Beta
×

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!

High Court Orders UK ISPs To Block More Torrent Sites

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the coming-to-an-america-near-you dept.

Censorship 133

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "The website blocking phenomenon has continued today in the UK, with the High Court adding three major torrent sites to the country's unofficial ban list. Following complaints from the music industry led by the BPI, the Court ordered the UK's leading Internet service providers to begin censoring subscriber access to Kickass Torrents, H33T and Fenopy." Unlike when the Pirate Bay was blocked, none of the ISPs contested this. They did, however, refuse to block things without a court order. Looks like the flood gates have been opened. On the topic of filesharing, Japan arrested 27 file sharers, using the recent changes to their copyright law that allow criminal charges to be brought against file sharers.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038523)

Suddenly six strikes that end with a slap on the wrist doesn't look so bad.

Re:Wow (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039833)

What makes you think they will end with a 'slap on the wrist'? That process is simply a new one, in addition to the existing process of suing individuals. If anything, it makes the lawsuit that much better "But we gave him six chances to stop!" [it WILL be presented as a defacto admission of guilt unless you have challenged each step and been successful, which is, well, impossible] Nevermind that at best, they can only establish which internet connection was used for this possible infringement.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43040455)

Everything about your post is speculative nonsense. The six strikes system hasn't been in effect long enough to see if the *AAs will still continue to sue the pants off of people and use any data obtained from the six strikes system against the accused. The fact that you already claim a successful challenge to a strike is "impossible" despite that a challenge has yet to be filed says to me that you need to calm down, throw away the non-hybrid seeds, and save your outrage for real, actual things to be outraged about.

Re:Wow (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041303)

The six strikes system hasn't been in effect long enough to see if the *AAs will still continue to sue the pants off of people and use any data obtained from the six strikes system against the accused.

Why wouldn't they? Given the fact that these companies have no compunctions about ruining people's lives because they violated someone's copyright, I find no reason to assume that they won't use the data against people. I mean, really, what have these companies done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

VPN FTW! (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about a year and a half ago | (#43038535)

The law has obviously not caught up to the Tech Community...

Fun times (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038633)

When the law begins to not represent the morals and wishes of the people. The Australian tax payers are building a high speed fibre optic content distribution system that will allow content producers to sell us their copyrighted product and they have the gall to claim that we will be using it for piracy.

FUCK you content producers, I'm going to lobby the government that we should be taxing copyrighted content to subsidise the delivery system that the people have paid for,

Re:Fun times (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039013)

+1 interesting...

Re:Fun times (2)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040279)

And the entire music industry gathers together for a wonderful holiday charity chorale, featuring their stunning new number, "We Jump The Shark Together".

Re:Fun times (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041891)

Content producers pay tax you dumb fuck. Write a book, make a movie, make $ and pay fucking tax. Except you freetard cunts ensure that content producers don't fucking make a cent because you feel entitled to the fruits of our labors because you're a fucking web developer. I don't hope that you lose your job - I hope that you do it to the best of your ability and then *not get paid* because some cunt decided that he *shouldn't have to pay you for your work* even though he benefited from the fruit of it. So fuck you with cancer cunt.

Re:Fun times (1)

jaminJay (1198469) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042159)

Who wants to bet they'll be crying when there's no way of distributing their 4K content to consumer's new TVs?

Re:VPN FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039059)

the "tech community" - those who can evade sniffers and use VPN/ proxies -only amounts to 10-15% (sorry, can't cite the source). Unfortunately, the average joe downloader is the one who will have the most to lose. They will have this crap on their record and have a hard time finding a job or applying for college if they get arrested.

Re:VPN FTW! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039237)

Glad to see being dumb still has a penalty.

Re:VPN FTW! (4, Interesting)

letherial (1302031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039381)

VPN is easy to use, we as information liberators need to educate the rest of the 85% on how to get around this.

Airvpn is the best i think, easy to use and quite affordable, as a bonus they also accept BTC

https://airvpn.org/ [airvpn.org]

Re:VPN FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43040561)

Why do you implicitly trust your VPN provider? They are all that's standing between you and prison.

