×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Film Studios Seeking Complete Block of Newzbin2 in the UK

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the tunisia-land-of-the-free dept.

Censorship 231

superglaze writes "Having got BT, one of the biggest ISPs in the UK, to block the Newzbin2 Usenet site, the Motion Picture Association is now trying to get the same result from all the other major service providers in the country. As this is likely to go through, it won't be long before most people in the UK will be unable to visit file-sharing sites at all, without using a proxy, VPN, or special client."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

231 comments

They can't block my First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998486)

Because I am awesome

They can block all they want (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998488)

At the end of the day, they won't be surprised when the ticket sales for the utter crap that they call movies doesn't go up one bit. People who download movies usually cannot afford to go and see them, or refuse to pay the ridiculous prices to see them. Cinemas in the UK are a joke. 7 quid for a coke and popcorn. 8 quid to get in. Take a family of 4 to a cinema and you are out 60 quid ($90 ish). It's a joke. Just to sit there for 90 minutes and watch utter crap. Make cinema affordable for families again and piracy will go down very quickly.

Re:They can block all they want (4, Insightful)

Dondoet (2199592) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998554)

That is assuming that it's families who are pirating films, which I don't really think is the case. Personally, I pirate films every now and then for the sake of ease. Going to the cinema is a large use of time (and money), which I'd prefer to spend on something at least marginally more productive. As you said, the prices at the cinema in the uk are quite ridiculous at the moment. I think a drop in prices would probably bring in more money than at the current state but probably wouldn't reduce piracy.

Re:They can block all they want (4, Insightful)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998900)

When I can buy a DVD for the price of a cinema ticket + parking + snacks and when my living room is much nicer than the local cinema, it makes very little incentive to go to the cinema. The price of the DVD alone is less than two tickets excluding everything it means the only time I ever go to the cinema is when I tag along with my friends who want to see something. If I want to watch a film, I'll just wait for the DVD. Pirating it is easier and cheaper than getting the DVD so that has a large appeal apart from the bit where I have to poo in a policeman's helmet

Re:They can block all they want (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999172)

"when my living room is much nicer than the local cinema, it makes very little incentive to go to the cinema"

Also the lack of the 300 teenagers, checking their twitter messages twice per minute on their cells in a dark room is not negligible.

Re:They can block all they want (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999286)

And renting the DVD is even cheaper. I pay less for an all-I-can-watch, 2 disks at home at once (becoming 3 next week for the same price) rental subscription as I'd pay for going to the cinema twice a month. I spent about £100 on my 5.1 speakers ten years ago, and about £150 on my projector four years ago. I can watch films on a comfy sofa with whatever food or drink I want and pause it when I want. If I want to watch a film with someone else, it costs the same amount, while going to the cinema will cost twice as much.

The studios delay the DVD releases because they will cannibalise cinema profits. They don't seem to understand that this means that, given the choice, people would rather watch the DVD than go to the cinema. In any sane business, this would mean that they'd release the DVD first, giving their customers what they want. Instead, they intentionally don't give customers what they want and then blame piracy for their profits being lower than they want.

Re:They can block all they want (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999454)

The studios delay the DVD releases because they will cannibalise cinema profits. They don't seem to understand that this means that, given the choice, people would rather watch the DVD than go to the cinema. In any sane business, this would mean that they'd release the DVD first, giving their customers what they want. Instead, they intentionally don't give customers what they want and then blame piracy for their profits being lower than they want.

Cinema is dead... it just hasn't realised it yet... personally, I only "pirate" DVDs that I intend to buy when they hit the bargain bin, or I already own and want a backup digital copy for convenience & safety... I've already lost several irreplaceable DVDs thanks to actions of my grandkids and other handling mishaps... (so much for being indestructible)... so find it's far easier to play the .avi file off the netbook via the HDMI cable to the telly when the kids are involved...

Re:They can block all they want (0)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998902)

Actually it's the weird uncle doing the pirating but he makes copies for the entire family.

