Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

UK ISPs Asked To Block More File-sharing Websites

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the shut-down-everything dept.

Piracy 89

another random user writes with this news from the BBC: "The UK's major internet service providers have been asked to block three more file-sharing websites. The BPI (British Phonographic Industry), which acts on behalf of rights holders, wants ISPs to prevent access to Fenopy, H33t and Kickass Torrents. The BPI alleges that the sites are illegally distributing music. The ISPs told the BBC they would comply with the new demand, but only if a court order is put in place. It follows a separate court order in April which saw popular file-sharing site The Pirate Bay blocked in the UK. ... The letter, which was not intended to go public, was sent to six ISPs last week, namely BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE and TalkTalk. It is understood that the BPI is hoping all three sites will be blocked before Christmas — far more quickly than the process has taken previously."

cancel ×

89 comments

They have an industry association for... (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749487)

Oh, never mind; misread that.

Re:They have an industry association for... (1, Funny)

Formalin (1945560) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749511)

Yeah.. I had to read it three times, wondering why the British Pornographic Industry cares about music.

Re:They have an industry association for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41750855)

Thanks for explaining the joke.

Re:They have an industry association for... (3, Informative)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749577)

Incidentally, I found out that in Germany they *do* have an industry association for that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%9CFA [wikipedia.org]

70's porn music? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749499)

Come on, really?

Re:70's porn music? (3, Funny)

EthanV2 (1211444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749507)

That's Phonographic

So it begins (1)

EthanV2 (1211444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749501)

Imagine if you will, a country where any company or group can have any website blocked because they don agree with the content.

Better start setting up some fast VPNs, guys, because it won't be long before this gets out of hand.

Re:So it begins (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749609)

I object to these sorts of bans because they don't work. Everyone in the UK can easily access the pirate bay through a mirror hosted by the UK pirate party.

However, not agreeing with the content is very different from attempting to block websites that almost exclusively serve illegal content. It would be the same as saying that a country that has made murder illegal is just in the habbit of banning acts it doesn't approve of.

Re:So it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749715)

Trying to equate file sharing to murder is laughable.

--wmbetts

Re:So it begins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749777)

You misunderstand the point being made. This is about enforcing an existing law, not about arbitrary censorship of whatever the hell the big media organisations want to get rid of.

If you want to argue that it's a stupid law and should be changed, then I'm fully in agreement with you. You can argue that this is a stupid method of enforcing it, and I'd agree with that too.

But it's still a law being enforced.

Re:So it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751395)

If they won't change the law, then it should be ignored and circumvented by any means possible. To allow anybody to declare posted content illegal is absurd. Nobody has the right to do that. Fuck the law! It deserves no respect whatsoever. Especially when it's so capricious and arbitrary, existing for the sole benefit of entrenched interests. We have a duty, obligation to violate bad law. That's the only way it will ever be changed. If we don't stand together, we will fall apart.

Re:So it begins (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749875)

Some of us don't even need to use a mirror - we use Fastnet for our ISP at work here in London and they haven't blocked it.

Re:So it begins (2)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749869)

The Pirate Bay blockade is pathetic - if the best they can do is a poor King Canute imitation, I'm really not worried.

Re:So it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41750041)

VPN wtf! Its your virus-scanner which is providing real-time network-wide information of what files a person has on there computer, so 200 million computers connected to the network and they now in real-time who has downloaded what. And with the next generation of intel processors they'll be able to brick your computer if you have files deemed harmful to civilization. It' all ready gotten "out of hand", just try to persuade someone not to use a "virus-scanner". The people that really understand are the one in prison, and then they realize how those files on their computer where discovered. So your only option is to compile your on O.S., and design your on computer using a processor other then Intel's.

Re:So it begins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41750467)

Tin foil hat slipped has it?

Re:So it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41752573)

VPN wtf! Its your virus-scanner which is providing real-time network-wide information of what files a person has on there computer, so 200 million computers connected to the network and they now in real-time who has downloaded what. And with the next generation of intel processors they'll be able to brick your computer if you have files deemed harmful to civilization. It' all ready gotten "out of hand", just try to persuade someone not to use a "virus-scanner". The people that really understand are the one in prison, and then they realize how those files on their computer where discovered. So your only option is to compile your on O.S., and design your on computer using a processor other then Intel's.

their
know
It's
already
ones
were
own
own
than

wow.

