UK ISPs to Block TPB

[melbo]

There are a lot of legitimate uses for torrents and TPB. I use torrents to DL free and Open Source versions of Linux all the time. It saves the little guy the bandwidth and is typically faster than the direct download.

Just because someone uses a hammer to hurt someone doesn't mean we should prohibit everyone from using hammers.

 

[mrGTB]

Can't see them block access in the UK anyway, I even wrote about this on my Blog as to why I think that.

 

[Slavik]

If it happens at all they will just add it to the IWF filter.

Problem is, there are so many ways around that filter all they've done is spend money for nothing.

 

[mrGTB]

Just been reading one of the comments posted on the Guardian website from somebody, quite funny. Obviously he's never heard of FireFox and Adblock Plus.

Must say I havnt used Pirate Bay since things attached themselves to my computer every time I used it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/15898238

Some other amusing comments:

This on the same day that William Hague announces £1.5m to promote internet freedom in other countries

Block P2P? then what's the point of broadband! oops elephant alert.

Attempts to block the pirate bay are about as useful as tits on a bull.

I thought Pirate Bay closed down ages ago. I was wrong. I'll get a move then and give it a visit. It seems I've got a few weeks. Great advert. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

All movies and music made have copyright attached to them. Usually the copyright clearly states, you cannot copy, reproduce, distribute, etc, hence having to purchase the original, thus paying the author due credit.

It doesn't matter what country you live in, if a movie is made in the US and has copyright attached to it from the US, then it doesn't matter what country you watch the movie within, that copyright is still legally binding.

The site is allowing the distribution of copyright material by people who have also illegally infringed copyright copying, thus the distributor is just as guilty as the copier is.

The problem is that people who host such sites typically do so in countries where laws exist, but they don't really enforce them, hence bulletproof hosting. So whilst the site may not be able to be touched, it doesn't stop countries blocking access to the site to conform to that countries laws.

In Australia they don't worry about blocking them, instead ISP's just monitor anyone downloading from such sites, forward the information to the authorities and you get a nasty please explain in your mailbox and likely a court date following. You can connect with proxies and whatever the hell you want then, end of the day, you are connecting to an ISP with a known account, and you cannot get past that with any amount of anonymity. You would have to go hacking wi-fi connections and such to get around it here.

I've had a couple of friends get the "please explain letter" here, which they blamed their kids for and got a smack over the knuckles with a warning and if it continues, of to court they go.

 

[EQnoble]

you are wrong......i so can connect to any site without my isp knowing it...if you don't already know how I am not explaining it....i learned how to ironically from a friend in AUS.

 

[mrGTB]

In Australia they don't worry about blocking them, instead ISP's just monitor anyone downloading from such sites, forward the information to the authorities and you get a nasty please explain in your mailbox and likely a court date following. You can connect with proxies and whatever the hell you want then, end of the day, you are connecting to an ISP with a known account, and you cannot get past that with any amount of anonymity. You would have to go hacking wi-fi connections and such to get around it here.

The same was said in the UK many years ago, that ISP's would have to now pass on information of known file-sharers to be prosecuted by the MPAA and RIAA. Nothing ever really came of it from what I've seen since, there's was supposed to be the "2 strikes and your out rule" also, after that a person was banned from using that ISP service for life if ignoring the warnings. From what I've seen over the years, bar maybe some small cases. ISP have ignored doing it! ISP's in the UK will tend to go into court fighting the decisions being forced on them like this. I'll be surprised if they don't do it again now claiming some-kind of breach of freedom rights just to delay it all for years.

 

[Slavik]

It doesn't matter what country you live in, if a movie is made in the US and has copyright attached to it from the US, then it doesn't matter what country you watch the movie within, that copyright is still legally binding.

Sorry Anthony, this is something I disagree with entirely on principle. I am a UK citizen and I do not acknowledge any US laws as having juristicion over me under any circumstance unless I was in the US or its territories.

If for example I was to infringe on a copyrighted work, I would refused to be subject to any trial under US authority. If they wanted to bring me to account, they would have to do it via the UK justice system.

In the same way, if I was in a country which did not sign upto the Berne Convention, I would not be liable for any infringement because the US law simply does not apply there.

I am not the only one to share these feelings. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aty-changed-demand-MPs.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

MPs and civil liberties groups said ministers – who are carrying out a review of the 2003 treaty signed by Labour – must now finally introduce a ‘forum bar’, which means a person will normally be placed on trial in the country where their alleged crime took place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-17851702

what Richard did does not amount to a criminal offence in the UK.
In order to be extradited the alleged offence must be a crime in both countries.

 

[mrGTB]

you are connecting to an ISP with a known account, and you cannot get past that with any amount of anonymity. You would have to go hacking wi-fi connections and such to get around it here

What has happened though when people have been served letters, some have claimed they had an open Wi-Fi not password secured and it must have been a neighbour or whatever connected to their service downloading illegally. I don't know what it's like there in AUS, but I can drive down streets here with a laptop and pick-up unsecured Wi-Fi boxes I could connect too left right and centre.

