×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Torrentz.eu Domain Name Suspended

Unknown Lamer posted about 7 months ago | from the searching-is-now-a-crime dept.

Piracy 226

First time accepted submitter S37Rigor Mortis (1601271) writes "Torrentz.eu, the largest torrent search engine on the Internet, has had its domain name suspended following a request from the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK. The site continues to operate under two alternative domains, and is hoping to move the .eu domain to a new registrar." Update: 05/27 12:53 GMT by T : That was quick; the site is back, "after the owners pointed out that its suspension was illegal."

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

Brits still think they own the world... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097849)

The Fascist Police of London had a .com domain pulled from a Ukrainian website the other day...

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (5, Insightful)

sa1lnr (669048) | about 7 months ago | (#47098029)

Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098037)

It is, though. .com domains aren't part of their jurisdiction. Neither are servers hosted in Ukraine.

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098135)

You know... what the mafia says in the movies, accidents happen. And blame the victims for being weak.

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098221)

Fascists very seldom use violence, or even direct threat of violence. They create an environment where they don't need to.
When you say "made a request", what exactly do you mean. "Made a request" means that it was implied that the registrar somehow would be held accountable or that they otherwise would be given a hard time if they didn't comply then it is perfectly fair to claim that the police has fascist tendencies.

With the right intonation and in the right environment "It would be unfortunate if you didn't comply" or "I would be disappointed if you didn't comply" is far more threatening than "I will hit you if you don't comply"
 

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (5, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | about 7 months ago | (#47098355)

Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

Let's say you live in an apartment. What if they "made a request" to your landlord to lock you out of your own apartment, and the landlord dutifully complied. Perhaps you might feel differently if your stuff was taken in such a manner.

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (0, Troll)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#47098939)

90% of the content of my apartment was illegal material I wouldn't be all that surprised.

And as far as I can see, linking to material and hosting material isn't seen as any different from a legal perspective. to preempt the tedious predictable "but Google" response; Google's defence here isn't that they link, but that they remove material if they're made aware that it's infringing. YouTube does host content and they have essentially the same takedown procedure as Google, so generally seem to be pretty robust against claims of criminal copyright infringement.

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098549)

Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

There were under no obligation to comply whit that request. WHAT KIND OF THREAT THE LONDON POLICE MADE TO GET THEM TO COMPLY?

And you think there is nothing dangerous about this. You are a fascism-enabler. A tool.

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (1)

Megane (129182) | about 7 months ago | (#47098753)

"That's a very nice domain name registrar you have there, sir. It would be a real shame if... something were to happen to it. For instance, it might... break. Knowutimean, guv?"

Re:Brits still think they own the world... (4, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 months ago | (#47098281)

As I understand it, the Police of London is a very small, mostly corporate controlled entity with much less impact than they purport to have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

Now a redirect (4, Interesting)

Maquis196 (535256) | about 7 months ago | (#47097863)

I got redirected to torrentz.ch and I can't tell if this is blocked by British ISPs like torrentz.eu was...

So no service problems. Good job internet.

Re:Now a redirect (4, Informative)

Maquis196 (535256) | about 7 months ago | (#47097865)

hate replying to myself, but after proxying through my home server (on BT infinity), torrentz.ch is certainly not blocked. Way to go UK!

Re:Now a redirect (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098181)

Thank you for reporting this problem. Our engineers our still working out some implementation details. This should be fixed shortly.

-- BT Infinity

Do we have a better file sharing solution? (5, Interesting)

Katatsumuri (1137173) | about 7 months ago | (#47098307)

Granted, this whack-a-mole game with individual torrent sites makes for a fun show sometimes. But I find it embarrassing that the online community has to work around these issues time after time, and that some good people get caught up in legal battles.

Are there any good alternatives to bittorrent for private, anonymous file search and exchange? I heard about several "darknet" projects, but they never seem to gain traction for some reason. Given a huge number of hobbyist hackers who support free exchange of information, I am surprised.

Is there a fundamental reason why we cannot have free, anonymous file exchange? Or is everyone just happy with the status quo?

Re:Do we have a better file sharing solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098553)

Because the software market would completely tank if large file sharing was legal.

Re:Do we have a better file sharing solution? (2, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | about 7 months ago | (#47098721)

Is there a fundamental reason why we cannot have free, anonymous file exchange?