Re:So it begins (1)

Nevynxxx (932175) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750623)

Which part of the "Hopefully before Christmas....Quicker than before" makes you think we need to get VPNs up *quickly*?

Welcome to the UK, where your Police State moves that slowly it never catches up to you!

Re:So it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41750715)

You have a strange definition of police state. This is a private organisation sending a letter to other private organisations, asking them to limit the service they provide.

Re:So it begins (1)

Nevynxxx (932175) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750895)

LOL, I was being just a touch facetious. But to be fair to the ISPs, they have said they wont do anything without a court order, which does become a little closer to "police-state".

Re:So it begins (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751161)

LOL, I was being just a touch facetious. But to be fair to the ISPs, they have said they wont do anything without a court order, which does become a little closer to "police-state".

Although I agree that blocking TPB et al is pointless, I still don't think you can call obeying a court order being in a police state.

Re:So it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751649)

Better start setting up some fast VPNs, guys, because this has gotten out of hand.

There. FTFY.

Is anyone really surprised by this? (4, Informative)

JosKarith (757063) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749513)

So TPB's ban was the thin end of the wedge? What a surprise.
And I absolutely love "The letter, which was not intended to go public" - so they want ISP's to filter traffic for them without all the hassle of legal process or negative public opinion.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749897)

If it's the thin edge of the wedge, it must be a wedge of Swiss cheese.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

Walterk (124748) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750163)

Well, no one should be surprised by this. No one will be surprised to learn that the banning of TPB has made no significant difference to the amount of traffic to it [bbc.co.uk] . The BPI like the RIAA sees every download as lost revenue, where the real link is that the most prolific downloaders tend to be the most frequent purchasers of media as well. The biggest impact on reduction of illegal downloading has been the introduction of legal services such as iTunes, Amazon MP3 store, etc..

Of course, posting this here is just preaching to the choir.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751245)

the most prolific downloaders tend to be the most frequent purchasers of media as well

Thanks to the solid scientific basis of your claim, I'm now convinced.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

Evtim (1022085) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751495)

Listen, I am also tired of all this. Anecdotal evidence bla, bla, bla....

OK, so I just read a political news where a survey was performed in a certain country and the results are making quite a noise in the media and political circles. What was the number of people surveyed? 570.

Now then, my "anecdotal evidence" about the statement of Waltrek that you object of is based on approx. 300-350 people I have personally investigated (colleges, friends, relatives and acquaintances). YES, the biggest pirates are the biggest purchasers (myself included).

I suspect that the people at /. who make those statements also have some "anecdotal" evidence. It might turn out at the end that the sum of such evidence might amass thousands upon thousands of people - much better than the political survey I mentioned above.

So, yes, you should be convinced...

BTW, the other correlation I noticed is that the higher the salary of a person the LESS legitimate content they download. The former CEO of my company was a bigger pirate than me and had 20 legal DVD's in comparison of my 500 (and counting). Something about psychopaths in positions of power in our economic paradigm comes to mind....

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41753055)

A quick google will show you that there's been quite a bit of research, all of which do in fact say that the most prolific downloaders tend to be the most frequent purchasers of media.

I can't find the link, but a couple of years ago a book publisher who, like most people, bought into the myth that pirates are all freeloaders commissioned a study to see how much money pirates were costing.

A book took a couple of weeks to hit the net, so the researchers looked at sales figures to see how much of a drop there was. The researchers and the publisher who hired them were amazed to find that rather than a drop, there was a spike in sales.

The research is there if you care to look for it.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

Terrasque (796014) | about a year and a half ago | (#41753415)

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-more-movies-121018/ [torrentfreak.com]

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/ [torrentfreak.com]

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-buy-30-more-music-than-non-p2p-peers-121015/ [torrentfreak.com]

http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-piracy-boosts-music-sales-study-finds-120517/ [torrentfreak.com]

Yeah, I'm lazy. And the site does have its own agenda. But the articles all link to the original sources, so should be verifiable if you're curious.

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751155)

I believe it was the child porn blocking that was promised to be "just the tip".

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751235)

Cue obligatory "All they could fit" joke in 5... 4... 3...

Re:Is anyone really surprised by this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751895)

When corporations and government officials do things like they, they are a tyrany. A criminal element hiding behind the colors of law. When law enforcement and the courts go along with it, they are simply accessories to that fact, and cease to be valid in the eyes of the public. Courts and law enforcement have become the criminals; they are not valid.

Precedent (2)

ruir (2709173) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749569)

Here is a precedent for censorship...boycott the fuckers, no more DVDs, CDs and cinema for me.

