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!

Irish SOPA Used To Block Pirate Bay Access

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the whack-a-mole dept.

Censorship 94

ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Ireland's own SOPA Act has finally struck home. Today, the Irish High Court ordered all ISPs to begin censoring the The Pirate Bay. After earlier attempts were struck down, this case was brought by EMI, Sony, Warner Music and Universal music under new copyright laws brought in last year. This follows the largest ISP Eircom already having voluntarily blocked the Pirate Bay after previous legal action. Despite some early indications that some ISPs would appeal the decision, it now appears that like Eircom, they have quietly given up. Pity; IT was one of the few industries Ireland was getting right."

cancel ×

94 comments

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

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985105)

Someone actually implemented that nonsense?

Re:What? (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#43986855)

Yes. Now the US must "harmonize" their laws with those in Ireland, otherwise the terrorists and child molesters will win.

Making it harder to pirate? (1, Troll)

bhlowe (1803290) | about a year ago | (#43985115)

Its pretty hard to find legal downloads on the PirateBay.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (5, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about a year ago | (#43985165)

All the downloads on TPB are legal.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about a year ago | (#43985399)

It depends on where you are of course.

Personally I think VirusBay is so 2010. There are many better options if you need to find something.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985541)

You can only download .torrent files from TPB. Those are (still) perfectly legal. What they point to is another thing.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

RoboRay (735839) | about a year ago | (#43985591)

.torrent files? How quaint.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (2, Informative)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43986049)

You can only "download" web pages and magnet links from piratebay now. Not even torrent files are available, other then linked from torcache.net.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (4, Informative)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year ago | (#43986679)

You can only "download" web pages and magnet links from piratebay now. Not even torrent files are available, other then linked from torcache.net.

TBP still serves torrent files for torrents that don't meet the minimum requirements for seeder and leecher count. Check a link and you will see that the file comes from a .piratebay.sx domain. It's also easy to show that it's not coming from torcache, as there are torrent files available on TPB that aren't on torcache.

I can't recall the exact numbers used as thresholds, but it's about a total of 10 peers.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43987349)

That does indeed make sense considering how magnet links work. Thanks for the clarification!

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43989885)

As those files are used to facilitate copyright infringement I wonder how long they will remain legal? I can see them making magnet or torrent links illegal if they are used to facilitate copyright infringement.

By the same token, it's nice to be outraged by this but our continuing to pirate is going to result in greater and greater pushing back. Our actions are causing them to do things like that. They're not going to just give everything away for free. They aren't going to let you dictate how they run their business either so no matter how many good alternatives we can come up with that may curb piracy they're just going to advocate more and more draconian measures and our authoritarian governments are going to enact these into law.

Our actions are impacting the freedoms of others. We can try to blame the media conglomerates but, no, it is our actions that cause them to respond like this.

I have been warning about this for a decade. I have also been a pirating fool for much longer than a decade. I, too, am part of the problem. Sure, I pay for Netflix and Hulu but, more often than not, I simply go grab what I want from a torrent site. My ISP provides access to the NNTP servers so I have that as well. I have the money and, in many cases, could easily pay for these things and they're often available to purchase. Hell, there are things on Hulu (which I do pay for) that I'll end up just going and downloading in their entirety from TPB or similar. I am a part of the problem.

I could try to justify it by saying that I already pay for it, that I want it without DRM, that they should provide it in an alternative format, etc... Those aren't very good justifications, if they don't provide it in a format that I want then I should go without. It is their property and their right to determine how they sell it. They are free to make unprofitable business decisions. I have neither the individual power nor control of the collective to ensure that my wants are met by the content producers. I'd guess that 80% of the content I download never gets watched. I think I do it just because they tell me I'm not allowed to.

Oh well... There's not much more to say that doesn't result in a giant novella that won't get read. I don't imagine I'm the only one who can easily afford to pay for these things but simply won't. It isn't even motivated by some principles. Well, maybe one principle... I am really disgusted that I'd have to pay for a bunch of useless channels to get a channel that I want.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43990167)

HTTP is used to facilitate piracy. FTP is used to facilitate piracy. TCP/IP is used to facilitate piracy. Computers are used to facilitate piracy.

I suppose those should all be illegal too.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43992481)

You derped when you should have herped. If you don't understand the difference then the law will quite likely be made clear to you eventually. They're not going to just sit there and let us keep pirating forever. They're going to retaliate. They have the money, the lobby, the time, and the power. We have a bunch of pirated manga and bad music. Let's see which one wins, shall we?

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994549)

And you miss the point entirely. The world is changing, in large part due to the 24/7 connectivity and ability to share with anyone in the world. These companies aren't losing any sales from piracy because most pirates aren't customers, but the companies also stand to convert some pirates into customers if they actually bothered to come up with sane business strategies for the current times.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You cannot stop piracy. Ever. It's a waste of time and resources to even try, so instead of making perfectly legitimate things illegal (ie. Bittorrent protocol and hyperlinks), why not make products more appealing as to diminish the value of piracy? It worked for services like Google Play Music (DRM-free MP3s, unlimited streaming, unlimited downloading from Music Manager, 20,000 free music uploads, songs purchased from Google Play can be publicly streamed from G+, convenient, low cost), Netflix (convenient, low cost, unlimited access), Nook Book Store (convenient, ability to lend books), Steam (convenient, low cost), gog.com (DRM-free, convenient, low cost) and the likes.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43998465)

You miss the point entirely. I know that. You know that. They probably know that. They're not going to stop trying though. It is going to result in more and more draconian restrictions and privacy invasions. Here's the "best" thing - they're going to get listened to because it's their stuff we're pirating. When all hell comes loose and they finally enact SOPA-type laws here in this country, it is YOUR fault (mine too). This is what we get for pirating. Good job guys!

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

jakykong (1474957) | about a year ago | (#44005341)

I could try to justify it by saying that I already pay for it, that I want it without DRM, that they should provide it in an alternative format, etc... Those aren't very good justifications, if they don't provide it in a format that I want then I should go without. It is their property and their right to determine how they sell it. They are free to make unprofitable business decisions. I have neither the individual power nor control of the collective to ensure that my wants are met by the content producers. I'd guess that 80% of the content I download never gets watched. I think I do it just because they tell me I'm not allowed to.

The "go without" argument will never work. The problem is that it is only unprofitable for the business if the majority of people care about the content. In the real world, most people don't care about the format their content comes in; they don't care if their software is open source; they don't care if there is DRM. They care about exactly one thing: Does the movie I just bought play? If they cannot get the content for free (or it is inconvenient), then they'll just pay whoever will play it.

In other words, the reality is we geeks do not have enough market share to influence the bottom line.

But the real problem here isn't one of profit. Piracy is an excuse to power grab -- and I know that because they've been making the same claims since well before the internet came along, for the same reasons. As long as the content providers have enough power to push for anti-piracy laws (which ultimately give them more power, and do nothing to actually stop piracy), they will do exactly that, whether it is common or not.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#44009507)

I agree, very much, that it is about power. I'd do it too if I were in their shoes. Though I think the ethical thing for me to do would be to not consume the goods if I'm not paying for them (that same applies to the rest of us pirates). I'm not going to though, I don't even watch most of what I download. Hell, I'm not even sure why I bother downloading anymore. I think it is, as I mentioned, mostly because I am told I can't and this is the internet - where I've been doing what I want for at least 20 years now.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985669)

Try so 2004. Torrents are two iterations behind what people are using to download stuff.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

thisisnotreal (888437) | about a year ago | (#43986187)

Try so 2004. Torrents are two iterations behind what people are using to download stuff.

how?

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985663)

The index to the Pirate Bay is a perfectly legal torrent, and even without access to any Pirate Bay server, the torrent magent files will continue to operate, for as long as others seed the torrents in the index.

There is a brief and a long version at 75 MB and and 631 MB - Torrent Freak described the process and provided a link to the torrent - http://torrentfreak.com/download-copy-of-the-pirate-bay-with-permission-130220/

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985193)

Its pretty hard to find any downloads on the PirateBay.
Since they don't host anything..

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985659)

Its pretty hard to find any downloads on the PirateBay.
Since they don't host anything..

That's like saying it's hard to find web sites on Google, since they don't host anything.
+5 Insightful for not understanding use of common language. Good job, fanboys.

As for the summary, it's the usual inflammatory bullshit. Nobody is censoring the pirate bay, they're just outright blocking access.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#43985787)

Now a false statement is less false is written in common language?

I think I'll need a list of common language statements that reverse the falsehood of a statement. I'll start the list:
- "in" = "by using": e.g.: "Yes, your honor, we found child porn IN his computer."

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43989681)

What is the difference between censoring something and blocking access to that thing? For someone so apparently passionate about semantics, you do not seem to be very careful about your language.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43992967)

Nobody is censoring the pirate bay, they're just outright blocking access.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really that stupid?

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43991355)

Umm... Don't they host the magnet and torrent files there or am I missing something? Aren't those downloaded?

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

kaws (2589929) | about a year ago | (#43991745)

I suppose that if you get down to it, everything that you can load from the internet is downloaded. However, when referring to something downloaded, it's usually a file of some sort that's referred to. I double checked and saw that yes, torrent files are hosted and thus can be downloaded. My main point is that magnetic links aren't really files. They're just links can be used to reconstruct a torrent file. So in effect, when you load a webpage with a magnetic link on it, you've already downloaded it. tldr; magnetic links don't really count as a download. Your point on the torrent is true however.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43987731)

I've never had problems finding legal content there. Have you ever looked? If you did look and found nothing you're doing it wrong.

The Paxil Diaries is there, I seeded it myself. Musician friends' work is there; they, too, seeded it. I've been begged by folks to release The Paxil Diaries in hardcover so they could buy a copy. Guess where they heard about it? The internet. Guess where they got a copy? I emailed it to them for free or they got it from TPB. Now that folks kinda know me they'll buy the next one.

I wouldn't have that dozen Asimov books on my shelf had I not read his stuff for free at the library.

The MAFIAA knows that piracy doesn't hurt sales, study after study has shown this. However, if you buy two indie CDs from my musician friends, that's ten bucks you don't have to buy a MAFIAA CD and the MAFIAA did lose a sale; we don't have unlimited supplies of cash.

Competition hurts sales. The fight against piracy is a fight to keep their independent competitors invisible. As Doctorow says, nobody ever lost any money from piracy but many have starved from obscurity.

That's why the internet is so scary to the old media. Nobody needs them anymore because of it.

Re:Making it harder to pirate? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43988831)

Sorry for the self-reply, but TPB-AFK is being uploaded from my computer right now. It's a documentary the Pirate Bay made (there was a slashdot story about it a while ago).

Search for "Linux" and you'll see tons of legal downloads.

Serioulsy how fucking hard (5, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#43985191)

can it be to take the lawyer money and build the damn distribution websites aleady. If people with no money can do it in their spare time, I guess the answer is the studios dont want to. Then WTF are you in the business for? Seriosuly are these mother fucker so out of touch with reality?

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985267)

Why are they in business? TO MAKE MONEY. Is that so fucking hard to understand? Talk about out of touch with reality....

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43985271)

I guess the answer is the studios dont want to.

correct.

Then WTF are you in the business for?

They believe they're in business to maximize their profits, not to make customers happy. Now, a good business functioning in a free market would accomplish both at the same time, but the *AA get to rest on copyright instead, effectively calling in the government's guns to enforce their stupid business model.

And guess who's subsidizing that stupid business model by paying for those men in guns? That's right, the same people who are getting hosed at the other end.

We probably either ought to give up our taste for pre-recorded entertainment or our system of government. Or maybe both.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#43986907)

They believe they're in business to maximize their profits, not to make customers happy.

What for-profit business isn't in the business to maximize their profits, irrespective of their desire to make the customers happy? If customers happiness came as a priority over maximizing profits, everything would be sold at $0.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43989719)

That isn't true. There are a lot of examples of people preferring to pay for something rather than getting it for free; there is a perception of value at work. Apple would be out of business if people simply went with the lowest cost; keeping customers happy is not just about lowering the price.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43992917)

If customers happiness came as a priority over maximizing profits, everything would be sold at $0.

Completely false.

If you did that, you would go out of business, thus no longer able to keep selling to your (now former) customers, thus failing to keep your customers happy.

You can indeed as a business have the primary focus to make your customers happy. Doing that optimally requires finding the optimal price point, ensuring maximum customer satisfaction while simultaneously allowing you to remain operational.

The RIAA and their ilks chose to maximize profits, everything else be damned.

A successful business can damn well place itself somewhere in the middle of both extremes, both ensuring their customers are happy and not fucked over, while still making a decent profit without going overboard trying to maximize it at all cost.

Simple, really.

Not getting listed on the public stock market can help in this endeavor.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (4, Insightful)

Rod Beauvex (832040) | about a year ago | (#43985497)

This not about money. It never was. It is about control.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (4, Interesting)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about a year ago | (#43985949)

This not about money. It never was. It is about control.

Yes, it IS about control. It's about clinging to a past that they were able to understand and manipulate, rather than forging ahead to an unknown future with different rules that require different competencies and a different kind of creativity. And it's about a sense of entitlement too - they believe that with all of the pillaging they've managed to do over the past six decades or so, they've somehow earned the right to continue in that vein.

But it's also about money, because they are incapable of seeing how they can continue to profit in the age of unstoppable file sharing. Deep down, they're scared. They're finally experiencing the kind of fear, resentment, and ultimately, powerlessness they've put countless recording artists through. And I say "Good!"

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (1)

nomadic (141991) | about a year ago | (#43985597)

Huh? If you want legal access to movies and music there are a plethora of distribution sites; Amazon, Netflix, itunes, etc.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (3, Informative)

X.25 (255792) | about a year ago | (#43985839)

Huh? If you want legal access to movies and music there are a plethora of distribution sites; Amazon, Netflix, itunes, etc.

Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country yet.

Amazon Instant Video on Samsung devices is currently available in all 50 states of the U.S., District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

I am not even going to try iTunes (since I don't own any Apple devices and I don't watch movies on my computer).

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (2, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | about a year ago | (#43985995)

Huh? If you want legal access to movies and music there are a plethora of distribution sites; Amazon, Netflix, itunes, etc.

I mean, what really hurts is that Amazon are cunts and don't bother informing you about geo restriction until you actually try to watch/download something (they let you go through trial setup and also set auto-upgrade option on, even though you might not be able to use Prime at all - I presume they'd just charge me $79 after a free 'trial' if I didn't disable this 'feature'). I just tried it again, and still works the same. Argh.

And they still wonder why many people download "free" things from the trackers/etc? It's not because they are free, but these brainless droids still haven't figured that part out.

Sigh.

I don't want to rent (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#43987067)

there s a move rental store down the street from me. I want to OWN and play the disk/file on any device that can play the file/disk. I want to own so that 5 years down the line I have access to the movie/music if the streaming servers go down/are turned off or the comapny thinks switching to a different file name requires me to re-purchase all my enterteinment once again.

Re:I don't want to rent (1)

KGIII (973947) | about a year ago | (#43991393)

There are plenty of places to buy physical media copies as well.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985903)

can it be to take the lawyer money and build the damn distribution websites aleady. If people with no money can do it in their spare time, I guess the answer is the studios dont want to. Then WTF are you in the business for? Seriosuly are these mother fucker so out of touch with reality?

It's easy to get idiot fanboys to rate you up +5 Insightful for posting this drivel, it's not so easy to come up with a way for the studios to actually make money distributing via p2p software. Which is probably why all you did was post a bunch of crap instead of giving some realistic suggestions on how they could actually do such a thing. Distributing content is easy, getting paid for it is the hard part.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#43987185)

can it be to take the lawyer money and build the damn distribution websites aleady. If people with no money can do it in their spare time, I guess the answer is the studios dont want to. Then WTF are you in the business for? Seriosuly are these mother fucker so out of touch with reality?

It's easy to get idiot fanboys to rate you up +5 Insightful for posting this drivel, it's not so easy to come up with a way for the studios to actually make money distributing via p2p software. Which is probably why all you did was post a bunch of crap instead of giving some realistic suggestions on how they could actually do such a thing. Distributing content is easy, getting paid for it is the hard part.

Really? HAVE they actually tried to do so? Listen here genius there will be a part of society that will always want something for free but when you
don't deliver what the general public wants at a price that reflects the product/item/availability you'll get the rest of the public to not give a flying fuck either, ohh and here we are, most people not giving a flying fuck anymore.

Best part is they want disposable entertainment so you buy it over and over yet they are refuse to price it as a disposable product. If I had acces to $1/2 old movies that I owned as long as the file excisted I wouldn't care too much if I lost the files as it would be cheap enough to re-purchase them. Hell say I went out of town and wanted to watch something for a $1/2 I wouldn't care if I had to buy it again.

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (1)

Jahta (1141213) | about a year ago | (#44005319)

Listen here genius there will be a part of society that will always want something for free but when you don't deliver what the general public wants at a price that reflects the product/item/availability you'll get the rest of the public to not give a flying fuck either...

Now if you'd only stopped after the word "free" this would have made more sense. Because, while the debates about what constitutes a "fair price" and DRM restrictions are all valid, there's an awful lot of people who just want stuff for nothing.

Remember Radiohead and "In Rainbows"? You could download the album, completely legally, from the band's web site and just pay what you considered a fair price. Only for lots of people, the only price they were interested in was zero; they even uploaded their copies onto bittorrent so their mates wouldn't have to make that difficult "fair price" decision.

(And before somebody says it, if you want something enough to go out an acquire one then, by definition, it has a non-zero value for you.)

Re:Serioulsy how fucking hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43989737)

Funny.... the music industry seems to have worked it out.

Precedents, not specifics (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43985265)

I'm more concerned with the precedent this could set than with specifically seeing the government block TPB.

Re:Precedents, not specifics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985503)

Ireland, Fuck Yeah!
What you gonna do when Willian Wallace come for you!! ... oh wait...

FREE... DOOOOOM!

Re:Precedents, not specifics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43986037)

We'll probably be fine, he was over in Scotland

Re:Precedents, not specifics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43987377)

That's right, William Wallace will show them! Right before he gets drawn and quartered.