Re:VPN FTW! (1)

Poorcku (831174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040585)

Please do. I am just a psychologist lurking on tech sites and being a IT Fan since I was 10. Even so, I have my share of problems understanding some things. What should I expect form a VPN like Airvpn, and what good is it for?

Re:VPN FTW! (3, Informative)

letherial (1302031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041139)

Its good for hiding your identity, it creates a encyrpted tunnel between you and the vpn, as you request data from the internet (say from bittorrent) that request is sent through the tunnel and through there server, effectively hiding your IP and your data from the ISP. You should use a public DNS, Google has a few and changing it can be a bit challenging for someone not understanding how it works, but once you understand it its easy. Lots of documentation on the web on how to change to a public DNS.

The downside is the data needs to travel farther and through extra hops, slowing everything down.

You want a VPN that claims to hold no logs, and some claim they dont but yet still do, airvpn has always impressed me and i have never had or heard of a problem with them, they also take BTC so your paper trail cannot be traced through say paypal. For pirating software, it will work fine and you would probably even be fine without changing your DNS, though id do it anyways.

Re:VPN FTW! (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040647)

No! Fuckin' NO!

Remember the early days of "copyright infringement on the 'net"? And no, I'm not talking about Napster. That was BEFORE Napster. See? See how nobody gave a fuck? It wasn't worth half a second on TV, it wasn't worth half a line in your local newspaper, and it sure as hell wasn't worth spending a few hundred k bucks to buy a politician.

We made distribution of content so easy that even the last dimwit could do it. And that became a problem. Because they dimwits weren't stealthy about it. And it drew attention from the very last ones you want attention from.

Just ponder for a moment what kind of business AT&T would have meant if blueboxing became a widespread phenomenon instead of the little nuisance it was to them.

I'm done with "educating the masses". The masses don't want education. They are not hungry for wisdom, they're just greedy. They want everything and for free. Nothing else. And this isn't worth risking even more limitation to my freedoms, sorry.

Re:VPN FTW! (2)

letherial (1302031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041029)

We just see things on two different planes of existence, while you seem to want to protect the content industry, i want to open the flood gates.

Fact is, the numbers are far and against the industry, the more people that know the more people that will do and the less control they have and maybe, just maybe, things can change. I am for civil disobedience on a massive scale, you want to hide in the shadows and be one of the few that can get around things, i want a change, you want the way it is to continue

Big difference between you and me

Re:VPN FTW! (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041937)

You can argue that content is overpriced (compared to what?), but it still costs money to produce. All the hacktivism in the world won't change that.

Re:VPN FTW! (1)

letherial (1302031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042023)

Movies cost so much money because of a broken system, music cost so much money because of a broken system, information itself cost so much money because of a broken system, the system has got to break completely before it can be rebuilt

Re:VPN FTW! (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042707)

All the hacktivism in the world won't change that.

And all the whining from the industry in the world won't make copyright enforceable. It's almost as if... they need to find a different business model, and as if... they're the ones responsible for doing so, just like any other business would be.

Re:VPN FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039843)

I've never liked the 'just use a VPN' response. Did you ever stop to consider that one usually needs to pay a fee for access to a VPN? That means there will be a paper trail. What happens when whatever you are doing over that VPN becomes illegal in both the country you live in and in the country hosting the VPN provider?

Why not just skip this half-baked solution and go straight to peer to peer darknets?

Re:VPN FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039859)

> Why not just skip this half-baked solution and go straight to peer to peer darknets?

Where? Oh, you're talking about stuff that doesn't exist yet! On that basis, why not just jump straight to brain-to-brain telepathic audio transfer?

Re:VPN FTW! (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040423)

Er Freenet [freenetproject.org] has supported peer to peer darknets for some time. It's not nearly perfect [freenetproject.org] but it's definitely not something from science fiction. There are others though probably it's even more difficult to tell how trustworthy they are.

Re:VPN FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43041497)

What happens when whatever you are doing over that VPN becomes illegal in both the country you live in and in the country hosting the VPN provider?

That's why you get a VPN that doesn't monitor your activity. By the way, if that becomes illegal, then you have a much, much bigger problem on your hands...

the future... (0)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43038609)

wireless p2p darknets that are completely independent of isps, dns, etc.