Re:Precedent (2)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750457)

see, the RIAA/MPAA will just assume if you are boycotting them, that you are indeed pirating more, since this clearly why they lose revenue.

Re:Precedent (2)

grahamm (8844) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750775)

And they just cannot understand how anyone would not want to watch/listen to the movies/music produced by their members. The same as the UK TV Licensing cannot understand how any household could live without a TV set, so assume that anyone who does not have a TV licence is watching TV illegally.

Re:Precedent (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751563)

And they just cannot understand how anyone would not want to watch/listen to the movies/music produced by their members. The same as the UK TV Licensing cannot understand how any household could live without a TV set, so assume that anyone who does not have a TV licence is watching TV illegally.

If you don't have a TV you don't have to pay for a TV licence. Similarly, if you don't want to pay to watch a movie or listen to a piece of music, don't.

The movie/music industries exist because people want to consume their products. You always have the option not to consume them.

Re:Precedent (2)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750875)

Yes, that's true, I think. Just today I saw a funny article here [wordpress.com] , which begins by claiming that piracy is the reason that the newspaper industry is on the decline. (The site is focused on the music industry, but the author seems to blame piracy for every bad thing that happens in the world.)

Re:Precedent (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751311)

Here is a precedent for censorship...boycott the fuckers, no more DVDs, CDs and cinema for me.

How is stopping someone from reading/viewing/listening to your own stuff censorship?

If I write a poem and lock it away in a drawer, how am I censoring you by not letting you read it unless you pay me?

Yes, I know you said "a precedent for censorship" but they are just weasel words.

Re:Precedent (1)

ruir (2709173) | about a year and a half ago | (#41874177)

They dont are exactly locking it in a drawer, are they? They are making ISPs working for free for them, to try to hide something that is already in tech terms in the public domain.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751435)

This is no censorship, this is prevention of active antisemitic acts, because Britain did not, does not and will not forget how much they owe to the jewry. (Amongst many occasions Rotschild's 1911 purchase of the Union's entire bond to prevent an outright state bankruptcy resulting from the accelerated naval armaments programme versus Imperial German Navy.)

Not paying for enjoying movies and music created by ventures run and owned by jewish investors is an active act of antisemitism. Active antisemitism is an egregious crime because jews are the God's chosen nation. The P2P pirates shall be glad that manmade law allows them to repent and discontinue their vile ways, in time to avoid the eternal punishment.

But if you are so stubborn and stuck in vileness, come forwards and say it openly that you are an antisemite and you pirate movies and music in order to deny revenue to the jewry! Luckily, that evil plan will not bear fruit, as the jewry is not only clever, but also more powerful than ever and is plenty able to protect its well-being and economic interests from the un-righteous people. Massada will not fall again!

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41752195)

I haven't bought music from a major label in 6 years. I 100% quit going to the movie theater and buying/renting movies. Admitting one exception 'Avatar' for all the hype. I don't own a TV. I am boycotting these bastards already. I try to channel my vote-with-my-wallet activity to small independents and avoid the major corps as much as possible. And here I am contemplating signing up Netflix or something else for easy movie access. Articles like this remind me why we need to starve the major labels to death.

The Imperial Wack-a-Mole Games are officially open (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749597)

I wonder big the list is of industries/products that throughout human history have disappeared because of changes in technology.
I wonder if the phonographic industry realises that they are on that list and marked in red "pending".
I wonder if they realise that once an industry/product is on that list you can never come off.
BTW this list is called human progress.

Re:The Imperial Wack-a-Mole Games are officially o (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751629)

Unless you think that people are going to stop watching films or listening to popular music, then no, the film and music industries are not going to disappear.

I know people on slashdot think that everything can be made for free, but especially in the case of films, that simply isn't true. The industries are there because one man and his laptop can't make a big glossy Hollywood film.

As to whether big glossy Hollywood films need to be made, that is a different question. But as an awful lot of people seem to prefer Transformers 3 to re-watching a Kurosawa or Tarkovsky classic, I'd say they have their followers.

Torrent sites are distributing (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749607)

For various definitions of "distribute"
Your mileage may vary

Dear BPI, (4, Insightful)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749679)

Fuck off, you do not hold any copyrights yourselves, therefore you are NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO COMPLAIN.

Yours Sincerely,

Everybody.

Re:Dear BPI, (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750081)

NO STOP ABORT!