Re:They can block all they want (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999038)

It makes up for his goofy accent and regular use of nautical vernacular, despite never having *seen* a body of water larger than the public pool.

Re:They can block all they want (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999410)

Yeah but is getting the newest Harry Potter film for the kids really worth the 2 hour rant about governmental spies and the New World Order?

I don't think I can stomach another forced viewing of Loose Change...

Re:They can block all they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999188)

Barry, is that you? I've told you before about referring to me like that!

Re:They can block all they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998654)

> At the end of the day, they won't be surprised when the ticket sales for
> the utter crap that they call movies doesn't go up one bit.

They'll just blame lack of increased sales on people using Newzbin3 (or the next big site) to pirate.

Re:They can block all they want (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998924)

Or Newzbin2, since they've already worked around the block with their own client.

Re:They can block all they want (4, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999022)

It's 8 quid if you happen to live outside london, it costs a lot more in london...

Add to that, the conditions... Of the cinemas i've been to over the years, most are smelly, dirty, poor climate control (either too hot or too cold), uncomfortable seats, seats too close together so you knock elbows etc etc...

I also never understood why they sell the noisiest possible food (crisps and popcorn) at cinemas, people munching away on this stuff is noisy and detracts from the movie!

Contrast that to cinemas in some asian countries, where they have to compete against a much higher level of piracy, the prices are not only much cheaper but the experience much better to boot.

Re:They can block all they want (2)

agentgonzo (1026204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999216)

I also never understood why they sell the noisiest possible food (crisps and popcorn) at cinemas, people munching away on this stuff is noisy and detracts from the movie!

I also don't understand why they think you'll consume an entire litre of fizzy drink during a single movie. I've never seen anywhere else selling that much beverage at one time outside the Oktoberfest

Re:They can block all they want (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999740)

And, worst of all, cinemas have other people in.

There is some social aspect to watching a movie together, but a cinemas destroys even this. Politeness dictates the movie be watched in silence, or at most a whisper, making it impossible to talk to friends - and if you can't talk during a movie, you might as well watch it alone.

the article (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998506)

having just read that, it seems, there is no need for smaller ISPs that resell the connection of BT to be blocked (which they wont be it seems).

now, if there is one idea we can steal from patent trolls (if they didn't patent it yet) its making shell companies with no real atributes.

how about making smaller ISPs that do nothing but resell the connection of BT, if they get sued, you drop them and offer the clients to swap to another shell company with no added costs, under the same terms.

First file sharing (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998518)

Then child porn. Then hate speech. Then speech to create political unrest. Then pro-abortion speech. Then pro-Republican speech.

Re:First file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998574)

This is the UK. The people there couldn't give a shit about pro-abortion (few religious people, other than those at death's door), and pro-Republican is a US only, a party so far to the right it's a joke that Americans vote for them, let alone take them seriously.

Re:First file sharing (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998656)

shhhh, you're disrupting their world view that the USA is the world. you might hurt they're ability to further broad brush over topics....

Re:First file sharing (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998812)

Or it's just easier for me to not be a political expert, and make a joke that's universally understood. Brits know what Republicans are.

Re:First file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998916)

No, he was technically correct. Which is the BEST kind of correct.....

Re:First file sharing (1)

xorsyst (1279232) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999138)

Brits know what Republicans are.

Yeah, I'm not sure that's universally true, actually. We know who your president is, but I suspect at least 50% of UK citizens couldn't tell you which party he represents.

Re:First file sharing (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999506)

We know who your president is, but I suspect at least 50% of UK citizens couldn't tell you which party he represents.

That's because they're pretty much the same fucking party in all but name...

Re:First file sharing (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998720)

Ah yes, the classical "slippery slope" argument. The problem being that we tend to stop sliding down the slope as soon as the illegal activities run out. Which means everything after hate speech (unless you are trying to do something idiotic like incite a riot or threatening to murder a doctor).

I was a bit concerned in this case because Usenet was involved, which has more legal activity than (say Pirate Bay). Then I looked at the site itself. It is about indexing pirated material. So I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the "freedom" advocates here because I'm not into the freedom to commit crimes angle.