Re:the future... (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43038725)

Or possibly sneakernet. You can get 1TB external USB drives cheap now, and can fit a lot of piracy on one of those. Every school, college and workplace will have a Knock-Off Nigel ready to swap drives.

Re:the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038877)

We used to do this with Commodore 64 floppies in high school back in the day...

Re:the future... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040067)

We used to do this with Commodore 64 floppies in high school back in the day...

Might sound funny, but we'd do this with vic20's on cassette tapes. Then again, BASIC being what it is, you can also just write things out on a sheet of paper or several dozen of them and hand them off to someone.

Re:the future... (1)

hurfy (735314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040357)

hehe, back in the day my locker partner and I both joined one of those music clubs and made sure we didn't duplicate any choices both for the intial stuff and the required 3 purchases. They aren't such a bad deal under the right conditions :)

PS, most of those cassettes lasted longer than much of our digital stuff will ... still have some over 30 years later. I think the extra few cents i spent on good tape was worth it.

At the rate we are going the pirates will have become shoplifters to minimize risk ;O

Re:the future... (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040509)

720K disks. Not that they were up to date even then, but I had a cubic meter of them. Quite literally. An old Atati ST collector gave them to me: A box one meter on each side, filled to the brim with 720k floppies. So many I could just give them away. So I did. Loaded with (via spanned ZIPs) mostly pokemon stuff. Website rips, roms, emulator, whole episodes in realvideo format. It was the in thing back then.

That was at school. Now I'm in employment, and it still goes on. The technicians exchange 1TB drives. I also have it from a very reliable source - a friend who works for some Big Media Company they can't name, but to judge by their knowledge of chroma key algorithms they know enough to plausibly hold the position - that among the rank-and-file tech staff of the place, piracy runs rampant too. Though he also says that if Management ever found out, heads would roll.

Re:the future... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038917)

They now have external USB drive enclosures with built-in wifi now. Check out the Startech S2510U2WF. You don't even have to find Nigel, just look for the WIDROP SSID.

Re:the future... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040533)

Well, I know what's going to be duct-taped to a bunch of li-ions and sitting in my bag at a future furmeet.

Re:the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038965)

Already happening, we've had to invest in 16&32GB USB sticks as we're getting so much stuff coming in via sneakernet (mines are the trousers with 4 USB sticks containing all manner of materia, knocked off and otherwise)

Re:the future... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040125)

Yep!. Im currently building a movie sneakernet for my family. WAYYYY easier to hand out hard drives at family events then to setup digital distribution over internet, dealing with intrusions, connectivity, spying. Last family gathering i gave out 4 Micca players @ ($40/ea) and now i can just mail them cheap disks that they can pop into their players or they can grab it from my Master Movie repo. Its easier then putting in a DVD.

Re:the future... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038781)

Actually, it just means less piracy, which in turn will mean more money for the entertainment industry to use to bring us great movies and music. Sure, the mooching parasitic pirates will be upset, but the rest of us, who are willing to pay hard earned money for high quality entertainment, will be much better off.

Re:the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038845)

Actually, it just means less piracy, which in turn will mean more money for the entertainment industry to use to bring us great movies and music. Sure, the mooching parasitic pirates will be upset, but the rest of us, who are willing to pay hard earned money for high quality entertainment, will be much better off.

the level of snarkasm almost caused me to spit coffee, thanks

Re:the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038871)

"which in turn will mean more money for the entertainment industry to use to bring us great movies and music"

Thanks i needed a good laugh.

Re:the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039175)

Actually, it just means less piracy, which in turn will mean more money for the entertainment industry to use to bring us great movies and music. Sure, the mooching parasitic pirates will be upset, but the rest of us, who are willing to pay hard earned money for high quality entertainment, will be much better off.

Now here is a beautiful example of Poe's Law [tvtropes.org] . I genuinely can't tell whether this guy is a RIAA/MPAA shill, or a master of parody.

I mean, I'm pretty sure most intelligent people know that there is more high quality entertainment than the big ticket names and excessive polish which is all the big studios seem to focus on. You know, that mysterious and elusive thing known as originality.