Don't listen to them BPI. Please continue your research in the name of your artists. Please continue you send these letters to ISPs. Thanks to your efforts I just discovered a new torrent site.

God bless the BPI and all you do for your artists by publishing a list of places we can pirate their material.

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750497)

Be sure to grab some Barbra Streisand while you're there.

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

Terrasque (796014) | about a year and a half ago | (#41753449)

True story:

At one ISP I worked at, the abuse@ DMCA notices were filtered into a separate mailbox, and was only read / searched to find links to download. This was, of course, not in USA :)

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

Thiez (1281866) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750297)

That isn't a very meaningful limitation. All posters here are copyright holders, as you hold the copyright of your own post. Anyone who has ever drawn a picture or written a paragraph is a copyright owner. With the exception of infants, I don't think you would be able to find anyone who is *not* a copyright holder.

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

FBeans (2201802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751509)

Close. It's theoretically true. In practice much of what is said on Slashdot is a carbon copy of something somebody else said. So point 1. You can't copyright something that isn't actually yours. Point 2. Copyright law states that one must actively announce that the content is copyrighted, that it is not to be replicated without consent, and any breaches must be actively fought.

Summary: 'All posters here are copyright holders' - Not true in practical terms, just because we all /can/ be, doesn't mean we all are.

Additionally, copyrighting most Slashdot posts would be like trying to patent a simple and obvious feature on a phone, like 'Slide-to-unlock'. We all understand how insane that is... right?

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41754983)

Your points are all missing the point: you can't copyright an idea, only its presentation. If I say the same thing you said in exactly the same words, I violate copyright. If I reword it, I'm not in violation.

You hold copyright to the comment you just wrote, unless you cut and pasted it from someone else's comment. Likewise, this comment is automatically granted copyright to me.

Your using patent to explain your incorrect view of copyright is likewise 100% ignorant. It doesn't matter how obvious my nobot stories are, they're still under copyright.

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750813)

And, as usual, slashdotters flip flop between a legalistic approach and "I don't care what the law says, I care what's RIGHT" depending on their personal stances on any particular issue.

Yours sincerely,

Somebody

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751661)

Fuck off, you do not hold any copyrights yourselves, therefore you are NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO COMPLAIN.

Yours Sincerely,

Everybody.

As the discoverer of this amazing legal loophole, I trust you have informed the ISPs concerned so that they can rebuff teh evil BPI with a few well chosen words?

Re:Dear BPI, (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41754363)

Actually I didn't. Recent precedent proves it.

I quote from a comment I made on the Authors Guild -v- Hathitrust (11 CV 5361 (HB)) decision a couple weeks ago:

ABKO Music Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971, 980 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[T]he Copyright Act does not permit copyright holders to choose third parties to bring suits on their behalf.”

Well, I guess... (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749689)

BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE and TalkTalk have just driven the final nail in Trust's casket. I've just called O2 and told them where to put their SIM contract.

Re:Well, I guess... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749721)

Switch to Andrews and Arnold (HTTP://www.aaisp.com) they have an anti censorship policy.

Re:Well, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41750837)

They also have metered Internet, making copyright infringement less of an issue on their connections.

Re:Well, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749847)

You're complaining to the wrong people. The ISPs said they will block the sites if they get a court order telling them to do so. Do you really expect them to ignore a court order?

If you have a problem with sites being blocked like this complain to your MP.

Re:Well, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41750007)

The problem is they have the child porn blocking in place. This was NOT a good idea. It doesn't stop anything and now it's what is being used for censorship of other stuff. While those filters may handle a small amount of sites just fine increased use will likely have a detrimental impact on peoples access. The filters in themselves increase latency and such things. It's not reasonable for an entire country to suffer because of a handful of people. The harm prevented by that the crazy and controversial theories isn't (provided it does minimize it at all) worth the cost of negatively impacting all Internet users service.

Re:Well, I guess... (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751725)

It's not reasonable for an entire country to suffer because of a handful of people.

If the ISPs are blocking child pornography, who exactly is suffering apart from the consumers of (illegal) child pornography, about whose "right" to view child pornography I personally don't give a flying fuck?

Re:Well, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41754575)

This would be a fine argument if child pornography were actually a 100% decidable issue.

Take a look at http://www.artistsuk.co.uk/acatalog/Virgin_child_egypt_William_Blake.jpg for instance.

