High Court moron forces ISP's to block Torrent sites

NothingMan

So I just went to download some legitimate freeware from one of my preferred Torrent sites, one that usually kicks ass so to speak and it's blocked :mad: I'm with UPC. This blows.

Prodigious

NothingMan wrote: »

So I just went to download some legitimate freeware from one of my preferred Torrent sites, one that usually kicks ass so to speak and it's blocked :mad: I'm with UPC. This blows.

It's down. UPC have not blocked anything, as of yet.

NothingMan

Prodigious wrote: »

It's down. UPC have not blocked anything, as of yet.

Said access denied. Was worried.

Prodigious

NothingMan wrote: »

Said access denied. Was worried.

Fair enough.
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/kat.ph.html

Wile E. Coyote

MadsL wrote: »

Fugazi for one.

They were signed to dischord records. They may have been an independent label but they were still takin their cut and helped get the bands name out there.

I know they did a lot of initial work on their own but the question I was asking was would they have lasted as long as they did if they'd continued without a label or would any of the big bands we know today be around I they'd never signed to a label. And I'm not talking about macklemore who's had two hits and been around for 5 minutes, I'm talking about the likes of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, U2 etc etc or even more recently the likes of Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chilli Peppers or Oasis. Would any of these bands been as successful without a record label behind them?

30txsbzmcu2k9w

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

They were signed to dischord records. They may have been an independent label but they were still takin their cut and helped get the bands name out there.

I know they did a lot of initial work on their own but the question I was asking was would they have lasted as long as they did if they'd continued without a label or would any of the big bands we know today be around I they'd never signed to a label. And I'm not talking about macklemore who's had two hits and been around for 5 minutes, I'm talking about the likes of the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, The Rolling Stones, U2 etc etc or even more recently the likes of Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Red Hot Chilli Peppers or Oasis. Would any of these bands been as successful without a record label behind them?

Discord was Fugazi's label (as in Ian MacKaye founded it)

smokin ace

NothingMan wrote: »

So I just went to download some legitimate freeware from one of my preferred Torrent sites, one that usually kicks ass so to speak and it's blocked :mad: I'm with UPC. This blows.

i dont know if i can post links to them funny sites that they want to ban but if go to this link and you will get the kick in the ass you need http://katproxy.com/

Diddy Kong

NothingMan wrote: »

Said access denied. Was worried.

They are having domain issues - http://torrentfreak.com/kat-ph-goes-down-following-domain-issues-switches-to-kickass-to-130613/

MadsL

Kace Plain Rioter wrote: »

Discord was Fugazi's label (as in Ian MacKaye founded it)

What he said.

The Beatles founded Apple Records in 1968 for one.
Foo Fighters (the first album) was released through Grohl's own label Roswell and distributed through Capitol Records.
Led Zeppelin split with Atlantic and formed Swan Song Records to release their own and other bands material.

Will I go on?

MarkY91

NothingMan wrote: »

Said access denied. Was worried.

katproxy.com

DipStick McSwindler

This post has been deleted.

briany

Just to restate the futility of this fight as it's currently being fought, you can download an entire copy of The Pirate Bay to your machine. It's only 100 megs. That's because The Pirate Bay only stores metadata now, magnet links, not even direct torrent files which are not illegal in and of themselves anyway.

miralize

Thank god the music industry doesn't understand that torrents are decentralised.

Cody Pomeray

what's the point of downloading the pirate bay when people can just use direct download sites,? Is pirate bay more extensive or something?

I have to say, while being completely against Copyright SI, I don't feel quite so negative about the judgement in light of the fact that most people appear to be concerned about downloading music.

I'd like to still believe opposition to the SI was genuinely based on personal freedoms for most people, but I'm starting to wonder how true that is..?

Israeli Superiority

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

what's the point of downloading the pirate bay when people can just use direct download sites,? Is pirate bay more extensive or something?

...

Great speeds, low risk of viruses, downloads can resume if your connection drops and you can control how much of your bandwidth you use for a download.

Wile E. Coyote

MadsL wrote: »

What he said.

The Beatles founded Apple Records in 1968 for one.
Foo Fighters (the first album) was released through Grohl's own label Roswell and distributed through Capitol Records.
Led Zeppelin split with Atlantic and formed Swan Song Records to release their own and other bands material.

Will I go on?

The Beatles founded Apple Records 5 years after they made it big and they had been with EMI's Parlophone label, Swan Records, Vee Jay Records, Capitol and United Artists for the majority of their hits.

Foo Fighters probably wasn't a good choice to add in there. Grohl had the success with Nirvana previously so had the time and the money to put into his own label.

Led Zeppelin again had a lot of their success with Atlantic before being in a position to form their own label.