When they stop churning out the nth remake of the same story in the last 10 years and soulless commercial drivel masquerading as music, then I'll start respecting their work. When they produce something new and worth while, well then I'll feel good about rewarding them with my money.

Re:the future... (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039277)

I don't buy music CDs or movies until I have downloaded and sampled them first. The harder they make it for me to download the less I will buy, or at least the less of their wares I will buy. Those other guys who give away their stuff freely get my attention and money instead.

Yeah, I'm the immoral bastard who gets up and makes coffee during advert breaks instead of being glued to the screen paying for my free entertainment. What a dick.

Re:the future... (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039645)

I do not buy CDs or DVDs. I download. But if I were unable to download, I would still not buy them. So I am not a lost sale either. I am a no sale.

Re:the future... (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039739)

Movies I can understand, but music samples are everywhere on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, etc.

Re:the future... (2)

elashish14 (1302231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041335)

I don't buy music CDs or movies as doing so would support fundamentally evil organizations which seek to strangle the progress of humankind under the influence of their own greed. I feel guilty even listening to that stuff even if I didn't pay for it, as I feel a better approach would be to support independent artists in the unlikely effort of breaking the cartel. But I do support independent artists, given the opportunity. Magnatune, Jamendo, and Band Camp are great ways to accomplish this.

Re:the future... (1)

fa2k (881632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040273)

Actually, it just means less piracy, which in turn will mean more money for the entertainment industry to use to bring us great movies and music.

Even if I buy the second part of your argument, I'm not sure it's worth it. Torrrents are used for tonnes of legal things. Creative commons movies and linux distros for example. Torrents are a great alternative to ad-filled slow upload sites. If you have a multi-megabyte file that will be interesting to ten or more people, they're just the best option.

Granted, this story isn't about blocking the bittorrent protocol. The problem is, however, that many of the "pirate" sites run really nice public trackers that anyone can use. And these are blocked too. Torrents can work without trackers (sort of starting on the way to what the GP is talking about), but it all seems so unnecessary

Re:the future... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040679)

Hey, I'm pretty sure if we GOT great movies and music for our hard earned money, few would complain. Right now, looking around, the price the copiers pay match pretty much the value of the product.

Personally, I'd say they should get some change back for their time.

Major ISPs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038615)

This only applies to the bigger ISPs.

An easy solution (for now at least) is to change ISP.

Re:Major ISPs (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039307)

An easy solution (for now at least) is to change ISP.

Unfortunately Virgin has a monopoly where I live. I am 2.2km from the BT exchange and ADSL/ADSL2 don't work. The most I can get is about 5mb but it is unstable and cuts out every few minutes.

I regard a VPN as part of the cost of internet access because Virgin has been broken for a long time now.

Re:Major ISPs (1)

MrWeelson (948337) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039407)

I'm in a similar situation, max 8mb estimated with BT line, get a pretty consistent 100mb with Virgin.

I'm considering a VPN - AirVPN and VPNUK are a couple I've been recommended - AirVPN looks to have a control panel to setup port forwarding, which is nice for torrents. How do you find yours in terms of speed and ease of use?

Cheers

Easily Avoided (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038625)

There is a very easy way to avoid being arrested for file-sharing ... don't do it.

Re:Easily Avoided (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43038775)

It's a little more complicated than that in practice, but the general idea is sound.

If you a) don't download infringing content in the first place; and b) do not ever share your internet connectivity with anybody else who might, I might suggest that you'd be pretty safe from harassment.

Re:Easily Avoided (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039241)

Not downloading is no protection or excuse. There are countless examples of people wrongly targeted. BBC Watchdog covered it a few years ago and had an expert example the computer and router of an elderly couple who were accused to make sure a) they didn't do it and b) they were not hacked. The detection system is broken and targets people at random.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040547)

And what evidence do *YOU* have which suggests that they have not altered their detection system? Because from what I've read about it, it looks like they have.

But hey.... if it makes you feel better, you are feel perfectly free to shout at me that I was wrong if that turns out to be the case. Until then, however... wait and see.

I expect the number of genuinely false allegations (that is, innocent people whose networks go completely unused by people whose actions they are not prepared to be held accountable for) in this particular system to be relatively low.