Re:First file sharing (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998842)

So I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for the "freedom" advocates here because I'm not into the freedom to commit crimes angle.

You will be sorry, because you're a corporate shill and therefore a legitimate target. Commit suicide in a painless way because the alternative will be much, much worse.

Re:First file sharing (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998852)

as soon as the illegal activities run out.

The great thing about the law is that it never changes as it becomes easier to enforce new, more oppressive rules.

Especially in the UK, no advantage was taken of the improvement in computing and communications to create all sorts of draconian surveillance laws which could not even have been dreamt about by, say, former East Germany.

Right?

Re:First file sharing (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998866)

No the problem is the slope needs to provide enough momentum to get up the next hill. Child porn-- Huge. File sharing-- Not as big, but big enough to argue, with big supporters to help. Hate speech-- hard to argue against, not huge, starting to hit the trough.

At a point you need to convince people that something like Abortion is grotesque, an abomination to the moral fiber of society, etc., if you want to get that blocked. An up-hill battle, and one that needs to start on the way down. The momentum from blocking other shit-we-don't-like gives you that push up the hill. If you can ban political dissent or unpopular political views (start with communism, etc), and still run with that momentum, you can get over the next hill and ride the slope down.

After that, it's just going down. You get ONE point of resistance, one hill to try to roll over. If people will swallow that, you can slide down the next slope FOREVER... or until they all guillotine you.

Re:First file sharing (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999226)

In a sense, I agree. You won't find me arguing the moment that they want to block child porn and many forms of hate speech. Keep in mind that all of these acts constitute criminal activities (even, in some cases, copyright infringement).

Beyond that, I don't share your confidence that the slippery slope will continue. There are many losses of freedom that society simply will not tolerate and, even if society did, there are civil liberties organizations that will step up to the ball and fight those battles. And even that makes an underlying cynical assumption that the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as policing is only interested in abolishing freedom. Quite frankly, I believe that most democratic governments are trying to balance the needs for law and order with freedom. (I'm not saying they are always right, just that I don't believe in the cynical view.)

So arguments like this really come down to this: do you want to give the government tools to maintain law and order, or do you want to neuter them and face the consequences of lawlessness?

Re:First file sharing (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999728)

There are many losses of freedom that society simply will not tolerate and, even if society did, there are civil liberties organizations that will step up to the ball and fight those battles.

We here at the TSA whole-heartedly agree, and can attest to the viciousness of people trying to pass airport checkpoints without having their boobs x-ray-goggled and their scrotums squeezed. It was a humbling experience for us when the ACLU obtained a court order forcing us to cease all operations not shown to improve security, both for specific complaints such as humiliation over naked x-rays and groping and for more general complaints about using non-issues as a platform to force travelers into ridiculous and submissive positions so that we can exert control continuously and ensure that they will follow any instruction no matter how much it strips their civil liberties.

At the TSA, we now focus on working with intelligence agencies and on aircraft control strategies. Locked cockpit doors and fast response and escort when a pilot behaves in an unexpected and uncontrolled manner have become the gold standard, and we are strict on airlines that do not enforce these standards. Your convenience and safety are both equal priorities, as they should be.

Re:First file sharing (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999770)

"At a point you need to convince people that something like Abortion is grotesque, an abomination to the moral fiber of society"

Never argued with a pro-lifer before? That's about typical for them. They tend to use holocaust comparisons a lot, but they usually believe abortion is the greater crime.

Re:First file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998920)

It's not about the site itself. It's about having the isp foot the bool to protect company interests to filter out newsbin. Bt simply scraped it rather than put up the cost. By having the isp foot the bill, it makes them partial responsible for the materials that goes through their isp. As much as you hate the isps (they done alot to basically throw away their common carrier status), this is still very bad news as it's open to abuse in many ways.

Re:First file sharing (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999496)

it's NOT a "Slippery Slope" argument... it's the "Camel's nose under the tent wall" argument... where you aquiesce to minor increments and pretty soon, you find the entire camel is inside the tent...