Oops.

How hard is it to not buy their products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985287)

Relevant questions:

Is TPB ONLY pirated shit?

Have they refused to comply with take down notices?

Yes? Then they're pirates, so WTF did you want?

No? Then how hard is it for you the offended reader to stop buying the products of the companies who lobbied for this outcome or in some other way hurt their bottom line ? They get these outcomes because they've bought the legislature. I don't know about TPB, it' snot my thing at all, but I do know about Mickey Mouse and the (destructive) extension of copyright that went on merely to service that corporations bottom line and believe me this house is Disney free.

The best way to handle this kind of shit is to think of another business model that permits sharing or even better mandates it.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (3, Interesting)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year ago | (#43985389)

Disney free? Are you sure? Are you really REALLY sure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney [wikipedia.org]

A quick glance shows me that Touchstone is part of Disney, and they are a pretty big movie company...if you own movies, you probably own some of theirs.

And this illustrates the fundamental problem with the "take my business elsewhere" suggestion: I can boycott Disney, but unless I happen to know that Touchstone or ABC are a part of Disney, I may still be giving them my business. It's like last year when people were bitching about the factories in China and how we all need our precious iPhones - only to find out that the Androids, Dells, and damn near everything else that we work with are manufactured in the same facility (not sure if 'droids or Dells are built there or not - not relevant to my point).

Until there is an independent company out there producing decent material - and that company is forthright about who owns what - anywhere you go is likely going to further contribute to the problem (regardless of the problem you're experiencing, be it the MAFIAA, oil companies, grocery stores, etc)

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985535)

ESPN is owned by Disney.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985587)

Anyway, Disney is all about money too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF4_4g1B2Ug

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43985711)

I can boycott Disney, but unless I happen to know that Touchstone or ABC are a part of Disney, I may still be giving them my business.

There's an app for that [apple.com]

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

Moryath (553296) | about a year ago | (#43985409)

Then how hard is it for you the offended reader to stop buying the products of the companies who lobbied for this outcome or in some other way hurt their bottom line ?

The funny thing is that we did. And the response of the shit-flinging monkeys, suits, and marketing morons of the MafiAA was... to blame their losses on piracy rather than shitty broken-by-design products.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

rogueippacket (1977626) | about a year ago | (#43987867)

This. I might go into a theatre now once a year (never by choice), and the last piece of physical media I bought was BBC's Life on Blu-Ray. It's not that I'm out downloading a storm to get everything else - it's that the quality of product from the majors has dropped so significantly over the past decade, I'm just no interested in paying for a $15 movie ticket/physical media/legal download to watch Big Name Actor to jump around in front of a green screen for two hours.
Until the big studios stop milking existing franchises or Lucasing the crap out of their movies, most of my leisure money goes to indie game developers - they work hard producing original content, and then they don't try to blame me if it doesn't sell.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (3, Informative)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43985445)

TPB hosts only 100% legal material. Some of that legal material includes infohashes that, when processed by a BitTorrent client, many steps down the line, will eventually lead to other material not hosted on TPB which may or may not be legal.

They've rightly refused to comply with takedown notices since they ask for 100% legal material to be taken down, or the takedown of material they are not hosting.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985551)

Not understanding the law isn't going to save you in court. Linking to pirated content, according to your wonderfully non-corrupted US government, is the same as hosting it yourself.

TPB hosts infohashes, and as they move towards magnet links, they won't even be hosting those anymore. But, those hashes and links direct you to pirated content. TPB simply can't plead innocence on this one as they have openly flaunted the fact that they are helping people "steal" content, and have gone so far as to ignore takedown requests in the past, actually posting up correspondence between them and different antipiracy groups. If you haven't read them, do so, they are pretty funny.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43985641)

How many links does it take to make the difference between legal and illegal linking?

They've already moved to magnet links, which are just more abstract infohashes. Those link to the .torrent file contents, which the BitTorrent client can use through trackers and DHT to find computers that host the content, which can then deliver the contents. So that's (at least, I'm sure I've oversimplified) 5 layers of separation between TPB and pirated content - far more than Google could boast.

Also I'm not an American and would never suggest that their government isn't horribly corrupted.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43987077)

It doesn't matter how many layers of indirection there are. None of the technical details matter legally. The purpose of the site is to help users get unlicensed copyrighted content. How that happens just doesn't matter - the intent matters.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#43987167)

So do you think they could make this go away if they renamed themselves "the file bay?"

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43988729)

Well, at this point any change would be unconvincing, but history aside: if they responded to DMCA takedown requests and had (pointers to) mostly non-infringing content, sure. That's why many file hosting services are still up - dropbox etc - and why general-purpose search engines aren't worried, and so on. Intent matters in law.

Re:How hard is it to not buy their products? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43989803)

So people who are shot should be suing the guy who sold the shooter the gun, then? At some point, responsibility lies with the end user, and not a legitimate service that can be (and may often be) misused.

Rogers in Canada has also started blocking. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985369)

Nothing is actually returned back unlike the spam page that an incorrect URL leads you to, but the site became inaccessible for most not long after the UK ISP story was posted, coincidentally. You can still easily connect through a proxy so it's obviously just a simple firewall on Rogers' part, but it's nothing that's been announced either.

Why TPB? (1)

g1zmo (315166) | about a year ago | (#43985457)

Is all this heat on The Pirate Bay simply because of its name recognition? There are many many more torrent trackers out there that all have the same content.

Re:Why TPB? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43985529)

Yes, for the same reason SuperNova is no more and many others before that.

The lawyers only ever find out about the most popular ones. When that one is shutdown or is abandoned by users two more spring up to take its place.

Re:Why TPB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985609)

Yes, it really is. Go stop anyone on the street under the age of 40 what the piratebay is, or if they've heard of it. They have. Not just that, it's the open taunting of law enforcement that makes them a nice easy target. The fact remains, torrents indexed on TPB are indexed on countless other sites.

They aren't worried about a few intelligent people figuring out how to game the system. But once it becomes so easy and common place that, literally, your grandmother could be pirating in 2 minutes, it has to be addressed.

I used to love the TPB. Up and until I realized just how much money (ad revenue) they were generating based on stolen content. That's where I draw the line, that's when it becomes stealing. Downloading a movie costs the movie company nothing, i might not have bought it at all, and I might still buy it after pirating it. But once the person helping me steal it does so to profit, I do consider that a crime.

I can still recall the progression from downloading from FTP topsites and IRC to this new fancy and easy bittorrent stuff. Wow, faster, more efficient, everyone shares, sites popped up and communities were formed. Then not that long after i see a kid wearing a piratebay shirt. Yup, I knew right then all of this was coming. And it's going to get worse before it gets better.

TPB isn't the best example or spokesperson for rejuvenating the entertainment industry, but it's all we have.

Re:Why TPB? (1)

stanIyb (2945195) | about a year ago | (#43985869)

Up and until I realized just how much money (ad revenue) they were generating based on stolen content

They have no "stolen content." They simply make money due to the ads; what's the problem?

That's where I draw the line, that's when it becomes stealing.

How is making money off of ads stealing? Content is irrelevant; it's either normally stealing or it isn't, and ads don't factor into that. By the way, as to whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, well, it's not.

But once the person helping me steal it does so to profit, I do consider that a crime.

Why? That's 100% arbitrary.

No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985501)

Ireland rolls over again - it's pathetic. We had only just got our country back and then we sold it to Europe for a mars bar

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985737)

When did we have a country. First the English were kicked out, so the Vatican could take over. With Vatican control severely curtailed the bankers moved in, and we have Hollywood taking their seat at the table. This shit isn't from the EU. It's the movie/music industry buying our lawmakers.

Re:No surprise (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43986067)

And to clarify the EU thing, Sean Sherlock, at the time claimed this law to be required for compliance with EU obligations. Lying bastard of a man! He blamed the EU rather than admit that either he's on the take or is seriously a power crazed gobshite.

If this was a requirement, I don't see all other EU nations rushing to meet it. No, Sherlock got something out of this. Knowing the cunt, it could something as small as a Little Mermaid DVD box set (region 1, you langer) and a bag of oranges. He's been an irritating mannequin-faced wanker since his days in Mallow as chief pencil organizer for the local Aspergers society meetings. Absolute shambles if a man, and he looks like a rubberized robot.

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44013941)

Is asked the question: "Is Sean Sherlock a violent paedophile, who passed this law because he was being blackmailed?" I'd say that I cannot disprove any of those allegations, and it would explain his bypassing usual procedure to sneak this through without debate.

I don't know why they even bother (3, Interesting)

marsu_k (701360) | about a year ago | (#43985513)

Here in .fi, some operators were ordered to block thepiratebay.org and associated domains. The blocks ranged from simple DNS blocks, trivial to get past, to blocking actual connections to certain IP adresses, depending on the ISP.

Among the blocked domains was piraattilahti.org (that would translate to "pirate bay") - but at the time being, it forwarded to effi.org (local EFF). The block on piraattilahti.org was lifter after a while. Now, when you visit piraattilahti.org, it functions as a proxy to thepiratebay.org, so you can get there no matter what ISP you use.

The point being, these kinds of blocks are completely futile. Those interested in pirating content will continue to do so (and while TPB is undoubtedly a large tracker, it is hardly the only one), and ISPs will not certainly implement such blocks out of charity, so ultimately the costs will be paid by the subscribers. The only way to reduce piracy is to offer legal (and reasonable) alternatives. Currently, between subscriptions to Netflix/HBO Nordic/Spotify, I personally pirate very little - I do like to pay the content producers, if I'm able. But if I'm not, arrrrrr it is (Comedy Central, should you be listening, I'd gladly pay for Daily Show and Colbert).

Re:I don't know why they even bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43985683)

Isn't the Daily Show and Colbert available for free off Comedy Central's website?

I get both of those for free in Canada off The Comedy Network's website. Not the greatest quality, but certainly good enough for these shows.

Re:I don't know why they even bother (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#43985771)

Doesn't Comedy Central restrict streaming off of their website directly to the US?

(I mean, sure, you could pretty trivially get around it with a proxy based in the US, but still.)

Re:I don't know why they even bother (1)

marsu_k (701360) | about a year ago | (#43985775)

Isn't the Daily Show and Colbert available for free off Comedy Central's website?

They are, and they are not. They're blocked by IP to some countries, and depending on your location you can get them in most places here, and not get them on some hotels for instance. I guess geolocating isn't an exact science. Also, I don't know what they do with their flash player but it's the most unreliable I've met. It can skip to the next segment seemingly at random which is very irritating.

Re:I don't know why they even bother (3, Insightful)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year ago | (#43985953)

so (and while TPB is undoubtedly a large tracker, it is hardly the only one),

For them to be a tracker, they would have to host torrent files, and they haven't in years.

Re:I don't know why they even bother (1)

marsu_k (701360) | about a year ago | (#43986529)

For them to be a tracker, they would have to host torrent files, and they haven't in years.

OK, "distributor of magnet links" then. Using magnets is so transparent that it's hard to tell the difference.

Re:I don't know why they even bother (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year ago | (#43987153)

For them to be a tracker, they would have to host torrent files, and they haven't in years.

This is completely wrong.

A bittorrent tracker is just a service that responds to requests that contain the hash that identifies the torrent (and optionally statistics about the state of the torrent on the client that is making the request), and returns IP addresses of other clients that have asked to be stored in the tracker. The tracker doesn't need to know anything about the torrent other than the hash. The only information the tracker needs to know about the clients is whether they want to be added to the list of available peers, then it needs their completion percentage.

A bittorrent client connects to a tracker and then connects to peers that the tracker told it about to transfer the actual data described in the torrent file. Once a bittorrent client has information about other peers, it never has to connect to the tracker again, as long as the peers it knows about satisfy the client's requirement for download (availability, speed, etc.).

TPB is just a database of user-generated and uploaded torrent files, a search engine for that database, a modified bittorrent client (that only queries trackers, but does not register as being available for connections), along with the ability to download the torrent file that is found from a search. TPB still stores all torrent files uploaded to it, but only sometimes allows downloading of the file, based on the number of peers that are currently registered with the tracker(s) for that torrent.

TL; DR version: knowing that some IP address is doing one of (hosting torrent files or running a tracker or transferring data using a bittorrent client) doesn't give you any information about whether that IP address is also doing any of the other things.

Re:I don't know why they even bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43990201)

Does TPB then have scope to sue somebody over this?

Re:I don't know why they even bother (2)

CaseCrash (1120869) | about a year ago | (#43986323)

(Comedy Central, should you be listening, I'd gladly pay for Daily Show and Colbert).

Grab the Media Hint extension for Chrome or Firefox and you'll be able to watch them on Hulu. I don't know if it works on Comedy Central's website or the colbert/dailyshow's own websites, but I know it let me use netflix, hulu, and pandora when I had to go to Belgium for work a couple months back. It makes those sites think you're in the US.

You might have to side-load it since it doesn't always seem available in the extensions "store" or whatever.

Re:I don't know why they even bother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43986945)

I have yet to find a provider that offers the quality of a 720p .mkv for a reasonable price. DRM, choppy play, and low resolution are not worth paying for. I got a DVD from Redbox recently and I was amazed at the poor resolution. There was even a chop/splice during the movie as well as a grainy picture from compression. Netflix is so bad I'm surprised it doesn't induce seizures. I have been reduced to purchasing/renting Blu-ray discs and downloading 11 GB Matroska containers. You men eat your dinner, eat your pork and beans. I eat more chicken any man ever seen.