Re:Easily Avoided (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040835)

Okay, their detection method is fatally flawed for reasons I will present in a moment, but first I'll make the more general point that they have never sued anyone who bothered to turn up and content it in court. They know their evidence is weak and would be shot down, so they rely on people just paying up and drop it the moment you challenge them.

Their system works by gathering IP addresses from a tracker. Many trackers now seed themselves with some random IP addresses to break this. TPB has had doing it for years before they shut their's down. If you pay for the deluxe service they then try to connect and download some of the data from you, to prove it is a real client and not a fake.

So they have an IP address that they claim to have downloaded from, with a screenshot of it happening. Note that you can easily fake these via a handy web site: http://piratbyran.org/bevismaskinen/ [piratbyran.org] . An IP address doesn't identify you, it identifies an internet connection. Maybe, assuming ISP records are correct. Keep in mind that we don't have any process by which they can take your computer or router away for examination, so that is all they have going to court. Maybe more than one person uses that router. Maybe someone hacked it. You are under no obligation to investigate for them. They have nothing, and have been told as much by judges repeatedly.

It's a scam. Speculative invoicing.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041221)

You seem to have completely overlooked that I was only talking about false allegations being low with regards to people's networks who go completely unused by people whose actions they are not prepared to be held responsible for.

If they were hacked, or more than one person uses that router and they aren't prepared to take responsibility for that person's actions, then of course all bets are off.

But in typical slashdot pedantry, people here are far more worried about exceptions than they are in noticing that the general rule might actually work for the most part, and the infrequency with which it doesn't (which is still theoretical, at this juncture) may very well be low enough to be manually managed.

One of the major problems I have with the copyright alert system they've implemented (I really only have two, but this one's the biggest one) is that when they make an allegation about you, they don't even make an attempt in the allegation to tell you what it was, exactly, that you allegedly did... it's just a vague form letter that doesn't identify one single thing about the alleged infringement, not even the *TYPE* of content that was supposedly infringing, let alone when, or what, or where.

But, the good news about that is that it won't carry any weight in court for them, should it go that far. The text of the alert makes far too vague an accusation to be usable, even if it *were* true. One might as well make the general accusation that "person XYZ lied" without actually specifying exactly what was lied about, where the lying happened, or when.

Re:Easily Avoided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43040833)

And c) didn't have grandchildren (or anyone else) who might have used their internet on a personal laptop?

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

Sesostris III (730910) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039111)

There is a very easy way to avoid being arrested for file-sharing ... don't do it.

Currently this is modded Score:0, offtopic. How on earth is it offtopic?

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039693)

Because GP's voice is counter to the belief some Slashdotters hold which conflates piracy of games/movie/software and other consumer media with sharing of knowledge and information. There's a vocal (and popular) contingent among us who would elevate the act of downloading and consuming the latest movie without compensation to the level of scientists freely sharing data or dissidents networking with each other without encumbrance.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040305)

Which basically defines the people with at least a modicum of common sense, and obviously excludes you.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041689)

Personal attack aside (nice how our enlightened /. community allows personal attacks on some ideas?), you've not made a counter-argument or explained how media consumption (1 way exchange of information) should be elevated to the same level as idea sharing (2 way exchange of information). In simpler terms, explain how a guy getting the latest Batman movie and watching it in his bedroom is morally and ethically defensible to the same degree as a scientist sharing data with another scientist, or a political dissident passing information to another dissident.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041829)

To distill it even further, explain why you believe information for consumption is morally equivalent to information for collaboration. Slashdotters tend to conflate the two just because they are all "information", but I beg to differ.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042533)

Information is information. You can't control ideas no matter what form they take or purpose they were intended to fulfill. The distinction you seem to think is so clear, made based mostly on the intended use is largely irrelevant and exists only in your head. It is even an immoral distinction as it tries to impose upon others what they should do with ideas based on the will of the creator. A creator who used thousands of years of information available in the public domain to "create" his work and feels in the right to take ownership of the result and sequester it from the same public domain that made 95% of the work for him.

You can keep differing as much as you wish, but in the end it is just an stubborn and illogical paradigm you imposed upon yourself.