Most people have things they don't want to have freely available (child porn, for example) and prioritize suppressing them over free availability of other things, thus they shy away from free, anonymous file exchanges.

That's the problem with anarchy in general: everyone's free to do what they want, including things I don't want them to do.

Re:Do we have a better file sharing solution? (2)

countach (534280) | about 7 months ago | (#47098877)

bittorrent is not a scheme for file search. It's a data transfer protocol. How you find torrents is not within the realm of bit torrent. If your aim is to suck down huge amounts of data, there is no competitor.

Criminal scum (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#47097871)

These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Camembert (2891457) | about 7 months ago | (#47097877)

>> The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines.

Yes, if you search long and hard enough you might even find some legitimately freely distributable content.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098145)

As with any other search engine you find what you search for.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

Noryungi (70322) | about 7 months ago | (#47098305)

You mean like this?
https://torrentz.eu/525245e5e3... [torrentz.eu]

Or this?
https://torrentz.eu/156b69b864... [torrentz.eu]

Or this?
https://torrentz.eu/4d75347442... [torrentz.eu]

Or that one maybe?
https://torrentz.eu/e67f4ebb4c... [torrentz.eu]

Hey, what do you know? They actually distribute some legal content! Amazing!

Re:Criminal scum (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098429)

That's like saying that a sex shop is a general-purpose convenience store if they happen to sell some candy too.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about 7 months ago | (#47098943)

Yes, if you search long and hard enough you might even find some legitimately freely distributable content.

Until Google caved to big media, adding "filetype:torrent" to your Google search gave you pretty much the same results at Torrentz gave. There is no difference between Google and Torrentz except that Torrentz specializes in searching for .torrent files.

I expect that Google will shortly have to cave about image searches, since basically everything returned from a Google image search is not freely distributable, and much of it is already infringing. As an example, I use Google image search to find better cover images for my eBooks, and the vast majority of results are from sites who copied the original image without permission. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but don't indict Torrentz for doing exactly the same thing that you seem to think "real search engines" don't do.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47097895)

The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines.

Legitimate? The site clearly promotes piracy.

Re:Criminal scum (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 7 months ago | (#47097949)

Try googling "harry potter torrent" and see what links you get. It indexes content, legitimate or otherwise.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#47097969)

What proportion of Torrentz.eu users would you say are looking for non infringing files? What proportion of Google users would you say are looking for infringing files?

Personally I'd guess that most - possibly more thqan 99% of users- use torrentz.eu purely for copyright infringing uses. I know I do, and so do most of my friends. I'd also estimate that less than 5% of Google users are looking for infringing files.

If any service is mostly used illegally, I'd expect the police to attempt to have it shut down.

Re:Criminal scum (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098001)

Really? So all torrentz.eu has to do is a dual search engine ("search for torrents or cat pictures!") and force users to do one cat picture search before they can do a torrent search. This way only 49% of searches are illegal and the service won't be shut down.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#47098055)

The law doesn't work like that. There isn't a strict rule that "Below x% it's legal".

You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that the users actually want those cat pictures rather than the copyright infringing files. This is why the law uses a human element. We can use our judgement. You'd also have to be a complete idiot to believe that torrentz.eu isn't primarily interested in facilitating copyright infringement.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 7 months ago | (#47098973)

You are talking like a law and order person who never questions whether copyright is good, fair, and balanced. You just jumped right to an examination of whether torrentz.eu aids others to infringe on copyrights as if its beyond question that that's Bad, and declared that its so obvious that torrentz.eu does so that anyone who tries to argue otherwise is being stupid, and that there's no doubt torrent sites are Guilty Guilty Guilty.

Of course they link to pirated material! But is that so bad, really? It's actually the opposite. The right to share knowledge is fundamental to our civilization, and we should not allow some private interests to buffalo us into accepting a false equivalence between property rights for material things and copyright law. Every time someone asserts that copying is stealing, that's what they do. Piracy is good. The real crime is the suppression of our rights, and the criminals are not torrentz.eu operators or even users, but this police force and their real masters who seem to prefer to remain in the shadows.

Evidently these masters don't like the glare of publicity, and the most probable reason for that dislike is that they know the public would strongly disapprove of their conduct and motives. From what I've read elsewhere in these threads, this City of London Police is a weird little police force more answerable to corporations than the public. Well now they've done it. They've called international attention upon themselves. They've clothed themselves as police, as guardians of law and order, and it's not at all clear that they should be allowed to continue to do so. I should not be too surprised to see talk of reining in this "police" force and forcing them back under the rock from which they crawled. And if they won't back down, then they will be changed, perhaps disbanded.

Re:Criminal scum (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098321)

"possibly more thqan 99% of users- use torrentz.eu purely for copyright infringing uses. I know I do, and so do most of my friends. I'd also estimate that less than 5% of Google users are looking for infringing files."

But if looking at absolute numbers the amount of people searching for infringing files in Goole is way larger than in torrenz.eu. Basically you are saying the corner dealer has to go to jail because he sold drugs to 99 people and his sandwich to one, where Walmart is ok because they sold drugs to 5000 people, but also sold sandwiches to 95000 people. Either indexing content is ok or it isn't.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#47098863)

Well, sort of. It's a little difficult for walmart to claim that they were unwillingly or unwittingly selling drugs. This is more a question of "mens rea". Guilt is about willingness to cause harm rather than quantity of harm. For much the same reason, I'm guilty of a crime even if I fail to actually complete the act.

But broadly speaking, yes.

Indexing is okay. Indexing infringing material is not.

It is not reasonable to expect a company to eliminate 100% of infringing material, so a certain amount is tolerated. It is reasonable to expect a company to make some effort to reduce the problem.

The bigger the problem is, the more effort they should make here.

There are many other factors that will be taken into consideration. These will be weighed and balanced with a large degree of subjectability.

I really think it's naive to claim that torrentz.eu and google are doing the same thing based on the fact that they're both indexing. Are you really claiming the people running torrentz.eu aren't aware of the level of piracy that goes on, or that they are trying to do something to reduce it? Do you think, that if they could wave a magic wand and prevent any piracy they would do so?

Re:Criminal scum (3, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47097991)

Try googling "harry potter torrent" and see what links you get. It indexes content, legitimate or otherwise.

No, there is a big difference because Google's main intent is not to promote piracy.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098013)

Heh, apparently the Slashdot piracy mob already quickly modded down my both messages.

Re:Criminal scum (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 7 months ago | (#47098063)

Me too:)

I think a lot of Slashdot users can't cope with the fact that the law and software algorithms work differently.

Ah, Pirates (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#47098123)

One could mention many lovable traits in Smee. For instance, after killing, it was his spectacles he wiped instead of his weapon.

Re:Criminal scum (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098015)

Fuck off you cunt

Re:Criminal scum (3, Insightful)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 7 months ago | (#47098283)

Wait, this search engine located at youtube.com - is that not primarly used for pirating music and videos? At least that is what I use it for, almost to 99%. And youtube.com is a service run by Google.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098359)

Actually that's pretty good counter-argument to my comment. On the other hand, they do remove content based on complaints, but still you are mostly right.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

Matthias Löffel (3522589) | about 7 months ago | (#47098453)

On the other hand, they do remove content based on complaints

Which of torrentz.eu cannot do even if they wanted to, as they don't host any content.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | about 7 months ago | (#47098511)

Don't they host the metadata that allow the download of the disputed data? Would not removing the torrent (search result) upon request be sufficient to keep torrentz.eu unblocked?

Re:Criminal scum (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098587)

On the other hand, they [Google] do remove content based on complaints

Which of torrentz.eu cannot do even if they wanted to, as they don't host any content.

Google does not host the content either.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097955)

'Legitimate? The site clearly promotes piracy.'

As legitimate as BBC and other media companies openly supporting terrorists in Syria. Why not shut them down too on some kneejerk?

Re:Criminal scum (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097977)

Piracy hurts rich people. Until terrorism stops hurting poor brown people in other countries and starts impacting only upon the rich, there won't be any real action against them for doing so.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

gnupun (752725) | about 7 months ago | (#47098087)

As legitimate as BBC and other media companies openly supporting terrorists in Syria. Why not shut them down too on some kneejerk?

That would happen if you could prove the Syrian rebels were terrorists.

The torrentz.eu site does more than promote piracy, it enables piracy, by storing pointers to pirated content.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098203)

Just like Google does. And just like Youtube does.

Hell, you can even (gasp!) download (oh noes!) content from Youtube...!

Re:Criminal scum (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 7 months ago | (#47098233)

And how many times does youtube get sued and gets copyrighted content pulled? Why don't you be a hero and try uploading a recent movie onto youtube and see how long it stays?

Most copyrighted content on youtube is music, which is usually a very low quality reproduction, which is probably why it survives being taken down. Plus the song enjoys free publicity being on youtube.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 7 months ago | (#47098533)

And how many times does youtube get sued and gets copyrighted content pulled? Why don't you be a hero and try uploading a recent movie onto youtube and see how long it stays?

Most copyrighted content on youtube is music, which is usually a very low quality reproduction, which is probably why it survives being taken down. Plus the song enjoys free publicity being on youtube.

Exactly!!

I this case the police actually try and engage with the site owners first and help them become legal. That means honouring take down requests from rights holders and such. Google quite happily do that, so they are fine even if in some cases they do enable people to find pirated work. Torrentz.eu on the other hand probably do not honour take down requests :)

It is not about whether your site enables copyright infringement, it is about whether you make even the slightest attempt to take stuff down when legally compelled to. Believe it or not some torrent sites exist legally by letting people upload copyright infringing content but then taking it down when the copyright owner asks them to, even though this is clearly ridiculous it is also legal.

Re:Criminal scum (4, Informative)

bl968 (190792) | about 7 months ago | (#47098007)

I did a search and if you are looking for copyrighted materials you can find them. But you find a lot of other stuff as well. Linux distributions, freely distributable music. Public domain materials etc. this is a search engine.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098075)

So what? It's still mainly geared towards warez.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 7 months ago | (#47098133)

that doesn't matter.

google is largely geared towards finding copyrighted porno.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098165)

Google is a general-purpose search engine.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098463)

Right, I can search warez, dvdrips, porn, and music!

Re:Criminal scum (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098579)

Yes, you can. I do not disagree with that in any way.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

Threni (635302) | about 7 months ago | (#47098409)

So it's ok that if you google for, say, "schoenberg torrent flac" you get pretty much exclusively pirate sites? Why aren't google blocking these dodgy torrent sites?

Re:Criminal scum (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#47098499)

Why aren't google blocking these dodgy torrent sites?

That would be shooting the messenger. Google indexes everything.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098093)

Torrent sites also list public domain packs, UNIX-like distros and OSS applications.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098383)

lol you are a tool

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098061)

> The site clearly promotes piracy.

How much are you getting paid for that? Where do I apply?

Re:Criminal scum (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#47098125)

Piracy or not, last time I checked copyright violations were not in the CRIMINAL code. So what's the police doing there? Enforcing the interest of a PRIVATE party?

Re:Criminal scum (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 7 months ago | (#47098867)

So what's the police doing there? Enforcing the interest of a PRIVATE party?

I think it's about time we stop pretending mega-corporations are "private". I propose a threefold model: there's the "official" sector, composed of the institutions that are officially the part of the government structure, the "public" sector, composed of various non-governmental institutions (corporations, nonprofits, religious organizations, etc), and the "private" sector, composed of individuals.

Among other things, this would let us cleanly separate individuals controlling the official sector (good) and corporations controlling the official sector (bad). It would also let us have separate sets of rights for institutions and individuals, thus avoiding concepts like "corporate personhood" in its current, defective form.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

Maquis196 (535256) | about 7 months ago | (#47097917)

City of London top brass also in cahoots with Scientology as well from what I understand. Theyre an honest bunch

Re:Criminal scum (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097925)

It needs to be pointed out that the "City of London Police" are not police, at all. They are actually Wall Street UK. The fact that they don't get their ass busted by the real police (impersonation charges) speaks volumes of corruption here in the UK.

Re:Criminal scum (2)

radio4fan (304271) | about 7 months ago | (#47098315)

The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines.

And what's really odd is that this domain is blocked in the UK by the big ISPs anyway. It was blocked along with a bunch of others back in October 2013 [independent.co.uk] .

If I try to access it on my current ISP, I get redirected here: http://assets.virginmedia.com/site-blocked.html [virginmedia.com] .

So the City Police are trying to take down a domain that you can't even access directly in the UK.

Re:Criminal scum (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 7 months ago | (#47098493)

These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.