Why not use torrents (1)

Vektuz (886618) | about a year ago | (#43985741)

Could there not be some tech or protocol that lets you host something the pirate bay directly on torrents somehow, via signing + distributed hashing or somehting? If anyone could get something like that started it would be TPB. Surely there's some way to create an app or site which leverages distributed nature of torrent to host an application or website "everywhere"?

Re:Why not use torrents (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43987695)

It's called freenet. And since everything is encrypted, no *IAA lawsuits. Odd that no one uses it, really (AFAIK, it's dog slow only because no one uses it, but I don't really understand it).

Irish "Sopa" is really Irish Spring (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year ago | (#43985837)

hawhawhawhawhaw

Carry on.

WTF (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year ago | (#43986303)

"IT was one of the few industries Ireland was getting right." So what? Is IT taking a dive because Eire's ISPs are bowing to the MAFIAA will? Absolutely not: the fate of Ireland's IT has NOTHING to do with what their ISP will or won't do. It has everything to do with competitivity. The irish ISPs may even benefit from licking the MAFIAA's boots, there are always rewards for willing slaves. But no, there won't be any form of backlash, especially from consumers. The time a stand could be taken to keep the Net the way we wanted is now irrevocably gone. It's over. The fight for freedom will be moving elsewhere. Thanks for not doing anything, folks.

IT was one of the few industries Ireland was... (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#43986981)

Pity; IT was one of the few industries Ireland was getting right.

And this is linked to banning TPB how?
Stopping people from pirating TV, films & music will somehow magically nuke the local IT industry?

Irish Fella (1)

SuilAmhain (2819677) | about a year ago | (#43989277)

Hi,

This really just PR nonsense. The majority of people will not notice and will continue to pirate anyway.

There is only one solution to piracy and it's a bloody easy one.

Stop with walled gardens and make everything available everywhere at the same time for a reasonable price. It's that fupping simple.
I can fully understand why Hollywood's complete and utter lack of imagination and inability to consider anything new or original has resulted in them missing that memo.

I pay for netflix. It's reasonably priced and with a little effort I can access, on a very rare occasion, the American version if there is a specific need.

Shows like Dexter, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead and Breaking bad would get a far higher viewership and make far more ad and product placement revenue if they went out on on their own websites at the same time as they were televised. It's the future one way or another why go to so much hassle and expense to try and stop what will not be stopped until you simply give people what the want?

Censorship and control (1)

xiando (770382) | about a year ago | (#43989317)

This is also about Censorship and Control. Yes torrents are used to distribute some pirated content. But they are also used to distribute home made videos, free educational videos and so on. I have a .torrent site where I mainly distribute videos by Alex Jones / http://infowars.com/ [infowars.com] and I can legally distribute everything on that site. I had Google Adsense on it for a while but one day they sent me an e-mail saying that having a .torrent file on your site violates their policy. It apparently doesn't matter to Google _what_ you distribute with a torrent, just using torrents is "bad". That's as stupid as saying "using http is against our policy" regardless of what you serve, but that's the "do evil" corporation for you. The Pirate Bay may have some "bad" content, but there's also a whole lot of important _legal_ content there. You can't easily censor videos distributed using BitTorrent. BitTorrent is important for free speech and free thought. I do understand why Disney wants to shut down sites who distribute videos with information that goes against their propaganda, but it's not alright.

Re:Censorship and control (1)

dave420 (699308) | about a year ago | (#43993727)

Alex Jones? Ha! You deserve everything you get for peddling that lunatic's insanity.

Re:Censorship and control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43994829)

The .torrent file was just their excuse for taking away their affiliation with you, because your video distribution site is so powerful you are about to bring them to their knees. There was no reason to throw that Alex Jones comment in there, at all, so obviously you are just advertising. If i was google i would not want to have anything to do with your nonsense either. At least google provides a real service, that Alex Jones sh*t is just people making up goofy conspiracy theories so they don't have to work actual jobs. And Disney does not own Google, and neither of them care more about your dumbass videos than their ad revenue, i guarantee that.

Ireland Just Fucked Itself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43990287)

Out of all my future money. I won't go as a tourist to 3rd world countries with oppressive censorship. It's a moral call, and I won't support them. Goodbye Ireland.

Referendum (1)

woodengod (863603) | about a year ago | (#43991037)

From the corresponding wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland):

An amendment may be made to any part of the Constitution of Ireland but only by referendum. An amendment must first be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament), then submitted to a referendum, and finally signed into law by the President. Aside from constitutional referendums, the constitution also provides for a referendum on an ordinary bill, known as the ordinary referendum, but there has not been one so far.

I think such an act is worth a referendum.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?