Additionally, trying to enforce ownership to information is not only absurd and immoral, it is actually impossible in this day and age. Even more the useless efforts to keep trying to enforce this control take huge amounts of public resources which are not used to the benefit of the people who generated them, trample people's constitutional rights and threaten net neutrality.

Copyright has to go and it will go, because most people don't want it anymore, don't think it is necessary anymore and simply won't obey without force, and forcing these many people to do something they do not want is simply impossible.

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

Shagg (99693) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040091)

How on earth is it offtopic?

file-sharing != copyright infringement

Re:Easily Avoided (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040711)

Considering how those file sharing accusations reek more and more like carpet bombing, I wouldn't count on it.

Japan? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038667)

If you like humping your mommy
And getting caught by your dad
If you're not into poota
If you have half a tes'ticle
If you'd like humping butts at midnight
In the smooth anal gape
Then I'm the love that you've looked for
Write to me and assrape.

Appropriate response? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038705)

A world-wide attack requires a world-wide response. Are you going to let Anonymous fight your fight for you or are you going to do something about it yourself?

"Oh, look! A new shiny Apple product and new episode of American Idol. Out in the same week! OMG!"

Sigh...

Criminal copyright in Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038767)

I'd rather risk jail time than pay the absurd prices they levy on media. Have you seen the price of a Blu-Ray in Japan?

Re:Criminal copyright in Japan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038869)

You're willing to go to jail rather than pay $13.21 (approx) [amazon.co.jp] ? Are you insane?

Re:Criminal copyright in Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039805)

Nice strawman you have there. Risking going to jail is not willing going to jail. I risk becoming a road casualty every day, yet I'm not willing to die in an accident. Never mind the fact that people who torrent usually download more than 1 blu-ray.

How is this done? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038769)

Are these sites pulled from those ISPs' DNS servers? Do they block the IP address (which could easily be changed)? Non-Brits want to know.

Re:How is this done? (4, Informative)

Spottywot (1910658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039115)

Are these sites pulled from those ISPs' DNS servers? Do they block the IP address (which could easily be changed)? Non-Brits want to know.

Well when TPB was blocked a few months ago it definitely wasn't DNS(I use open DNS and couldn't access it normally). I think they must be blocking the IP address, easily negated by the various proxy sites that popped up straight away, and which still give easy access to TPB without the next need for TOR or a VPN or any such obsfucation techniques. The same thing will happen with this next round of blocks. The ISPs that grumbled the last time probably aren't bothering this time around, because they are aware of the fact that it won't really affect anyone other than having to alter a couple of bookmarks before carrying on as usual. I'd be willing to bet that there has been no decrease in torrent traffic since the Pirate Bay block, and there will be none this time either.

Re:How is this done? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039209)

if its a dns level thing then its an easy bypass for *nix people just install their own dns server and redirect dns requests to 127.0.0.1

Re:How is this done? (1)

jafffacake (1966342) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039331)

changing the DNS doesn't help, the IP address is blocked at ISP level. The usual workaround is to google alternative web addresses that point to the same final IP. for instance :- if "www.thepiratebay.org" is blocked by your UK ISP, you'll probably find that "http://thepiratebay.ee/" will get you to the same place and not be blocked. I hope that helps.

Re:How is this done? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041609)

changing the DNS doesn't help, the IP address is blocked at ISP level. The usual workaround is to google alternative web addresses that point to the same final IP. for instance :- if "www.thepiratebay.org" is blocked by your UK ISP, you'll probably find that "http://thepiratebay.ee/" will get you to the same place and not be blocked. I hope that helps.

If an IP address or range is blocked at the router, it won't matter what you name it, it will be blocked. If www.tpb.org and tpb.ee go to the same place, then a block on that IP address will take both of them out.

Re:How is this done? (2, Informative)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039259)

"Cleanfeed". Built for blocking child porn, of course. Traffic to specific IP addresses is redirected to a deep inspection system.