Even talking MAC address sent, anyone could buy a second-hand laptop from eBay not giving an address picking it up in person, then connect to unsecured Wi-Fi downloading and never be traced by the MAC or IP belonging to a neighbour house. It's not all that cut and dry, people have been done claiming they was innocent, just dumb about how to secure a new Wi-Fi box they might have purchased.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

Sorry Anthony, this is something I disagree with entirely on principle. I am a UK citizen and I do not acknowledge any US laws as having juristicion over me under any circumstance unless I was in the US or its territories.

So what you're saying then, is that I can completely disregard the terms and conditions of buying Xenforo software because I live in Australia, thus I don't have to comply with UK laws stipulated by purchasing the product through a UK company, all because I live in Australia? So I can now freely distribute it, reproduce it, sell it, etc.

Same thing!

How about you sell me a tangible good Slavik that I can reproduce and distribute, as you live in the UK, thus I will not comply with your licensing / sale terms / copyright, then send it out to the world for free download and you miss out on obtaining your rightful fee for your work... so pretty much, the world is my oyster with your goods and you get nothing.

Regardless of this biased attitude... copyright on movies and music is typically shipped and maintained under specific saleable regions laws, hence DVD's are distributed specific to local laws, and I'm pretty sure that when you buy a DVD in the UK it would contain a copyright warning at the opening, the same as music would provide if you purchased a CD in the UK. The same laws apply pretty much Internationally nowadays for copyright infringement and most large scale companies and have local country offices to comply with local tax laws, thus also copyright still applies locally.

 

[Slavik]

So what you're saying then, is that I can completely disregard the terms and conditions of buying Xenforo software because I live in Australia, thus I don't have to comply with UK laws stipulated by purchasing the product through a UK company, all because I live in Australia? So I can now freely distribute it, reproduce it, sell it, etc.

Same thing!

How about you sell me a tangible good Slavik that I can reproduce and distribute, as you live in the UK, thus I will not comply with your licensing / sale terms / copyright, then send it out to the world for free download and you miss out on obtaining your rightful fee for your work... so pretty much, the world is my oyster with your goods and you get nothing.

Regardless of this biased attitude... copyright on movies and music is typically shipped and maintained under specific saleable regions laws, hence DVD's are distributed specific to local laws, and I'm pretty sure that when you buy a DVD in the UK it would contain a copyright warning at the opening, the same as music would provide if you purchased a CD in the UK. The same laws apply pretty much Internationally nowadays for copyright infringement and most large scale companies and have local country offices to comply with local tax laws, thus also copyright still applies locally.

You have taken my post entirely out of context and you know it.

But yes in my honest opinion the way it should be is you are not subject to the terms and conditions of UK law, however you are subject to the terms and conditions of your local law.

So if I sent you something and you were to freely distribute it, reproduce it, sell it, etc, then you would have to be held account in your home country by its laws, not the UK ones. If your local laws meant I could not hold you to account, then thats my problem and lesson learned, next time don't sale to someone in your country.

 

[Anthony Parsons]

you are wrong......i so can connect to any site without my isp knowing it...if you don't already know how I am not explaining it....i learned how to ironically from a friend in AUS.

If you're talking about setting up your own proxy in your home, then you run your connection out of your modem, back to your proxy server, then connect your computers to your now proxy server and go out of your proxy server to the site being visited, thus anonymous web surfing, you are completely wrong if you think a physical connection still isn't being made to your ISP in the first place, especially when it goes out to your ISP for authentication, then back in to your internal proxy server, then connections are made out from that server.

A physical connection is still made to your ISP, regardless how you try to surf the web anonymously. True anonymity is usually only achieved through using third party wireless access for brief periods... all other anonymity is often not as anonymous as you may convince yourself.

Our little wireless wi-fi options which you once could do this, you must now buy them with approved photo id because people were buying them just like you could a burn phone, setting them up and doing some nasty stuff, then throwing them in the bin, as they allow you to connect 5 devices via wi-fi, thus an anonymous connection to the web. Now, you must show approved photo id to purchase such devices, as we have one of those devices which we just renewed and discovered they have restricted their sale to such terms due to anonymous, nasty abuse you could do whilst connected from anywhere. Now, each device must have a name registered at sale to the devices identifiable number.

They locked that loophole down as well... and that was a good one for true anonymous surfing here.

The same was said in the UK many years ago, that ISP's would have to now pass on information of known file-sharers to be prosecuted by the MPAA and RIAA.

Agreed... they do only punish habitual downloaders here, not someone who downloads one such illegal copy every now and then.

I don't know what it's like there in AUS, but I can drive down streets here with a laptop and pick-up unsecured Wi-Fi boxes I could connect too left right and centre.

That is another claim and just as bad here, yes. I often walk around and find unsecured wi-fi in homes.

 

[Slavik]

At the end of the day these arguements of are you accountable should be second to the question "is it enforceable?"

The first question might be easy.. the second not so much...

 

[mrGTB]

I think though, taking the whole "File Sharing" thing out of this for a second. What annoys most people into defending it, because it's just another form of SOPA all over again in a way, certain organisations wanting to censor people in what they view, that's never going to go down well with most people. Even if using File Sharing as a reason for doing it, people just think "yeah, and what next"?