Re:First file sharing (1)

megla (859600) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998730)

Then child porn. Then hate speech. Then speech to create political unrest. Then pro-abortion speech. Then pro-Republican speech.

Um... if you read TFA then you'll see it's actually "First child porn, then file sharing". The fact that you have child porn on that list as if it's something people should be able to access is a little disturbing too.

Re:First file sharing (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998870)

Are you suggesting that the government should stop people "being able to access" child porn? Be precise in your language and your argument.

Re:First file sharing (1)

planimal (2454610) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998874)

i'm surprised you're the only one who commented on this. i found it weird that he would include child porn in that list. perhaps he was referring to small breasted women in porn(aussies), or of the animated form

Re:First file sharing (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999414)

The problem with child porn laws is that they are always badly defined. Child abuse is fairly easy to define. Pictures of child abuse make you an accessory (or an accessory after the fact) to child abuse, so no extra laws are required. Child porn laws have covered:
  • Drawings of fictitious children in various settings (wanting got look at these may be a bit fucked up, but no children were harmed in the creation of them).
  • A photograph of a naked child in the bath taken by its parents (use your favourite search engine to find this one).
  • Pictures of consensual sex between people above the age of consent, create without the intent to distribute them.
  • Pictures of adults who look like they are under the age of consent
  • Pictures of children playing that someone thought might be arousing to someone else.

One of the cases the was on Slashdot a few weeks ago was a catholic priest. Some of the pictures he had were just photograph of (clothed) children with their crotches in the centre of the frame. These were counted as child porn (not to defend the individual in question - there was also evidence that he was molesting the children, but focussing on the pictures rather than the molestation seems wrong).

Re:First file sharing (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999810)

but focusing on the pictures rather than the molestation seems wrong

Are we being conditioned to consider the thought as the crime, rather than the act?

Re:First file sharing (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999822)

Same trick as the Aussie Simpson's case: If the accused is already a known (Or just heavily suspected) child molester, a jury will want to throw the book at him, and take any excuse no matter how flimsy to do so. So even the most innocent images can be classed as child porn, just to up the sentence a bit more.

Re:First file sharing (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999796)

Child porn is not a reason to allow the government to blatantly mandate block lists for the Internet. Child porn is a reason for the government to monitor such things, but also to arrange stings and traps and to go put an end to human trafficking and to try to stop the child molesters.

The current government line is that each time another person views an image of child porn, that child is victimized again. It's one more victimization of that child for one more person to see it. The current law states that you cannot retrieve any data off a child porn infected computer; it must be quarantined and then DOD secure wiped. All data on the machine is now tainted and nothing of value can be retrieved because it carries the radioactive infection of child pornography. The physical disk is suspect and must go through a complete surface wipe.

Personally, I think a child is mostly victimized when you kidnap them in the night, beat them, stick multiple adult-sized penises up their asses, and then sell them to an underground sex slave operation. I'm not sure the threat of another person handling an image (there are "fuzzy hashing algorithms" used to handle child porn so the image itself is NEVER transmitted or even seen by someone else--the person to see it hides it, reports it, and the investigators never LOOK at it because that would be "victimizing the child again") really stands up to much of this.

By the way, the first effort Slashdot covered for blanket censorship was a child pornography one--and the day it started, the blacklist carried many non-child-pornography addresses, mostly related to file sharing (as an extension--you might share child pornography!).

sensationalist (2)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998552)

it won't be long before most people in the UK will be unable to visit file-sharing sites at all, without using a proxy, VPN, or special client.

That's like saying you soon won't be able to leave your own house - unless you use a door or window. If the Chinese government cannot filter the internet effectively the UK government will have no hope.

Re:sensationalist (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998606)

Although you're absolutely right, there are still serious problems with a system that allows certain types of information to be banned (and I'm not talking about the copyrighted files, it's the links to the files that they've gone after here). Pragmatic as it is, "It's not a major issue because they can't enforce it" is just asking for trouble a few years down the line.

Re:sensationalist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998608)

Yes, if leaving your house were illegal, and if it was unusual for regular people to have the technical ability to use windows and doors.

Re:sensationalist (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998628)

It's not the UK government, it's the ISPs who are being forced into it by the Record Labels. BT, Virgin, etc. don't want to filter these sites, so they're not going to care if they do a particularly poor job of it.

I'm curious though, as far as I'm aware, this is done at the DNS level - anyone on BT know what happens when you use OpenDNS?

Re:sensationalist (1)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999194)

Well, it doesn't seem to be blocked using BT's DNS (not that we would ever rely on their DNS) or via packet filtering. Though we are using a BTnet leased line, but I would have thought the ruling should affect all of BT's customers.

$ dig +short @ns3.bt.net newszbin.com
74.55.102.12

$ dig +short @ns4.bt.net newszbin.com
74.55.102.12

Interestingly, using BT's consumer DNS servers returns a different IP, though it appears to work too [178.73.222.20]

$ dig +short @62.6.40.178 newzbin.com
178.73.222.20

Re:sensationalist (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999370)

That's... not exactly true. The UK government forced all these ISPs to add the hardware to be able to filter websites so that they could block child porn - previously they didn't have the ability to do it - and then the record labels saw this and realised they could force them to block sites like Newzbin2 too.

It's not DNS-based either; they insert a transparent proxy between their users and the IP addresses that the websites use and actually filter requests.

Re:sensationalist (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999842)

Minor correction: The UK government didn't force the ISPs to add the hardware. The UK government indicated that it would force the ISPs to add the hardware if they didn't do so voluntarily, and the ISPs (All the major ones, and most of the minor ones too) complied with haste. In their view, better a filter of their own design than to be forced to build one to government specifications.

Re:sensationalist (2)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998856)

"proxy, VPN, or special client"

Or a 64gb micro-SD card, in a smart phone, acting as a WiFi access point. Who needs the internet when you have your own network?

The kids are already doing this. It only takes one person to obtain the naughty files.

Files will become hot-property, school currency, and the kids with the most on offer will become the most popular.

Well done UK Gov. With this and your Channel Islands Tax Loophole closure, you'll have Hollywood making election winning donations for years to come.

Re:sensationalist (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999406)

Forgive my ignorance, but how is visiting a site via your phone's 3G any different than using a landline? Surely if BT bans access to a site it will be unreachable by any device..?

Re:sensationalist (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999904)

Think more sneakernet with wireless enhancements. You don't download: You got to Knock-Off Nigel with your phone, and he'll transfer whatever you want from his phone to yours. Such activity brings popularity, so it wouldn't be hard to find a Nigel - every school will have some in the student population, as will any sizeable workplace. The Nigels can trade their files with other Nigels online - as they have the contacts and knowledge to do so even under the strictest enforcement - and they in turn serve as points of contact for the rest of the population.

Re:sensationalist (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999456)

"the kids with the most on offer will become the most popular."

It works. When I was a pupil, it was the height of the pokemon craze. I supplied copies of no$gba and roms on floppy, site rips of the pokedex, episode guides, even whole episodes in realmedia format via spanned ZIP archives. Made me quite popular, so long as the flow of data was kept up. Then the internet came along, and suddenly noone needed my services.

Re:sensationalist (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999800)

Files will become hot-property, school currency, and the kids with the most on offer will become the most popular.

This. I had the good fortune of being in school when Napster launched, as well as being one of the very few kids with a high speed connection and a CD burner. I made a decent amount of money selling custom mix discs to kids I went to school with, their parents, even a few teachers were buying discs from me. It got to the point where I was getting so many orders that I was literally spending all of my free time burning CD's.

The rebirth of Sneakernet is at hand...

Clowns (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998562)

And yet the population at large will continue to blissfully re-elect that same old clowns that are helping to slowly tighten the noose/boil us frogs... nothing to see here.

