doesn't equal to sales lost.

Do you know what is "killing" the media industry? The industry it self. Bands can promote their music for free to a huge audience and rake in the money from concert and merchandise sales. Games also benefit. I've tried out many games by pirating them before I buy. It gives me a better view on how the game is, sometimes demos just aren't enough. DRM also doesn't help, I can buy the game and have to always be connected to the internet, or I could get the game for free and don't have to bother with DRM.

Remember when home taping was killing the industry? They're still here! Same thing will happen will Piracy, they will moan, point fingers but in the end they just have to adapt.

Here's a thought. If I invite a group of friends around my house to watch a film, that I brought and I let my group of friends watch the film, is that piracy? None of them have paid for the film, only I have. This is seen as acceptable and a common practice to do. I've watched a lot of film this way.

Blocking and censorship will NEVER be the answer to ANY situation.
 
What sort of hardware is required to achieve this? Can BT simply tag basic firewalling rules onto current hardware, or will it require running everything through a proxy that drops requests to a range of IPs?

I have some concept of what is required to block access to arbitrary websites on a home network, but I've no comprehension of how it scales. What I'm trying to get at, is how expensive would it be for BT to implement such a scheme?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom