Project Free TV, YIFY, PrimeWire Blocked In the UK 195
hypnosec writes "The movie industry in the UK is having a ball, as far as blocking of sites allegedly involved in piracy is concerned, as courts have asked UK ISPs to enforce a blockade on Project Free TV, YIFY, PrimeWire and others. Getting a torrent or steaming site blocked in the UK is a mere paperwork formality, since ISPs have completely stopped defending against these orders. As it stands, a total of 33 sites have been blocked in the UK, including The Pirate Bay, BitSnoop, ExtraTorrent, Torrentz, 1337x, Fenopy, H33T, KickAssTorrents, among others."
And how utterly pointless it is... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I make it a point to use these sites now. I hadn't even heard of YIFI but since they blocked it I have been checking for releases there.
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, my other half is a rabid TV downloader and wants to watch the shows when they come out on American TV so she can discuss stuff in forums without spoilers. We have a Sky subscription so we will have paid for them when they air, she just doesn't want the lag. Anyway, the ISP have been sent the usual e-mails from lawyers about her torrenting activities. The ISP just forwards them on
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I thought Plusnet would be big enough to be hit by this but they don't even seem to blocking pirate-bay. 76/18mbit fibre, no complaints at approx 600gb used one month, 20quid a month, reasonable I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they are blocking with DNS which I set up manually, if so then I hope they keep it that way. What worries me is that the cost of other blocking methods will fall to near zero and the likelihood that they will block VPN services increases. I can't see them blocking all VPN's though, as others mentioned they are a business necessity.
As for 'trading identity', my understanding is that when BT bought Plusnet, they left them running as a separate entity rather than amalgamate them. Plusnet [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"Full class C"? Allocated by InterNIC, right? :P
It's been 20 years since "IP classes" have been replaced with CIDR.
What ISP allocates a full /24 anyways?
Honest question: Who, other than an ISP or hosting/VPS provider, *needs* a /24 nowadays?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't actually need the whole block any more, it was something I was doing for a PhD project a few years back. A
Re: (Score:3)
I have 4 class Cs and a total of 5 servers, 6 employees if you count the part time ones, for just my primary data center. Another couple at a couple other backup data centers.
Lots of things need IP addresses, not just websites run by ISPs. Theres more to the Internet than http.
As far as IP classes, While its cute that you're trying to show us how much you know about networking, you're really showing us that you're not in the business of being a router flunky since everyone still refers to /24s as class Cs
Re: (Score:3)
I should add, I know of multiple facilities for infrastructure that have /22 assignments for stations that have 1 man sitting in them, with nothing more than a router, a PC and a small server (on site ActiveDirectory server), and using a grand total of maybe 5 IPs of the thousand they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Filtering on /22 is not really sustainable these days. People filter at all sorts of boundaries, but you can generally get away with a /24. Those who filter /24's tend to keep a default route to a more lenient provider.
Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net.uk] would be my guess. Though I'd prefer to describe things like rDNS delegation as something that any non-crap ISP will do, rather than geeky extras...
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in this day and age, pretty much anything beyond bare bone access to webpages and online games is already considered "geeky extras"...
Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net.uk] would be my guess. Though I'd prefer to describe things like rDNS delegation as something that any non-crap ISP will do, rather than geeky extras...
In my experience of dealing with a lot of different ISPs for customers is that almost none of them know that rDNS can be delegated, and when you eventually manage to get through to a third line engineer and explain to them how it works and point them at the RFCs, you eventually get told that their internal systems aren't set up to allow it, so no.
Its a pretty sad state of affairs.
Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Very well put. Getting a large ISP whose staff "follow the flowchart" to provide such things is not as easy as some make out. I have a number of non-catalogue products including bonded FTTC which has saved me a fortune on what I used to pay for dedicated hosting (I don't need 5 9's uptime). Instead of a call centre grunt giving a standard "We don't provide that service" response, I get a technically literate person on the end of the phone who understands what I'm asking for and says "Let me have a word, see what we can do". You pay for that kind of service, but for me it's worth it.
The ISPs I've dealt with are servicing expensive leased lines... you'd expect them to pull out a few stops to make things happen, but no...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Zen are one of the better mainstream ISPs - they're actually a b2b ISP, their home packages are more of a sideline.
Re: (Score:2)
AAISP doesn't block anything (Score:2)
I just wanted to say that I'm on AAISP and it does not block anything. It does not use IWF filters, nor any blocklists as far as I know.
And most of the big ISPs that block stuff do that because of "gentleman's agreement", not because of explicit court orders. So basically they do it because they didn't have the balls to contest/refuse the requests by special interest groups.
And AAISP is the only ISP I know where you can get support via IRC channel. They do limit internet usage, but increasing
Re: (Score:3)
The ones that are required to do censorship are BT (including Plusnet), Talk Talk (including AOL), Virgin and Sky (Including O2).
Re: (Score:2)
Sky would also include Be, I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does.
Re: (Score:3)
What about Google (Score:4, Interesting)
They've started blocking searches that can lead to kiddie porn, and thus accepted the linkage.
The next step in that is mandatory reporting of any IP addresses that does those forbidden searches. Having accepted the searches are bad, it follows that surveillance of this badness will be the next step. Thus they've accepted the surveillance principle.
Copyright lobby already wants Google to block all copyright infringements from search results. (and read the New Zealand Kim Dotcom indictment, it talks about 'selectors being tasked' i.e. PRISM talk, meaning spooks are now copyright enforcers).
Likewise ISPs blocked these torrent search engines as being equivalent to torrents and in turn equivalent to the copyright infringement, thus it follows that they'll keep being asked to block ever more tangential stuff. For example, sites that list torrent search engines. Sites that discuss torrent search engines. VPN sites, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
The next step in that is mandatory reporting of any IP addresses that does those forbidden searches.
Most likely this is already happening.
Re:nothing about Google everything about Monarchs (Score:5, Informative)
It's the slippery slope. Once you start slipping, you've lost static friction, and start slipping faster.
Google have already started slipping. ISP have already started slipping. It's the same thing.
Also you ignore the most significant point in my comment: the spooks spying on Kim Dotcom for copyright infringement. That's a mark of how far its gone.
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/AFFIDAVIT_OF_DISCLOSURE.pdf
Page 17: "Secret//Comint/Rel to NZL,AUs,Can,GBR, USA", i.e. 5 eyes spooks network.
Page 19: "selectors of interest"
Page 19: "Kim (unreadable) not tasked due to US domain"
Page 21, "Kim Dotcom selectors - all tasked"
It has nothing to do with monarchy, this is a US corporate thing. They believe they can fix the economy by creating more IP rights to sell, in place of actual goods and services, hence insane patent laws and the NSA & it's five eyes buddies involved in a minor copyright case.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the slippery slope. Once you start slipping, you've lost static friction, and start slipping faster.
Watch out, or the nutters will be along to tell you that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so it couldn't possibly ever happen.
Re:nothing about Google everything about Monarchs (Score:5, Interesting)
distribution of stolen American property
That is not true in any way, shape, or form. The AC has a really damn good point that you can't simply negate by saying it's within the NSA's job description.
Having law enforcement involved in simply copyright disputes is highly concerning. The NSA being involved brings it to a level or ridiculousness akin to the President going door to door collecting unpaid dues for the paper boy. "How far off the mark have we gone". Indeed.
No such thing as theft involved and you're continuing to perpetuate a myth that is quite dangerous to freedom and our society. Specifically, that ideas and their expressions can be owned, and that by not complying with the explicit wishes of the owner you are engaged in acts of "theft".
I'll be real simple here. A copyright in of itself is just a container for legal entitlements (aka rights) granted by the people to the creator. Only the creator can ever exercise those rights. It's called legal standing. To "steal" the "property" one must in fact steal the legal standing. That can be only done with fraud and contracts negotiated under duress with the creator. Not from some pimple faced teenager on bit torrent. All that ever happens is copyright infringement . This, the vast majority of the time, involves cases that belong in civil courts. Only the mass duplication, distribution, and profit over copyrighted works is worth the intervention by law enforcement for society's behalf.
What part of copyright law being used the way it's now being used doesn't scare the crap out of you?
- Weak, and often proven absolutely falsified and incorrect, reports and statistics attempting to show direct fiscal damage of epic proportions to justify changes in the law - DMCA, copyright enforcement, CISPA, treaties and negotiations with other countries being examples.
- The creation of laws curtailing our freedoms in ways that were never agreed upon by society at large. Who the fuck thinks they can tell us we can't skip over commercials
with technology in our own homes? How dare they tell me there are Prohibited User Operations on my DVD player? It's my fucking DVD player, my fucking DVD, my fucking money that left MY wallet. Yet, they have the unmitigated gall to stand in my living room by proxy through technology paid for with my money telling me what to do in my own home. Make a televised skit of that shit and see how many people you can get to agree with you to let that happen.
- The dramatic loss of privacy and anonymity through the unprecedented and largely unchecked grabs for mass surveillance capabilities. All of it for.... yep.... terrorists. Yet, not being used against a single terrorist. More and more they use these tools to come to the aid of a single side in a copyright dispute and in some notable cases, arrest and detain people only interested in actions that were damn well known to be fair use .
You bet your ass I'm just as concerned as the AC is about a US intelligence agency being used unfairly in a civil dispute. It may not affect you directly now, but you just wait, keep that line of thinking up and you will have the government you deserve. Then after some time, you will have the country you deserve.
One bereft off a middle class anymore. Just the ruling elites and the slaves. A country run with the abhorrent idea that an idea and expression can be owned forever and that all must prostrate themselves before the elites for the right to use advanced technologies. One where no single person, or group of persons, in a garage could ever hope to build a multi-billion dollar company from nothing since the barrier to entries are so damn high. How could they be low? Over a half million patents in a smart phone these days. Ridiculous software patents will run a muck in your country inhibiting, or outright preventing, innovation by the "small guys". You already have your "who files first" bullshit in the USPTO. That har
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Royal Dutch Shell is not British. It's Dutch. They have a royal family too.
Anglo-Saxon (Score:2)
see, Royal Dutch Shell is the 'Saxon' in the Anglo-Saxon aristocratic alliance ;)
hey Shell PR person... (Score:2)
just b/c your company has some piece of paper saying it's a 'corporation' doesn't mean it's not controlled by **someone**
those people are the majority stock holders...**the Dutch Royalty**
you acknowledge yourself that the Monarchy still has a role:
OH OK...nothing to see here...move along!
everything I said is true, and reading b
Giving up the essential for the trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, to be fair, the torrent sites only exist because apparently some people can't survive just fine without entertainment.
Re: (Score:1)
Or maybe they just want access to a better product?
Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
If Mariah carey had gone independent instead of being with Columbia or Virgin Records etc. she would have been able to retain all of the profits, instead of just 10-15% share of it. Consider the irony. The middle-men should be the one getting the 10-15% profits after deducting actual costs. But instead, it is the content creator.
What ends up happening is, that labels latch on to a "hit formula" and kill creativity by making snoop dogg and other artists sacrifice their styles in favor of the "formula", to maximize revenue. Worse, with their publicizing muscle and money, they don't exactly provide a level field for independents, since they ensure that the independents are all but drowned in the noise of all the ads, even if their own artists might be all but junk.
Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (Score:5, Informative)
If Mariah carey had gone independent instead of being with Columbia or Virgin Records etc. she would have been able to retain all of the profits, instead of just 10-15% share of it.
10-15%? She got lucky.
Plenty of really, really big acts got NOTHING. Not one cent.
This is an industry that seriously believes that people like Peter Jackson shouldn't get paid for making The Lord Of The Rings.
Check out sites like cdbaby.com [cdbaby.com] instead.
Re: (Score:3)
*This* Industry however is not necessarily the source of all entertainment. There was a time when the industry did not exist, but entertainment still existed. The reason you have these torrent sites is because the industry has been very very good at monopolizing,
It's true that the recording industry are fuckers but the reason we have piracy isn't due to that. Let's not pretend that TPB users are part of a moral crusade. We have piracy because people are cheap and want free stuff. There are independent movies being shared and pirated along with those from big studios. There's no distinction in most people's eyes. I can pirate World of Goo (http://2dboy.com) on TPB, an indy game that was released cheaply and, idealistically, without DRM.
Furthermore, pirating isn'
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Michaelson [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macklemore [wikipedia.org]
What I find very interesting is this very American idea of measuring success by the amount of money an artist makes. It is perfectly fine to have someone screeching to pure noise, as long as studios' marketing con
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to undo accidental troll moderation (damn it!)
The golden age (Score:4, Informative)
*This* Industry however is not necessarily the source of all entertainment. There was a time when the industry did not exist, but entertainment still existed.
The entertainment industry in the states dates back to Stephan Foster.
In 1850, P.T, Barnum paid Jenny Lind $167,600 in advance for her first American tour, plus expenses. That is $4,557,076 adjusted for inflation. The contract would be renegotiated upwards as Barnum's promotion machine built up steam.
There would be profits from sheet music sales, product endorsements and so on.
Barnum's share would come to about half a million good-as-gold tax-free dollars. In the first decade of the telegraph, The first quarter-century of the railroad, Everything essential is in place for the evolution of a mass popular culture rooted in professional entertainment.
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't put a gun to her head, she made a choice. If you want the big bucks, you sell out, and she did.
Re: (Score:2)
I regret buying CDs now. I can't in good conscience give them any more money, not matter how much I want to support the artists.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to support the artist, go to their concerts.
If they don't tour near you, go try and get a local promoter to book them, or do it yourself. Some friends and I have managed to get bands and artists we like by directly emailing their managers, then handling all the logistics ourselves. Local radio stations usually are willing to help, too. When you don't have to pay for logistics and you don't expect any profit, the final ticket cost is incredibly low. I'm not saying it was easy, it's usually a lot
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to support the artist, go to their concerts.
What if they're dead? What if the band has split up? What if they produce good music, but suck as a person?
Re: (Score:2)
If they're dead then you should treat their work as public domain. Support the artists, not the "rights".
Who do you think you're kdding? (Score:2)
The public is getting nothing but censorship out of the bargain... The world is caving to the slightest whims of an industry that we would survive just fine without.
Then why is the geek so obsessed with his free comic book movie fix? The big budget Hollywood production?
The paying customer is the censor here and he is getting exactly what he wants: The final say on future productions and budgets.
The projects which will be green lighted because they are reasonably likely to be profitable.
The paying customer gets "Gravity" into the IMAX theater, the director's cut on Blu-Ray and malware free downloads and HD streaming through Amazon, Netflix and others. The P2P geek wha
Re: (Score:2)
Because those fuckers want to put a gun to the heads of everyone in the electronics and software industries in order to enforce their copyrights. They've got the DMCA passed, they had various copy-protection mandates since then, they're responsible for the whole HDMI clusterfuck, and they've proposed such shit as requiring every analog to digital converter (presu
Relatively pointless (Score:2)
I don't know about the streaming sites, but I know the blocking of torrent sites has had little effect or the more (or less) tech savvy people who use them. People get around not being able to browse for their torrents by subscribing to torrent RSS feeds (for TV), and by using things like Tor if they absolutely need to browse the Pirate Bay or other sites.
The trackers are not blocked, and therefore the torrents still work fine.
Kinda pointless.
Re:Relatively pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
They should just be careful what they wish for.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you overestimate the willingness of people to put up with crap. Especially once they learned that there is another way. People are probably willing to accept various hardships thrown at them by the manufacturers of DVDs and BluRays ... until they learn that it is trivially easy to circumvent those unskipable trailers and other junk that cuts into their movie watching pleasure. It's not even the money, in my experience.
You really think someone who wants to see the latest episodes of his favorite show
Re: (Score:2)
In the past it has had little effect, with P2P traffic steadily increasing. In fact I'm surprised that GCHQ hasn't tried to stop them because it only pushes more and more people on to VPNs where they are much harder to spy on.
Re: (Score:2)
VPNs where they are much harder to spy on.
Harder for YOU to spy on. The NSA and GCHQ have no problem snooping your VPN traffic whenever they feel like it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you overestimate the capabilities and patience of a large percentage of the population of the UK. I think these actions will shut down 80% of the movie sharing.
Don't really agree with this. The people [that I know of] that torrent are *not* tech savy, however they are more than capable of googling something along the lines of "BT piratebay blocked"* which will give them a workaround on the 2nd link. I think the best way to describe it is "never underestimate the ingenuity of someone who doesn't want to pay anything"
* Typing "BT pirate" immediately suggests BT pirateproxy. These people don't know need to understand what a proxy is, all they know is that a proxy let
trackers *are* blocked (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You essentially can't block bittorrent without extremely "expensive" Deep Packet Inspection, essentially eavesdropping on every consumers internet traffic 100% of the time.
My ISP, has already trialled a SandVine DPI machine. A single machine was capable of performing DPI for over 2 million cable modem subscribers for a full month, so clearly it can deal with the various traffic loads that come across it. A small cluster of machines could DPI everything in the UK.
Its not hard, in fact its pretty trivial.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
BITTORRENT USERS - JUST BUY THE DAMN MOVIES ALREADY.
You really don't see the bigger picture. Drop dead. Soon.
Re: (Score:2)
"Damage done to society" by downloading a movie? Now that's funny stuff there. Do you have an encore presentation or are we pushing your limits of understanding already?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, great. So the idiots who want free movies will get DPI implemented across the board, thus dramatically lowering the bar for all other kinds of censorship in future. This whole thing reminds me of the drug war. These tele-addicts simply don't have any lines they won't cross in order to get their fix, and attempts to stop them thus spiral downards into ever harsher and more aggressive monitoring and control.
Funny, it reminds me of the war on drugs, too.
Just like the war on drugs, we see the government's efforts to stop the supposed problem cause far greater harm to society than the supposed problem itself, and yet they keep doing it.
Just like the war on drugs, popular support is rallied with (and indeed, couldn't be sustained without) base lies and disinformation.
Just like the war on drugs, the motivation of the government to pursue this costly endeavor, with no net public benefit in sight, is unfathomable --
Re: (Score:2)
Let me add, at reasonable prices and conveniently. No, a $30 BlueRay containing lots of crap I am not interested in, and that I can't skip, is not a reasonable price and it is not convenient.
In terms of price and convenience that isn't actually too bad. If it can only be bought for that (even any price) thousands of miles away then there is a cost and time penalty. Potentially a very big one if the only option is to go there in person.
Keeping movies u
Posting anonymously obviosuly (Score:1)
I'm in the UK and I use O2 (currently being migrated to Sky).
I use a digitalocean.com droplet (virtual machine) to access these. I have the bottom end droplet which costs $5/month.
On this I install apache, php and phproxy (google it) and that is it.
I won't use the public proxies that seem to have popped up as they all have nefarious bits of crap installed in them or are very overloaded.
Not an issue ... (Score:2)
Because only a trivially small proportion of the population cares. Few have even heard about these services.
If you care about free TV in the UK then you could start by not watching or recording live transmissions, and you then have no obligation to pay the TV license -- they only waste it on extra redundancy payments for senior managers, and politically motivated nonsense stuff like moving programming oop north.
I get by on BBC iPlayer delayed transmissions, streaming to my TV through Chromecast. Possibly IT
Re: (Score:2)
Channel 4 have compatible streaming services, but sadly their programmes are not compatible with me.
I have a TV license so I can legally watch live TV. C4 also to indeed have 4OnDemand to catch up. I happen to like Agents of Shield which is on 4.
And I still get it from TPB because it's easier, quicker and better.
Re:Not an issue ... (Score:5, Funny)
> Few have even heard about these services.
After demonoid ended I couldn't find any good torrent sites. But now my government publishes a list of the best sites every month. I'm really grateful to them for calling my attention to them.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to pay the TV licence if you want to watch the live streams, but not the on-demand streams.
Most ISPs (Score:1)
Most ISPs have stopped defending against these orders and just add anything the BPI wants to their filters.
Some UK ISPs don't apply such filters. AAISP for example not only promises that it will give users 12 months notice should they ever decide to use filtering, but you have to explicitly select "unfiltered internet access" when signing up or you'll be shown the door.
Interesting move (Score:3)
We will see in a few years or even less if big content providers make more or less money than before in the UK. I'm of the opinion that blocking free content leads to discontent, less visibility, and ultimately less profit, because people will not want to reward what could be construed as oppression.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just 'big content'; the Big Four ISP*s that implement these blocks ( Sky, BT Broadband, TalkTalk and Virgin ) each have their own subscription TV and streaming services targeted at their customers, so making free stuff harder to reach also implicitly benefits them if it encourages up-take.
Noticable is how the smaller ISPs, that just act as an ISP without tryng to sell me media, aren't in scope.
* they're not really ISPs, more like Web-connected entertainment providers.
Re: Interesting move (Score:2)
O2 is also a pretty big ISP...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reward it or not, but people can only buy what they know about. If I don't know that a certain show exists and that I like it, there is an exactly zero chance that I'll ever go and buy a DVD box of it.
This is especially true in countries where dubbing is the norm (because English isn't quite the language of choice). There you actually have two reasons why people won't buy a DVD box. First, the often incredibly atrocious dubbing (quite frankly, watching Simpsons or Big Bang Theory in German qualifies as tort
Re: (Score:1)
It has also lead to a bit of a resurgence of the old sneakernet distribution network, which had sort of died down when broadband became almost ubiquitous in the UK.
The people with the technical knowledge/capability to bypass the blocks and download the material are doing so, and passing it around at work|school|college|university, those copies getting copied, and repeat_until_boredom("those copies getting copied"), in a totally 'invisible' way to the Media industry online spies.
The best part (or, if you're
Re: (Score:2)
building a market. (Score:3)
As I read the comments, it looks like people are missing a bet on what the practice that the cariers are doing can provide.
People are noting that techincally competent people can easily bypass the restrictions, and others are noting that the vast majority of the public is not sufficiently technically competent to work around it.
I'm reminded a bit of the drug dealer situation in most places. It's trivially easy for most people to find a supplier for nearly any drug that someone has an interest in getting. Most people don't go looking for them for whatever reason, but it's not because they don't know where to go, or at least if they thought about it a bit they could figure it out. The same is likely to be true of media content.
So, user George doesn't know how to get around these filters, but it's likely that one of George's friends does, or one of George's friends knows someone who can. If this ever became a significant issue, I suspect that people would set up secure chat servers (or even a https based site) where they let their neighbors know they can request whatever movie they are interested in, and through a bot on the server they get back a link to the file already downloaded, or to the file being downloaded, and they can start watching. The link may be to a torrent proxy that goes and gets the bits of the files from other people offering the same sort of a service, and none of the people providing this service actually have copies of the files maintained on their systems either. (Yes, that somewhat defeats the purpose of a torrent, but the idea is to provide a service to end users, not necessarily be a good torrent netizen.) To reduce the likelyhood that the person providing the service is adversly affected, he or she may require that the 'customer' run a torrent proxy on their system that the load of torrent traffic gets distributed across. Better operators will do something like build their software package to prevent spam bots from running on the customer's computers. That may even be all that the customer is asking for from the service provider, and the torrent operation may be going on completely transparently to them.
I know, that seems complex. But from an end user perspective for the movies, it looks like I log into a secure web server, identify the movie I want to watch, and get a link to that movie. I click on that link, and I start watching the movie. Perhaps George texts or IMs a movie title to Bill, who texts back a URL that George then enters in their web browser, or even follows right on their phone or pc.
In time a network of providers of the service will exist, or several networks. It might be done through something like IRC, and the various providers will check to see who's closest to the end user and get a link close to them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It might be done through something like IRC, and the various providers will check to see who's closest to the end user and get a link close to them.
Yes, XDCC and fserve bots work fine thanks.
Many IRC networks are dedicated to filesharing: http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?chat=xdcc
It's trivial to find XDCC results in google, just append xdcc -torrent to your search.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to be technically competent to get around the filters - you just need to be able to follow instructions. You don't even need to know any keywords like "proxy" - "how do i unblock torrents" does just fine.
Darknet (Score:2)
Problem solved.
here's where this is going (Score:2)
Good - screw YIFY! (Score:2)
Why people want to watch mangled sound audio and the worst rips on the net is beyond me. I think its mostly people with shitty 2 speaker systems that like YIFY rips, but that guy is everywhere!
Every time I go to download a movie, I am cursing YIFY because his releases dominate! I think YIFY really works for the film industry and is releasing low quality rips on purpose.
Re:Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess they'll have to route around this damage in the network.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that took all of thirty seconds.
Re:Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)
We gave them an inch, and ... the results were as expected.
Re: (Score:2)
In their defense, it is rather difficult to ascertain the situation with your head up your ass.
True, but I'm told it feels pretty good to vigorously shake you head back and forth...
that may be distracting them...
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped paying attention to copyright when the Disney extension was approved. It was robbery in broad daylight
On one hand, the EU got to screw over the Third World by keeping agriculture subsidized and tariff walls alive and kicking - leading to higher food prices in the EU and lack of a market outside of it - and on the other hand the US got to screw everyone else by AGAIN extending the copyright time up to a gazillion years after the author died "because of the children", or in reality, because of the c
Re: (Score:2)
Law has to reflect the general consensus on what's "right". People have to understand and support laws for them to be a foundation of stability. Laws that are unjust and not supported by public opinion are not only very hard, if not impossible, to enforce, they're a danger to the stability of a country in itself.
And I'm not even talking about unpopular laws like tax laws. Nobody likes to pay taxes. But we do. Because we somehow understand that the country needs money. And while we certainly don't really lik
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say, it's pretty funny to read a bunch of highfalutin' rhetoric like this applied to a post about the following sites being blocked:
"Project Free TV, YIFY, PrimeWire"..."The Pirate Bay, BitSnoop, ExtraTorrent, Torrentz, 1337x, Fenopy, H33T, KickAssTorrents"
Yes, this is clearly about high principles of legal fairness and not about watching Thor without paying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that's the motivation of people. I only say that's what will happen out of it. Essentially, I see it as a mix of a poker and a bait and switch game that fizzled and backfired. The content industry got people used to easily accessible content and now that the cat is out of the box, it proves to be harder than anticipated to get the back back in. So now laws are supposed to fix this, and laws are a very bad vehicle for fixing a social problem.
Of course, these thoughts are not what motivates peo
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with expecting all TV and movie entertainment to be free. This is the future and companies that do not understand this are destine to meet newspaper companies, book stores and video rental shops in the afterlife.
Paying for entertainment is a thing of the past. Especially paying for simple delivery. There is no need to pay for distribution since all citizens now pay directly for that bandwidth through their ISP.
Any system of delivery that delivers their content with 30% advertising mix
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody owes me anything. But neither do I owe anyone anything. And most certainly I don't owe someone to prop up his failed business model with accepting my liberties being removed to protect it.