Re:Well, I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749951)

Not ISP (Internet service provider) now becomes ID NP (Internet DisService Non-provider). Partial ISP? PISP?
It is a fundamental breach of contract not to deliver.
Never mind the fact that these are NOT file sharing websites, and the bow is being stretched to deny legitimate file sharing, tarring everyone with the same asserted, not proven claims.

After Pirate Bay, I suspect more 'universal broken proxy fixing' apps will become more widespread than ever.
Seems throwing a legal tantrum does work if political stooges are greased/paid off. ISP's already save money secretly retarding bandwidth, and it is plain to see this legal mumbo jumbo might increase their profits by playing along and pandering to quasi-judicial 'regulations'.

As for 'alleges that the sites are illegally distributing music' I would award costs against whoever, because the word is 'facilitating copyright infringement' which is 99.99% a civil mater, not criminal. Wasters of the courts time, should get summarily tossed out.

Re:Well, I guess... (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750317)

It is a fundamental breach of contract not to deliver.

Unfortunately, court orders can overrule contracts, sidestepping breach-of-contract in the process.

Besides, which is worse: obeying a court order, or being shut down completely?

Re:Well, I guess... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41762609)

I would call it a PFCP: Partial Filtered Content Provider.

Any service provider who sells you a package which includes INTERNET and filters it without your knowledge or consent is committing FRAUD, since you don't know what filters are in place or what they're filtering, you are not getting what you paid for by any stretch of the most deranged imagination.

UK Great firewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749737)

Whats the point blocking aything?? All their doing is forcing people to add overhead to networks due to encryption

Market forces (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749809)

Just take your business to plusnet

It's cheaper and they don't block any sites.

Re:Market forces (2)

They'reComingToTakeM (1091657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750601)

Plusnet are owned by BT - which is why I left them.

Re:Market forces (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41752287)

and went to?

wrong read (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41749817)

I read British Pornographic Industry, sorry

Rise of encrypted net (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749821)

Given widespread surveillance, by law or otherwise it will and has driven people to encrypt all traffic. My traffic is like my mail. You cannot look into every letter just because you suspect copyright infringement. You need a court order allowing you to pry into my mail. I do not like people reading my mail, even if I am only wishing my mother happy birthday. It's none of your business. Encrypt your mail/communications. Private means private. I rent a mail service from my ISP, to deliver the friggin mail, not to read it at the behest of greedy, ignorant bastards.

Re:Rise of encrypted net (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749913)

That's an idea - Firefox with HTTPS everywhere, and an automatic failover to Tor for everything else using FoxyProxy. Time to upgrade my net connection and start an exit node...

Can't read that with a straight face (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749863)

"It follows a separate court order in April which saw popular file-sharing site The Pirate Bay blocked in the UK."

PMSL! The block is about as effective as putting a cat in a wet paper bag. Why are they wasting the time of the ISPs and legal system persuing this pointless venture? Who at the BPI is actually stupid enough to think this is effective?

Re:Can't read that with a straight face (1)

jimicus (737525) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750087)

It doesn't need to be effective against everyone. It just needs to be enough of an inconvenience that those who can't figure their way around it will instead sign up for something like Netflix or Spotify.

Re:Can't read that with a straight face (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750379)

All of them were smart enough to be able to use a bittorrent client and browse bittorrent sites.
They will be smart enough to use whatever plug-and-play method the internet will invent to circumvent these bans.

Re:Can't read that with a straight face (1)

pgdave (1774092) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750765)

All of them were smart enough to be able to use a bittorrent client and browse bittorrent sites. They will be smart enough to use whatever plug-and-play method the internet will invent to circumvent these bans.

"whatever plug-and-play method the internet has already invented to circumvent these bans".

FIFY

Remember that time... (3, Informative)

FBeans (2201802) | about a year and a half ago | (#41749865)

Remember that time where the internet was freedom? Where one could create a website, it was subject to law, like any other act. Remember when the providers of the internet buckled under the pressure from "the powers that be". Sites could be blocked, freedom quashed, because somebody didn't like the content of a site, because somebody thought it aided in crime and law breaking, despite not breaking any laws itself.

When we start forcing ISPs to block sites, based on anything other than law, we open gates that will never be closed. One leads to more, more to many and eventually freedom on the internet will be dead.

This is the key issue we are dealing with. It is getting overlooked because "piracy is bad". We have many other questions to ask: does blocking these sites even /help/ the problem of piracy? this [bbc.co.uk] suggests not! Is piracy really the problem, perhaps the intermediate companies between consumer and author's of content are to blame somewhat?