Re:How is this done? (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039457)

It's not actually a DPI system, though your close: It's a transparent HTTP proxy. The packet filter just directs traffic to port 80 on blacklisted hosts to the transparent proxy box, and the transparent proxy then filters on specific URLs. If it were a true DPI system, requests would still appear to originate from the correct IP address and we wouldn't have seen the wikipedia incident happen. Transparent proxying changes the source IP, which can be very disruptive to anti-vandal/troll systems and really mess with log analysis.

Re:How is this done? (1)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039639)

Back when I worked with transparent proxies in the 90's, keeping the source address intact was a fairly standard feature...

Anyway, their setup depends on the source address changing. Otherwise return routing would miss the inspection-box. So even if their transparent proxy/DPI box has the "keep source address intact" option, they cannot enable it.

Re:How is this done? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040461)

The solution to that is obvious. If you can route traffic *to* the suspect IP into the inspection box, you can route traffic *from* it there too! If it's heading for the customer, it's still got to traverse the ISPs network.

Re:How is this done? (1)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041219)

You can, but it gets extremely tricky.

To get the traffic to the box each ISP just listens to a BGP announcement from the Cleanfeed "ISP". Then all of the ISP routers automatically do the right (wrong) thing, no further configuration needed. To get the return traffic from the content provider, the ISP needs to do source-based routing (policy routing). This means adding configuration to at least each edge router which might receive traffic from one of those banned content providers, and in many cases the core routers need to be configured for this as well. Maintaining this configuration on all the routers is a nightmare and source-based routing is generally difficult to get right and to troubleshoot when it goes wrong.

You are not going to get ISPs to do source-based routing just by putting a bit of pressure on them. That will only happen if there is no legal way to avoid it, and there will be massive lobbying from the industry against such a law.

Dear Judge (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038809)

I have good reason to believe that criminals use the telephone system to distribute plans to commit crime. It is time to shut down these criminal aiding telephone systems.

Re:Dear Judge (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041641)

I think you'd find very few people who would object to the phone lines being used by "credit services" being shut down. Your humorous analogy isn't as silly as it sounds.

And So It Goes. (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43038937)

And the roots of the next step in the evolution of non-corporate-sanctioned file-sharing began.

Im done pirating (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43038961)

This is a blessing in disguise - Its a chance to stop stealing content (lets be honest here) and buy stuff through legit channels. The reason I started pirating in the first place is that a 700 mb xvid was vastly more convenient than going to the store, bringing home a dvd wrapped in annoying plastic with easytear perforations that never work and sitting through an FBI warning with nonsensical forced previews. This is all resolved, Hollywood has listened and there are tons of ways to stream movies (only the movies and non of the crap). Piracy is gone in my world, I thank Hollywood for listening to us.

Re:Im done pirating (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039155)

I fail to see how copying something makes you steal it, and I would certainly not have paid for most of those things I downloaded. Therefore I don't see how those companies can even claim a loss in that case, and I doubt I'm an isolated case.

Re:Im done pirating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039283)

You can be as pedantic as you want about "stealing" vs "copying" but the fact remains that you obtained it and are using it without having paid for it. Therefore I don't see how you can even claim that because you wouldn't have paid for it you are still some how entitled to use it, and I doubt I'm an isolated case.

Re:Im done pirating (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040355)

He is not being pedantic, he is being precise. Semantics does matter. And yes, he can claim he has a right to do whatever he pleases with information. Information ownership is a ridiculous concept.

Re:Im done pirating (2)

JRock911 (848012) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039183)

You must live in a world where you like watching two year old movies on Netflix and TV shows being held back on Hulu. Yea.. Hollywood is right on top of things. The only decent thing they've done right is music.

Re:Im done pirating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039223)

Are you kidding? you want to carry on funding a extortion racket? are you serious?

Giving in to them is much like giving in to the horse and cart industry by ditching your car during the red flag automotive act era!

Re:Im done pirating (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039471)

I think the only reason hollywood listened was because the piracy forced their hand. Without piracy, there would be no netflix or hulu.