Re:Clowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998676)

And which clowns would you have us elect? Even if there were some alternative clowns to elect, the party system is the problem and that is what the average idiot votes for...

Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998568)

Stop watching TV and cancel all magazine subscriptions. When you block these big-money ad channels, you'll find you want less things than you used to.

Ads are all about making you want stuff you didn't want before. Or even knew about before.

Piracy doesn't matter anymore; it's about useless stuff we can live without. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Toss that TV and cancel all newspaper and mag subs.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998642)

And while you're at it, subscribe to Slashdot so you don't see the ads any more. Remember - you have to spend money to save money!

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998732)

I don't subscribe to slashdot. In fact I don't even have an account. I have never seen an ad on slashdot.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999508)

spend money to save money!

In finnish, that goes: "kun ostat, niin säästät!" ~ "when you buy, you'll save!".

I don't see ads anywhere. I use adblock on principle: when everything on the net is offered without trying to get money out of it, the net will be a better place.

If everyone used adblock, it would demotivate those who make content only for the "clicks". Granted, some of those make very good content, but their source of motivation still sucks.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998868)

Stop watching TV and cancel all magazine subscriptions. When you block these big-money ad channels, you'll find you want less things than you used to.

Ads are all about making you want stuff you didn't want before. Or even knew about before.

Piracy doesn't matter anymore; it's about useless stuff we can live without. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Toss that TV and cancel all newspaper and mag subs.

If you're that easily swayed by ads then the issue is you yourself.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999224)

If you're that easily swayed by ads then the issue is you yourself.

Try it. You might surprise yourself. It's not that ads are easy to ignore, they are. But even if ignored, they still give you information you don't need.

You just don't know that you don't need it until you try this. It's hard to explain. It's like you've been drunk your whole life, living among other drunks and not knowing anything else. Then you stop drinking and after 6 months you wonder why everything others talk about feel stupid and simple. When drunk, even simple and stupid things feel great. Same thing with watching TV a lot.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998928)

If you download TV shows from unlicensed sources you will see there is no ads.

Maybe that is the problem? It is not really about copyrights but about losing viewers for the ads?

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999202)

If you download TV shows from unlicensed sources you will see there is no ads.

Maybe that is the problem? It is not really about copyrights but about losing viewers for the ads?

Maybe, but what is the industry going to do if someone manages to invent a box that you attach to your TV, that can record all your shows, let you watch them later, and lets you skip past the commercials? Hypothetically, of course.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999336)

Product placement makes sure you cannot skip all ads even if you think you can. And those kind of subtle ads, when you can't recognize them as ads, are most powerful.

Most effective way to avoid them is to get rid of TV.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999382)

We would need a period of Beta-testing, of course. But a catchy name for marketing could be Volumetric Household Screener.

Re:Stop watching TV and you won't care anymore (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999480)

Increase the use of product placement. Or make the ad breaks shorter but more frequent, so people are less inclined to fetch the remote. In actuality, a bit of both.

Pointless (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998612)

And doubtless it'll be just as effective as BT's blocking has been...

Though I suspect that it's less the awesome skill of the people circumventing it and more that BT have almost certainly found the cheapest way to minimally comply with the court order making it trivial to bypass and the other ISPs will probably do the same.

Help to educate the masses! (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998626)

Yes, this isn't all bad. What this means is that the Average Joe will become somewhat more clueful about how to route around the "damage", and the use of these tools will become more ubiquitous (thereby helping to shield the privacy of those who use them).

Funny (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998648)

The funny thing is that the people that download movies are actually the ones that are going to cinema. And if you anger them enough, instead of going to the cinema for the rare cases there is some relatively good movies, they will actually download them all, and f... them all. And it is easy, there are tons of torrent sites, thousands, and most of them are in countries where you cannot close them (not legally). And finally, lets not forget why P2P, Torrent, etc were invented.. remember remember the 5th of November ........

I applaud this. (2)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998658)

By forcing the 'net underground they ultimately encourage truly free speech.

Re:I applaud this. (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998774)

Tentatively agreed. I hope this will lead to more people defaulting to encrypted and proxied connections.