The point I was trying to get to (unsuccessfully) is if they had never signed to a label would they have lasted long enough and had enough success to become some of the biggest bands in the world.

Fair point about Fugazi. I know of the band but would know much on the background to their members.

mp22

I presume that you all know that if you go to the PB, copy the info hash of the file you want,convert it into a magnet link add to uto........ or what ever. You will be downloading direct from the PB no matter what IP you have.

Prodigious

mp22 wrote: »

I presume that you all know that if you go to the PB, copy the info hash of the file you want,convert it into a magnet link add to uto........ or what ever. You will be downloading direct from the PB no matter what IP you have.

The site is blocked, the downloading from said site is not being monitored or stopped.

Blisterman

Lets be honest, it's the record companies who care about this, not the artists. Nobody picks up a guitar or a microphone with the aim of making money from it. If nobody ever bought another album, people would still make music. It's like saying if the PGA tour was banned, nobody would play golf.

Home recording equipment is so cheap now, there's no need for record labels any more. The sooner they die out the better in my opinion. How often do you hear of record labels forcing artists to compromise their music to make it more commercial? Have you ever heard of an artist praising the decision of a label?

briany

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

what's the point of downloading the pirate bay when people can just use direct download sites,? Is pirate bay more extensive or something?

If you're referring to cyberlockers, there's not the same kind of community around them as there is around torrents. I haven't seen any kind of decent comment system in the ones I've tried making it much harder to know what you're getting. Downloading anything .exe, .pdf or .rar, for example, is a complete no-no.

wildlifeboy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

like iTunes which is simple to use. .

dont you mean pain in the hole crap piece of sh1t

Cody Pomeray

Blisterman wrote: »

Lets be honest, it's the record companies who care about this, not the artists. Nobody picks up a guitar or a microphone with the aim of making money from it.

I don't believe that. People don't usually just 'pick up the guitar' without putting down something else - for example, a career or an education. Taking up music full time is a full time risk and yes I do think people have a legitimate right to a payoff - I think many people out there, performing gigs and trying to make a career for themselves should feel a little hard done by, to be honest.

Torrent sites don't just hurt the big earners. I think that's an uncomfortable reality many people prefer to avoid.

runawaybishop

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't believe that. People don't usually just 'pick up the guitar' without putting down something else - for example, a career or an education. Taking up music full time is a full time risk and yes I do think people have a legitimate right to a payoff - I think many people out there who deserve it. Torrent sites don't just hurt the big earners. I think that's an uncomfortable reality many people prefer to avoid.

I don't think people care enough to pay the prices the record companies wish to charge.

Allyall

Why doesn't this seem to be appearing in any of the newspapers?

Just Curious.

I haven't any paper newspapers, looked at a handful online (Even the rags i can't read because they annoy me) and didn't see it mentioned anywhere.
I would have thought the first step towards internet censorship would be a pretty big deal.

Blisterman

runawaybishop wrote: »

I don't think people care enough to pay the prices the record companies wish to charge.

Exactly, how can you justify charging the same price for a digital file, with a production and distribution cost of essentially zero,that only you have permission to use, and you can't sell on, as for a physical CD which needs to be manufactured, shipped and sold, and which you are free to sell on when you're finished?

An Mp3 album should be €2 max.

Incidentally, record labels receive $.005 per stream on Spotify, which nearly all of them are happy to agree to, yet they charge nearly 200 times that to buy the song.

NothingMan

I went to buy a newly released e-book yesterday, expecting to pay maybe €10 - €12. It was 24.95, €2 less than the hardback. I acquired it alternatively. I love the author and have bought every other book in his series but I was not paying that for a 2mb text file. I think what I expected to pay was more than fair and I would have paid it. They shoot themselves in the foot really.

McLoughlin

Major record companies need to offer an alternative to Itunes and the like regards price and file quality. Look at Bandcamp fair prices (you can buy CD and digital together) and great quality file formats.

b318isp

McLoughlin wrote: »

Major record companies need to offer an alternative to Itunes and the like regards price and file quality. Look at Bandcamp fair prices (you can buy CD and digital together) and great quality file formats.

See Android Play...

briany

Allyall wrote: »

Why doesn't this seem to be appearing in any of the newspapers?

Just Curious.

I haven't any paper newspapers, looked at a handful online (Even the rags i can't read because they annoy me) and didn't see it mentioned anywhere.
I would have thought the first step towards internet censorship would be a pretty big deal.

Might get in the way of sensationalist scaremongering, opinion pieces and celebrity gossip. Remember that the news is not about informing you of what's going on. That's what it ought to be about, but it's more about selling you a story, a compelling narrative. That doesn't always go hand in hand with things that are actually important or of real consequence.

McLoughlin

Did any one get a letter from IRMA/Eircom over been caught illegally downloading music via torrent ?