Re:Im done pirating (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039591)

They'll come around eventually, Spotify and other streaming services are now over half the music market in Scandinavia and HBO seems to have finally taken a whacking with the cluebat and introduced HBO Nordic, a streaming-only service that'll have new episodes within 24h of airing. Sure they could use a few more whacks with the cluebat, but it's a start. Give it another 5 years and I think it will have spread just like Spotify has. Movies will be last because they still manage to get people out of their chair and into cinemas for unskippable commercials and to buy overpriced soda and popcorn on top of expensive tickets, but if TV go streaming they will too. In any case, there's no reason to stop pirating. It's no surprise these services have launched where piracy is strongest and where the Pirate Party has made most progress, they're damage control. You just have to keep at it and drag them kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Re:Im done pirating (1)

Viceice (462967) | about a year and a half ago | (#43042459)

We need to make more of this Cluebat you speak of and gangrape a few companies...

Easy fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039011)

1. Rent a seedbox.
2. Torrent like mad
3. Download secure and unrestricted from private seedbox
4. ???
5. Profit

Opend the floodgates? (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039333)

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
For those who do not know it [youtube.com] And that is only part of it. The whole thing can be found here [kat.ph] .

I hope they also block this torrent site [google.co.uk] They seem to be collecting a lot AND it is a UK site.

ISP blocking...??? (1)

ruir (2709173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039405)

I still cant phantom why the ISPs should work for free for the lobbies of the media corporations.

Re:ISP blocking...??? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039509)

Reluctantly, in this case. It took a court order.

BT is fragile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43039959)

I'm as much as pro-piracy as the next guy, and I was wondering why are we using BitTorrent for warez so extensively? The feds have to only kill the index website and there goes your "peer to peer". Sure, you can still have your torrent files and magnet links, but finding them just becomes rather hard.

Futile (1)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about a year and a half ago | (#43039979)


On the internet all it takes is one hole. One weak link in the chain.
This will achieve nothing. It will solve nothing.
Determined users will find ways around it if they have not yet. This will not generate revenue and just feed the hate for the MAFIAA [mafiaa.org]

It's not even about legality. Look at any banned substance, if there is a demand for it, there will be a supply. This ruling follows a token law that has no bite, has no teeth and is actually counterproductive. I did not even know about those other two sites until today.

Maybe the way forward is to also take out a super injunction not to make the ruling public. That'll make sure no one knows.

Well... (1)

gale the simple (1931540) | about a year and a half ago | (#43040889)

.. I do not know about you, but I am done pirating.

    On a more serious note, do the people making those decisions recognize the amount of ill will created by their actions? If I was not so old and did not care the new shiny everyone and their mother needs to have, I would probably start pirating out of spite...I am certain teenagers don't do things they are expressly forbidden from doing..
  But maybe I am ageist; I do teach the old folk basic computer skills for my volunteer work. Last week the first question was how do I get the free music on the interwebz..
  So mpaa and their equivalents listen up: Tempus fugit... adapt or perish

Yeah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43040995)

They can order in one hand, and shit in the other. Which do you think will fill up first?

Not the direction I hoped for (1)

razorshark (2843829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041223)

We seem to be heading towards the direction of streaming content, both audio and video, where the consumer pays $X per month for a selection of content. That's fine if you prefer that model (and it's a decent model - there's plenty of content that's probably only worth a single view/listen anyway), but unfortunately this seems to be the only legal outlet that's available for legit, digitally-distributed movies and videos from the big guys.

In other words, I still can't legally download TV shows or movies in a DRM-free format to be kept on my server and viewed at my leisure. No-one seems to offer that option for a high-quality file, basically - the answer they give is the streaming services. I like my digital library that's under my own control and not at the whims of the vendor, but most of it is constructed from either pirated material or ripped from DVDs.

Music is fine as there are still plenty of music sites selling legal content DRM-free, but video is mostly elusive. I WANT to buy video to run offline, but it's all streaming these days and I suspect the younger generation won't care after a few years anyway.

Correction (1)

coalrestall (973453) | about a year and a half ago | (#43041687)

"On the topic of filesharing, Japan arrested 27 file sharers, using the recent changes to their copyright law that allow criminal charges to be brought against file sharers."

According to TFA

"Existing legislation against uploaders of copyright content already provided for penalties of up to 10 years in prison and a 10 million yen ($108,202) fine."

Given that all the arrests were for uploading or otherwise making available pirated goods, I would say this comes under the pre-existing law, and not the October 1st update.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?