 

[Anthony Parsons]

The problem is that if you endorse one form of illegal distribution, then you must endorse them all. That means, endorsing the openness of child pornography to download from a site. Snuff films, etc. They are illegal and such sites are shutdown / blocked. Because we watch DVD's or listen to music, at the end of the day the activity of illegal copies is the same as posting pictures of kiddy porn and allowing them to be distributed without repercussions.

I think the problem is that Federal authorities in most countries put a precedence on what illegal activity they action, thus kiddy porn, snuff films, etc, take higher priority than your average Joe downloading an illegal movie or music copy.

The problem with that now, and why it is starting to climb in precedence, is two reasons to my knowledge, 1) technology is making it easier to be caught with less work and 2) both the movie and music industries are clearly stating they're making less productions because most can't keep their doors open much longer because the money for the products isn't coming through the door by paying customers, thus artists and employee's aren't being paid like they used to before the www came along, hence... people don't work for free and a rather large chunk of the entertainment arena is under real possibility of collapse in the near future if not dealt with ASAP.

Hollywood has portrayed no illusions to the significance of the issue the entire industry is facing if the problem isn't corrected quickly with the illegal distribution of their products that are freely downloadable on the www versus being purchased legally.

 

[Slavik]

I think the guy who takes 3 pretty much sums up 90% of people in the world today.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The problem is that if you endorse one form of illegal distribution, then you must endorse them all.

I don't endorse piracy, however I do endorse free speech and invidivual rights. The problem with this ruling that the thread was created on, it infringes on that free speech and those rights. Once you start giving bodies the ability to censor something, it can soon lead to very bad places. Just look at china or north korea for examples.

 

[zappaDPJ]

What bothers me about this court order is not that it wants to shut down a particular website, it's more about the method used. An ISP is a conduit for information in much the same way as the mail service is a delivery vehicle for the written word. Nobody would tolerate it if their mail was intercepted, examined and blocked and I feel the same philosophy should be applied to ISPs. Those with a vested interested need to pursue the offending websites directly and not put the burden on ISPs.

 

[EQnoble]

If you're talking about setting up your own proxy in your home, then you run your connection out of your modem, back to your proxy server, then connect your computers to your now proxy server and go out of your proxy server to the site being visited, thus anonymous web surfing, you are completely wrong if you think a physical connection still isn't being made to your ISP in the first place, especially when it goes out to your ISP for authentication, then back in to your internal proxy server, then connections are made out from that server.

A physical connection is still made to your ISP, regardless how you try to surf the web anonymously. True anonymity is usually only achieved through using third party wireless access for brief periods... all other anonymity is often not as anonymous as you may convince yourself.

Our little wireless wi-fi options which you once could do this, you must now buy them with approved photo id because people were buying them just like you could a burn phone, setting them up and doing some nasty stuff, then throwing them in the bin, as they allow you to connect 5 devices via wi-fi, thus an anonymous connection to the web. Now, you must show approved photo id to purchase such devices, as we have one of those devices which we just renewed and discovered they have restricted their sale to such terms due to anonymous, nasty abuse you could do whilst connected from anywhere. Now, each device must have a name registered at sale to the devices identifiable number.

They locked that loophole down as well... and that was a good one for true anonymous surfing here.

Agreed... they do only punish habitual downloaders here, not someone who downloads one such illegal copy every now and then.


That is another claim and just as bad here, yes. I often walk around and find unsecured wi-fi in homes.

you are wrong......i so can connect to any site without my isp knowing it...if you don't already know how I am not explaining it....i learned how to ironically from a friend in AUS.

 

[Adam Howard]

A few misconceptions I'd like to correct.

The United States Government does not rule the world. Period.

So their laws do not apply to everyone on earth. Period.

Bhutan for example has

• no diplomatic relations
• no treaty
• no embassy
• no extradition

This is of course is only 1 extreme example. But it does draw a simple understanding that every nation holds to (or should) their own independent system. What maybe illegal in "X" country maybe perfectly legal in America or The UK (or the other way around).

I really wish more people would understand that basic and simple concept.

 

[Adam Howard]

I'm going to separate my points here (different post) as to break this down.......


Torrents are perfectly legal. You can not say the technology is bad.

Owning a gun for example is perfectly fine, provided you don't go shooting people on a mindless killing spree.

Debian, Ubuntu, Mint Linux, SuSe Linux, and many other free and even paid products use torrents to distribute their products or information.

The Pirate Bay is simply a search engine (search page). Every single result within The Pirate Bay I can find on Google, Bing, Yahoo, ect... Should we then also shutdown and censor Google, Bing, Yahoo, ect... ?

Not everything on The Pirate Bay is piracy or illegal. Not everything on Google, Bing, or Yahoo is piracy or illegal.

So if not everything is bad on Google, The Pirate Bay, Yahoo, or Bing, but I can find everything questionable within Google, The Pirate Bay, Yahoo, or Bing, what really separates them?