Why do we have to constantly start making much larger problems while trying to fix smaller ones. Fix the music industry, the film industry, the E-book-monolopy that Amazon is building, fix the problem at the root. Provide consumers with a modern, suitable market in which they pay the author's of content for their products, for a price that represents the true worth of that product. Allow the consumer to have freedom with that product to use it in any device, in any form. Provide a good service, that is value-for-money, and people /will/ use it. We've seen it work before [torrentfreak.com]

Leave the internet alone, once the gates are open the wars begin....

(This is one army, preparing arms... [internetde...league.org]

Re:Remember that time... (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750013)

Of course I remember that time. We're still in it. They have the freedom to be asshats and the power to change the law. We have the freedom, and indeed a duty, to disagree with and resist their conceited laws. Nothing's changed on that front, it's all business as abnormal.

"When there is peace, the warlike man attacks himself" - that's Nietzsche, and his point is that there really is no peace. There's always some war, somewhere, with someone. And there are no winners or losers either... just those who are still around to fight another day.
  - Ray Elwood, Buffalo Soliders

Re:Remember that time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751587)

I predict the result will be lots of people retaliating against the ISPs, their officers and board members.

Propping up failing business models (2)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750281)

What amazes me, is that there isn't a bigger outcry about 'legacy' entertainment companies abusing the law to prop up failing business models.

Given the triumph of neoliberalism since the collapse of communism, I'm surprised at how the notion of free markets is so selectively interpreted and enforced. It seems as though even if you are a clapped-out dinosaur of a company, if you're sufficiently large, you can bypass market discipline through lobbying, special pleading and black PR against one's political opponents.

This is the moral issue -- how big, corrupt, dishonest dinosaurs like much of Big Media can get away with subverting the free market, and the political system itself to make their quarterly numbers.

Re:Propping up failing business models (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41751837)

It's the fucking capitalist pseudo-free market that's the problem, despite the bleatings of American libertarians.

EFF like org in UK? (1)

plaukas pyragely (1630517) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750479)

So what's the closes thing to EFF in UK? Any ideas?

Re:EFF like org in UK? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#41753377)

Ask them [pirateparty.org.uk]

Finally, lets see whether CD and DVD sales soar (1)

felixrising (1135205) | about a year and a half ago | (#41750873)

Really, all along the **IA and their ilk have been claiming that pirating is responsible for lost sales, that is 1 pirated move == 1 lost DVD sale or bum on cinema seat... so based on that argument, now that pirating is getting really hard to do a corresponding sales increase will ensue! right? Right?!

Another Random User (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751099)

I checked. It's not a super prolific user.

It's the new insulting term for an "Anonymous submitter". So they're "Random Users" now. Because the Logged In Users can be tracked, right?

Hello, Dice.

Luv' what you have done with the place.

It is far easier to lose freedom than to regain it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751355)

Once the initial line is crossed to censorship in any country, you have permanently lost freedom from censorship, and are on your way down an unstoppable slippery slope.

You will not regain freedom from censorship once it gets this foothold, and will not even have the opportunity to contest it once the precedent is set, because once it is pervasive and intrusive enough for the average person to finally see the threat, it will be too late to do anything about it.

There's no going back from this, so people in the UK have already completely lost the fight against censorship; the infrastructure being put in place to achieve this censorship, will lead to expanding methods of censorship (such as deep packet inspection), and finally to a centralized system of censorship under control of government (which doubles as an Internet 'kill switch').

The Internet has revolutionized free speech, and this kind of expanding censorship is the biggest threat to free speech that exists today; don't for a moment believe that this has anything to do with piracy or copyright.

EXCUSE ME! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41751503)

I am one of the rights holders and BPI (British Phonographic Industry), does not represent or act on behalf of me. I use those sites as a way of deploying my product, and BPI (British Phonographic Industry) along with any court blocking them will be infringing upon my rights.

Clearly this is nothing more than a Tyrany, Organized crime hiding behind the color of law, which invalidates those authorities.

BPI not BBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41753269)

Major typo?

how'd we get to this point? (1)

Finite9 (757961) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774923)

I moved out of the UK 13 yrs ago, and im no longer part of the daily culture, but I get surprised at how far my homeland has gone in terms of nanny state/police state/big brother.

How did we get to this stage? Is it Camerons gov. that has done the damge, or did blair set the groundwork? I used to take great pride in my nationality, but this is one conversational topic where you hesitate in admitting your British.

Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...