If you cannot survive with your business without buying laws that affect far more people than your potential customers, you're supposed to die.
Re:Well then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it's worse than that.
There are real threats to a country's economic, political or other stability. People who actually want to harm a country or companies in said country. Terrorists as well as people embezzling or laundering money, tax evaders and other criminals that actually cause a noticable, real harm to your country. Who in turn do have a pretty good reason to mask their traffic and route it through various means of VPN and other techniques to shield it from surveillance.
Now, these people are few and far between. A sensibly staffed police force with some background in online security can easily spot them, pinpoint them and ferret them out. Why? Because there is very little reason for Joe Randomuser to have a lot of VPN'ed traffic running. You can actually take a quick look at most "odd" connections and examine them.
This option goes out the window when everyone does it. Yes, they're all actually breaking a law. But a law that has close to zero impact on your economy. And yes, even if you're the US. Compared to embezzlement and tax evasion, the loss to the country due to torrents is negligible. But now you have a LOT more people who will act like criminals and you can't easily spot the real, dangerous criminals anymore.
Re:Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)
The same group who often book their sales in tax favourable jurisdictions should also get to put people in jail at your and my expense? I thought jails were for real crimes? Isn't copyright violation a civil matter in most nations?
Speaking about putting people in jail, how many times have the various recording industry's been charged with abuse of monopoly, price fixing, etc?
Those examples on the other hand are not CIVIL matters and the penalty can include jail time (again in most nations) but no one has ever served it.
Here (canada) they were charged with selling compilation CD's without paying the royalties. Now if a person does this it is considered piracy and in the US they charge you $20,000 per song but what do you think happened to them?
So yeah, lets jail people because laws to prevent people from doing some things always work (cough)Prohibition (cough)... Even the government realized it needed to update its business models....
Re:Well then... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like thieves much better than you do. I can't stand the thieves who run the entertainment industries. Unreasonable copyright laws that last beyond the authors lifetime are insane money grabs, that should have been killed thirty years ago or more. Take down notices for works that never did belong to any corporation. Refusing to recognize fair use. Moving works of art from the public domain, into corporate control. Multi-million dollar settlements against common users (as opposed to industrial grade pirating and distribution operations).
I don't know if you've ever read this article:
!Alles in ordnung!
http://striderweb.com/blog/tag/books/ [striderweb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair use" is a one way street for these guys.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, go directly to jail, pirate. Play by the rules, and that won't happen. That is all...
Re: It's a sad day... (Score:3)
I know of people who were refused entry in the US or denied a green card because they had hosted a Tor node before.
Re: (Score:1)
No worries,
I have no intention of visiting the 'States again.
ever.
(Cue: Black Helo outside window, black sack over head, trip to nearest airstrip to the waiting Gulfstream.....)
Re: (Score:2)
Which will be ineffective ( at least for getting to content, not staying semi-anonymous ) once every ISP blocks it, as your exit nodes will be no better off then your 'home' ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we'll just create our own sharing network, or heck, our own internet (a darknet) or even a network over wifi or sneakers. Nothing short of installing camera's in homes and/or control chips in people's brains is going to stop this.
The delusion is that you can make people pay for goods (on a per use / per copy basis) that can be duplicated without cost and with little effort.
The second delusion is that if piracy did somehow get eliminated, that these industries will then be happy with their bottom line,
Re: (Score:2)
In this case i was talking purely TOR and blocking bu ISPs, since that was the subject.
The 'private darknet' you speak of already exists in the form of FreeNet and I2p. No need to create something new. We just need more people there...
However, bandwidth caps can kill that too...
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck is wrong with you? You think it is a good idea to hand over access to the internet to these kinds of companies, with their only motive being profit?
You do realize that if these companies are given a 100% monopoly on distribution again that soon they'll be doubling their prices, charging different prices based on time/region/income/sex/etc.. and whatever else they can get away with. The *only* thing that keeps them in check currently is piracy as they need to stay competitive with "free". I