Especially if an Ubuntu distro already set up to do this becomes widely used.

Re:I applaud this. (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998848)

By forcing the 'net underground they ultimately encourage truly free speech.

Damn. Here I was hoping they'd be encouraging sonar-vision.

Why Newsbin2? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998660)

I'm curious - why did they go after Newsbin2? Why not one of the main sites, like Piratebay (I know they're next, but you'd have thought they'd have gone after the big fish first). Unless Newsbin2 is a bigger site than I gave it credit for. I've never really heard of it, even from chatter amongst heavy filesharers and newsgroup users - nzbmatrix, binsearch, etc. all seem a lot more popular.

What did Newsbin2 do to specifically piss off this label?

Re:Why Newsbin2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998764)

from end of BBC article - my guess is they went for an easy target who wouldn't shout loudly first to set a precedent

Web blocking appears to be the new weapon of choice for the creative industries. On 4 November BT received a letter from the BPI, the UK's music industry trade body, asking it to block access to BitTorrent file-sharing website The Pirate Bay.

Re:Why Newsbin2? (2)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998840)

Newsbin were originally a UK based site. They were forced offshore, then they went for blocking it.

Re:Why Newsbin2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998896)

My money would be that access via usenet is (1) generally a lot faster than torrenting, and (2) less easy to trace the downloaders than those using torrent clients.

Torrents are easy enough to scrape and get a list of users participating; for usenet you might be able to go after the source (however quixotic that turns out to be) but you can't send C&D nastygrams to the users downloading the content.

Although, even if newzbin gets blocked it's still not blocking usenet, so the MPA isn't exactly going for hard targets here - the content is still available, it might just take a little bit more effort to get.

Re:Why Newsbin2? (1)

Mad Leper (670146) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999422)

They're not actually a true usenet provider, but provide easy access to pirated material from usenet feeds. Their big mistake was to categorize and organize copyrighted material for distribution and so effectively behave as a distributor. Normally the movie/music industry ignores individual file downloading, but when you get into the business of being a distributor without permission of the content owner's, your asking for trouble.

And before anyone brings it up, no, it's not like Google.

This is good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998760)

It'll be hard for the majority of aspie-afflicted Slashdot readers to understand, but for those of us who work in the creative industries (as opposed to being braindead code monkeys), this is actually good news.

If piracy continues, creativity will be reduced to mere amateurism and vanity publishing, because nobody will be able to make a living from it.

Now mod me down, assholes.

Re:This is good (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998946)

Amateurism is way better than the utter shit that Hollywood shits out 98% of the time. Your industry needs to be purged, I welcome its death and rebirth.

Re:This is good (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999064)

That's just it. Everyone cries for it to be reborn - but the outcome of that scenario could result in something worse, not something better. I'm not saying changes don't need to be made, but the whole industry dying off will probably not happen.

Re:This is good (1)

MichaelJ (140077) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999042)

Yes, god forbid actors make less than the absurd millions they currently earn for less, easier work than some people do every day. If Hollywood salaries were on par with the rest of the country, that would trickle down through the cost of the movies, and people could more easily afford to go out to the theatre, buy DVD's, etc.

Re:This is good (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999220)

It'll be hard for the majority of those working in the creative industries, but we braindead code monkeys, consultants, administrators and documentators create as much content as you do (and coding, conceptual work and finding nasty bugs is creative work), but we write a single bill for it, and are done with it. We don't expect to be paid for the rest of our lives and our heirs for an additional 70 years for it.

Re:This is good (5, Insightful)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999458)

Sorry, my points have all been spent.

You might want to pick up a newspaper sometime (if they still in print) because the world has changed a little bit in the last several decades.

There have been some recent developments that you might find interesting, such as the rise of "the internet", "smart phones", "i-things", "unemployment", and "economic uncertainty".

In reading, you might also learn that most of us don't have infinite incomes. Additionally, at the risk of offending some camps, all businesses can't continue to always increase profits for an infinite amount of time.

So the average person has less money to spend on entertainment and more places to spend it, then it seems pretty likely that certain "creative industries" can feel the pinch.

You are in the "creative industry", can't you be more creative than using piracy as a scapegoat?

Rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998780)

The court statement blocks a specific set of sites. If newzbin2 changed their DNS name to www.somestupidothername.com, changed their IP addresses and their hosting information, the firms would have to start again and it does take time.

newzbin2 will move far quicker than the UK legal process.

There are so many ways to circumvent this now that its pointless.

Anyway, good luck to the film companies, it's always fun watching stupid people wasting time and money.

Re:Rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999124)

That really depends on the text of any court order granted. Chances are it will be very broad and will not need to be granted again to cover things like a change of domain or IP address.

Luckily for me I am not with a major ISP. Hopefully the ISP's will start competing with each other to be least repressive.

Re:Rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999308)

newzbin3?

Bittorrent over I2P (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37998788)

There needs to be a mass migration to this. It will be difficult, similar to the IPv4 to IPv6 transition, but it will be completely invulnerable to interference. TPB should take the lead by setting up a parallel darknet tracker & torrent site that runs on I2P, that would make it easy for users to start running multiple clients and ease the transition to I2P torrents. Once complete anonymity is possible, uploading will become much more popular, maybe there could be a quick interface for re-seeding old torrents on I2P.

Join the boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37998974)

Refuse to buy any content or product from any member of the mafiaa. Continue to download copyrighted material even if it is just to seed. Support open media and content providers that give away their content through donations. If you want these guys to loose their grip on your society you have to remove their power. Money. There are people that actively pull games and cd's off the shelf to rip them out of hatred for the publisher/distributer. Don't give in to the desire to buy something as soon as it comes out.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999002)

Or, more precisely for us un the U.S., banning guns because they kill people.

I'm going way out on a limb here, but in the U.S., I suspect there are many more incidents of crimes committed with the aid of a handgun than there are incidents of self-defense usign a handgun. Banning guns isn't the solution for several reasons, the most salient being that criminals will still have guns from any source willing to sell them, while their victims will not.

Forcing British ISPs to block Newzbin2 is the equivalent of banning the service (Usenet) because it is almost entirely used for what are apparently illegal activities. Apparently being significant also. So rather than tackle each incident, or even ask for blocking of specific content, why, go ahead and kill off the entire service. Kinda sad.

But the British aren't unused to this. After all, in the U.K., owning a handgun isn't a right. Neither is being left alone by your government. And the U.S. is following right behind, sadly.

Re:Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (0)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999488)

It does not stop there. The "criminal association" to anything can mean it banned. Flickknives/switchblades are pretty much entirely illegal, both in the UK and US. Are they any more dangerous than any other locking knife, or even a sheath knife? No, but they are (were) largely associated with criminal activity, so they were banned. Take the pitbull. Still legal in the US but not in most parts of Europe. Same reason: most likely than not, associated with criminal activity.
As per your handgun statement; owning a handgun isn't just "not a right" in the UK. It is entirely illegal in every circumstance (excepting Northern Ireland).

Re:Throwing the baby out with the bathwater (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999830)

"And the U.S. is following right behind, sadly."

Which is odd, as it's usually the other way around - given our previous prime-minister's propensity to lodge his nose between your former's buttocks.

my biggest concern (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999118)

is that they're using the same technology for this as they do for childporn, essentially inviting thousands to discus how to circumvent it instead of just a few shady groups here and there. this'll just lead to tighter security for child porn, which the movie industry will then wish to adopt for films and so on and so forth.

This will lead to the end of the Internet (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999192)

The once united global net will be fractured into small national networks if these legislations spread.

I see where this is all leading (1)

EnderDom (1934586) | more than 2 years ago | (#37999436)

First they blocked the file sharing sites, but I did not speak out because I was not a file-sharer...

Re:I see where this is all leading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37999836)

No, it's not like that at all.

First they blocked the child porn sites, but I did not speak because I was not a pedophile.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...