Copyright infringement is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Our duly elected governments have passed various (albeit baddly concieved) laws making this the responsibility of the police to enforce as a criminal matter. Therefore the police are kind of forced into doing this sort of stuff. I agree with some of your sentiment, but factually you are utterly incorrect.

If you are going to post about what a stupid move this sort of thing is, and how ineffective it will turn out to be then fine, that is correct. It is however worth remembering that UK law has made dealing in illegal copies of copyright works a criminal offence since the copyright, designs and patents act of 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,_Designs_and_Patents_Act_1988).

There was some debate as to whether linking to something that was on a different server and therefore held by someone else was covered by this, but I believe most of that debate was held in the US as here in the UK it was covered by the same act that codified this as "secondary infringement" and also made it a criminal offence.

The net result of this is in this case, the police were just doing there job by enforcing criminal law. The fact that you think that the law is unjust and should be changed does not stop the plod from having to enforce it.

Re:Criminal scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098815)

These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.

If I remember previous discussions on these creatures, they have no connection to the actual city of London police, but use that in their name to give credence to their threats. They are hired mercenaries used by the content industry to pull sites they don't like, they have no evidence of any crimes other than what the content industry "suspects" and thus are unable to acquire legitimate court orders or other legal means. They bully registrars to pull domains by using threats of legal action against them for not complying. [[http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/12/10/1549220/british-police-censor-the-global-internet]]

Since when... (4, Insightful)

CaptainOfSpray (1229754) | about 7 months ago | (#47097901)

...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.

I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.

Re:Since when... (4, Funny)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 7 months ago | (#47097907)

...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.

I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.

Voldemort? Already?

Re:Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097909)

Wait.... if You-Know-Who (Voldemort?) bought and paid for it, then how are your taxes being spent on it?

Re:Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097997)

Wait.... if You-Know-Who (Voldemort?) bought and paid for it, then how are your taxes being spent on it?

Leave it to a damn nerd...no wonder you can't get laid.

Re:Since when... (4, Interesting)

Grantbridge (1377621) | about 7 months ago | (#47097953)

City of London Police are a very strange entity, since the Corporation of London isn't really a democratic body, and their police force should be viewed as serving the interests of their corporate masters, rather than the people at large. As such, I wouldn't obey any instruction from them without a court order.

http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com]

Re:Since when... (4, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#47098209)

their corporate masters

In case anyone reading this believes this ios hyperbole or some left wing rant, it is literally true. The companies in the City get to vote in proportion to the number of employees and so vastly out vote the citizens.

Re:Since when... (4, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 months ago | (#47098345)

In case anyone reading this believes this ios hyperbole or some left wing rant, it is literally true. The companies in the City get to vote in proportion to the number of employees and so vastly out vote the citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
civilian votes: 7.000
corporate votes: 32.000
Basically, corporations determine what the City of London Police's policies and priorities are.

Protests (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098555)

Years ago I was in London and watching the changing of the guard.

People were all over the place, in the road and all over that big statue in front of the gate there to get a better point of view.

The mounted police came and ordering people back was this gooooorreous blond cop.

She ordered the people out of the street - several times. Apparently most of us tourists didn't speak English. I had a hard time understanding since I speak American.

She kept yelling at them and saying the guards are "very large men who weigh 2 logs and 3 stones" or whatever they use over there for measures and they will just march over you.

Finally, mostly due to her horse moving towards the curb, they moved back out of the street.

The statue people just wouldn't move. She yelled to show some respect and they still wouldn't move. After several more tries she left in exasperation - while her mounted comrads looked on.

God! I was soooo turned on by her.

So, I'd offer to join the protests but I'm afraid of being labeled as a sex offender and here in the States, well, we're like Saudia Arabia in regards to many things.

Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098045)

>And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who

And who would 'You-Know-Who' be, hmmm?

Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098081)

Since when do you think you have a direct say over every aspect of governmental spending, whether local or national? We elect people to have some influence at the top, but this can be limited in practice. Plenty of people feel the same way you do about deploying the military overseas (which I mention as I thkn that would have a stronger moral case), but you don't get to pick and choose. That just isn't how it works. However, you probably should make your MP aware of what is wrong, and Boris too. At least if you live in the UK. It can't be much harder than posting to Slashdot can it?

A quick glance a the PIPCU website makes it sound, to me, like some of the stuff they do is reasonable. And although I know nothing about the torrent website, or this case, if the people behind the website were involved in some kind of non-IP crime and the website was used for money laundering then I wouldn't have a problem with it being closed.

Obviously I didn't read the article. And am just rambling.

Re:Since when... (2)

mlk (18543) | about 7 months ago | (#47098651)

> That just isn't how it works. However, you probably should make your MP aware of what is wrong

https://www.writetothem.com/ [writetothem.com]

> and Boris too

https://www.london.gov.uk/cont... [london.gov.uk] (includes an email address)

You can also contact the Lord Mayor (City of London) spokesmen.
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk... [cityoflondon.gov.uk]

> It can't be much harder than posting to Slashdot can it?

Not much harder but you have to sacrifice anonymity and supply a UK postal address.

> Obviously I didn't read the article. And am just rambling.

Best way to do it.

Re:Since when... (4, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 7 months ago | (#47098177)

I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent

IO take it you don't really know much about the City of London, then. Since I now walk through it daily I thought I'd do a bit of reading. It is a very, very strange place (and the police are an arm of it). To refer to it as "well dodgy" is a massive understatement.

So firstly, it's older than the England you know: the administrative system (known as the Corporation of London) predates the Normal conquest of 1066, though they had their charter re issued after since it was lost at some point. The Corporation of London is some weird hybrid between a local council, an ancient government, a company and a secret society.

This means it's embedded in the legal system in weird and woderful ways. For example, they have a representative in the house of commons (not an MP) to make sure that parliament is acting in their interests. Also, the registered voters not only include humans, but businesses too and in proportion to the number of employees within the city. This means that bisuness vastly out vote the local residents. And for part of this you're only eligible to run for office if you've already been given the freedom of the city, making it a massively closed system.

The dodgyness continues. The manifestation of this in the dody dealings of the City of London police is only the tiniest tip of a very large iceberg. About the best thing you can say about the City of London police is they sometimes wear those rather anachronistic Policeman's capes which look kinda cool.

Re:Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098479)

As an addition, see this post about the general attitude of the City of London towards taxation laws: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5087183&cid=46850489 [slashdot.org] . Everything may be perfectly legal, but still its against the original meaning of the taxation laws, and a betrayal of the people.

Re:Since when... (5, Informative)

coofercat (719737) | about 7 months ago | (#47098515)

Going on... The City of London is often also called "the square mile" because it's a really very small part of the blob of the UK called "London". All of the London councils dwarf the City in both number of people resident and square miles covered. The rest of london has somewhere between 6 and 10 million residents.

The City has a population of something like 7000 people, yet has something like >5,000,000 visitors every working day. To some extent, it makes sense not to let 7000 people define the local government policy for so may visitors (just about all of whom work for one of the areas employers).

However, by the same token, those employers shouldn't be defining local government (or in this case, local police) policy. The City Police have asked for things like this before, and mostly been rebuffed, as seems reasonable, given who/what they represent.

As the GP notes, We the People have never been asked if we'd like this sort of thing to go on - but then we actually don't pay for the City Police directly, as it is really paid for by the Corporation of London, who are paid for by the businesses within it. Hence we have this fscked up setup where there's a (small) police force for hire by whomever pays the most. That wouldn't be so bad if they just stayed in the square mile, but sadly they're starting to see their remit as "the Internet" as well. We the People could argue that the actions of the City Police brings the actions of the wider police force into disrepute though, I guess (not such a bad idea actually, now I think of it).

The moral of the story is: If you receive an "official" communication from some police force or other, politely decline to do what they ask unless they can provide a court order. This will keep you out of trouble for longer than trying to be "helpful". Our judges might not be perfect, but for the most part they won't furnish the City Police with a court order for something as flimsy as this.

Re:Since when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098245)

Hitler?

Re:Since when... (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 7 months ago | (#47098445)

I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit.

Yes, you have. It's called an election.

Re:Since when... (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 7 months ago | (#47098545)

...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.

I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.

Yes you were, just like I was. We both got the opportunity to vote in the last general election where we got to pick which bunch of toerags we wanted to rule us. The fact that not one single party that had loosening copyright law in its manifesto stood any chance of being elected simply means that most of the UK population do not give a toss about this either way unfortunately.

Republicans Attack the Economy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097951)

Obama seeks to stabilise the economy and readies EO 10-289. Finally something is being done to put these rich capitalist evil men in their place and to raise the wages and living condtitions of the poor. Yes more could be done but this is a good start. This combined with comprehensive immigration reform legislation should put this country back on stable economic footing and make all of us prosperous again. Call Obama and support this directive and tell him to bash these wicked Republicans into submission.

"In the name of the general welfare, to protect the people's security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that:

Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.

Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.

Point Five. Every establishment, concern, corporation or person engaged in production of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth produce the same amount of goods per year as it, they or he produced during the Basic Year, no more and no less. The year to be known as the Basic or Yardstick Year is to be the year ending on the date of this directive. Over or under production shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

Point Six. Every person of any age, sex, class or income, shall henceforth spend the same amount of money on the purchase of goods per year as he or she spent during the Basic Year, no more and no less. Over or under purchasing shall be fined, such fines to be determined by the Unification Board.

Point Seven. All wages, prices, salaries, dividends, profits, interest rates and forms of income of any nature whatsoever, shall be frozen at their present figures, as of the date of this directive.

Point Eight. All cases arising from and rules not specifically provided for in this directive, shall be settled and determined by the Unification Board, whose decisions will be final."

Re:Republicans Attack the Economy (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 7 months ago | (#47097995)

"Finally something is being done to put these rich capitalist evil men in their place and to raise the wages and living conditions of the poor."

Eh? The (completely off-topic) points mandate total stagnation and mandate that the poor stay poor. No politician would ever go ahead with it as it is completely unworkable and senseless, no-one at any level of society would like it.

Are the points pulled from some Sci-Fi dystopia story?

Re:Republicans Attack the Economy (2)

_merlin (160982) | about 7 months ago | (#47098193)

It's taken from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The Conservopedia people worship this book.

Re:Republicans Attack the Economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098031)

I think your supplier's been cutting your crack with something.

"largest" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097979)

"Torrentz.eu, the largest torrent search engine on the Internet, [...]" ...says TorrentFreak, and the websites that copied that claim.

It is a meta-search engine.
According to [techspot.com] IsoHunt, Google is the largest torrent search engine.
According to the <title> of BTJunkie, they are ("btjunkie - the largest torrent search engine").
And according to various sources (example [topdocumentaryfilms.com] ), the Away from Keyboard documentary was about "the largest and the most famous torrent website in the world", The Pirate Bay.

So, are there any objective/independent studies into which website(s) really are the largest?

Good News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47097983)

The suspension has been reversed.

It's Back ... (5, Insightful)

ellocotheinsane (3455609) | about 7 months ago | (#47098023)

Torrentz.eu is back in full swing (1200 hours CET on May 27.) ...

Re:It's Back ... (2)

bigalzzz (2692893) | about 7 months ago | (#47098313)

Sure they'll benefit from all the free publicity, sometimes you can't help but think people do more harm to themselves than good

so, torrentz.eu now points to torrentz.ch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098139)

that was certainly worth the expenses *facepalm*

I love this wording: (1)

Jacob Zimmermann (3667737) | about 7 months ago | (#47098169)

"... evidence indicating how the site is involved in illegal copyright infringement."

Does it mean they don't go after legal copyright infringement? Or only after those who infringe on illegal copyrights?

Really? (1)

bhima (46039) | about 7 months ago | (#47098247)

I just now went there and it looks up to me.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098291)

I just now went there and it looks up to me.

Good for you but we don't want to hear about your boyfriends dick

Re:Really? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 7 months ago | (#47098427)

ditto \(o_O)/

Torrents? Ew! (2)

jaeztheangel (2644535) | about 7 months ago | (#47098439)

The Police are well aware of the futility of this gesture; as much as they know it will please their political masters.

fuck ibtimes (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 7 months ago | (#47098661)

Random video auto-plays with sound, nattering about some cellphone bullshit.

Advert: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#47098791)

You wouldn't download Detroit!

I was previously unaware of torrentz.eu (2)

Roxoff (539071) | about 7 months ago | (#47098839)

But now, thanks to the Metropolitan Police, I've been made aware of it. That's the police having the -exact- opposite effect of the one they wanted!

Thanks, Mr Plod.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?