High Court moron forces ISP's to block Torrent sites

Lone Stone

foook you upc :mad:

Lone Stone

Lone Stone wrote: »

foook you upc :mad:

Not their fault. It's Sean Sherlock and the High Court who are at fault here and as such you should direct your anger their way.

gavmcg92

super_furry wrote: »

Nope. Within 30 seconds of looking I was able to get to the Pirate Bay without resorting to proxies.

I must be working with the old 5 IP addresses. Care to send me a PM. Currently I'm using a Chrome extension.

I can get onto pirate bay but the speed is slow. I just care about my TV shows.

tallaghtmick

1 google search and I got it.

Rod Serling

It took me all of two seconds to get around this on Vodafone.

Come on Sherlock, this isn't my first rodeo..

CrazyRabbit

MiCr0 wrote: »

removing links to bypass blocked sites

May I ask why? Bypassing the block is not in itself illegal as it's just a link to another website.

sdanseo

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

May I ask why? Bypassing the block is not in itself illegal as it's just a link to another website.

It's probably seen as facilitating a manipulation of the law. Not illegal, but frowned upon in terms of the site's reputation and so on. There are plently of (completely unmentionable, of course) methods of doing such things available to those who look for them.

frozenfrozen

Bypassing a blocked website is not illegal. The tighter the grip the more slips through your fingers, there's a limit to how much control you can impart over people before a breaking point. It's only a matter of time before government bodies loose all influence over the internet through TOR and other methods. The sooner the better because this is just bull****.

Lightbulb Sun

sdeire wrote: »

It's probably seen as facilitating a manipulation of the law. Not illegal, but frowned upon in terms of the site's reputation and so on. There are plently of (completely unmentionable, of course) methods of doing such things available to those who look for them.

It's more or less because of the anti piracy rules that have been on the sites charters for ages now.

Cody Pomeray

MiCr0 wrote: »

removing links to bypass blocked sites

Is this a boards policy?

Boards.ie adapt a reasonable position of forbidding the discussion of say, violence, in a way that would seem to promote violent acts. This can be said to go against the ethical standards expected of users.

However, if boards.ie are suddenly removing links to sites simply because these websites are illegal, and despite the fact that opposition to the Copyright SI clearly is not something the site endorses, are you not de facto accepting a responsibility for what user's publish, and thereby even outpacing the Copyright SI?

Basically, are you not now establishing something that you opposed, and which seems to go beyond what the law currently requires?

Frank Lee Midere

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Is this a boards policy?

Boards.ie adapt a reasonable position of forbidding the discussion of say, violence, in a way that would seem to promote violent acts. This can be said to go against the ethical standards expected of users.

However, if boards.ie are suddenly removing links to sites simply because these websites are illegal, and despite the fact that opposition to the Copyright SI clearly is not something the site endorses, are you not de facto accepting a responsibility for what user's publish, and thereby even outpacing the Copyright SI?

Basically, are you not now establishing something that you opposed, and which seems to go beyond what the law currently requires?

Or they have their own local rules, you can't diss Jesus in the Christianity forum.

Amirani

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Is this a boards policy?

Boards.ie adapt a reasonable position of forbidding the discussion of say, violence, in a way that would seem to promote violent acts. This can be said to go against the ethical standards expected of users.

However, if boards.ie are suddenly removing links to sites simply because these websites are illegal, and despite the fact that opposition to the Copyright SI clearly is not something the site endorses, are you not de facto accepting a responsibility for what user's publish, and thereby even outpacing the Copyright SI?

Basically, are you not now establishing something that you opposed, and which seems to go beyond what the law currently requires?

That does indeed seem to be the case. Disappointing really given the stance that the site leadership took around the time of the Copyright SI, particularly as sharing information about how to circumvent a block isn't illegal.

Cody Pomeray

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Or they have their own local rules, you can't diss Jesus in the Christianity forum.

That comes under the standards expected of users, based on what the site imposes, in accordance with its own ethical standpoints or commercial interests.

If a site whose management has previously has been very vocal (admirably so) in opposing Copyright SI is suddenly to turn around and not just start enforcing it voluntarily, but indeed going beyond the requirements of the e-commerce directive, then that raises the question of whether the site is implicitly admitting that it has some authority over or responsibility for users' material.

I'm not sure if the last point has any significance, the major significance I can see is that it all seems so un-necessary.

redarmy

super_furry wrote: »

Nope. Within 30 seconds of looking I was able to get to the Pirate Bay without resorting to proxies.

how

lertsnim

Still not blocked with Sky anyway. Not that I'd use it too often anyway.

elfy4eva

oh woe is me...if only a website block was easy to circumvent.............................

briany

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Bypassing a blocked website is not illegal. The tighter the grip the more slips through your fingers, there's a limit to how much control you can impart over people before a breaking point. It's only a matter of time before government bodies loose all influence over the internet through TOR and other methods. The sooner the better because this is just bull****.

I don't like the idea of users being forced into the back streets of the Internet by draconian legislation, especially when it's dreamt up corporate interests and bought courts.

Cork24

how can you download torrent with a bypassing tool, it just refreshs the page all the time

derfderf

This reminds me of barmen who say the can't sell you a triple vodka, only a double and single. Pretty much pointless, but they're covering themselves.

GLaDOS

Quick google gets me round it anyway. Hopefully the EU put an end to it though.

Sinfonia

Is the issue not that one shouldn't download copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent? What if I have that? Blocking a website means I still can't get it, even with consent..

elfy4eva

Sinfonia wrote: »

Is the issue not that one shouldn't download copyrighted material without the copyright holders consent? What if I have that? Blocking a website means I still can't get it, even with consent..

It doesn't even do that. That's how laughable this legislation is. The only reason they have UPC and the others blocking it is because pirate bay is the medias flavor of the month when it comes to illegal downloading.

Fact is, there are very easy ways to access the website even if your ISP has blocked it and I sincerely doubt UPC or any of the others really care whether you do or not as they have met their legal requirements in blocking it. If the media corporations who put this to the high court consider it a victory, I'm sad to say it's an extremely hollow one.

Steve

Once, just once, I'd like to be in the room when the media moguls are sitting there po-faced with their hat in hand telling the uneducated gobshítes we elected how many billions they are losing because of copyright theft caused by internet users.

I would strike a deal with them there and then to gladly censor the internet in return for payment of half of what they claim they are losing (regardless of whether the censorship works) and payable in advance on a yearly basis.

Win win for everyone involved.

Do you think they'd agree?

Yeah, right.

dreamers75

A ninja can cloak his activities.

dasdog

Steve wrote: »

Once, just once, I'd like to be in the room when the media moguls are sitting there po-faced with their hat in hand telling the uneducated gobshítes we elected how many billions they are losing because of copyright theft caused by internet users.

"Willie Kavanagh, Chairman of IRMA, added " the whole music industry, including performers, composers and record labels, has been decimated by illegal peer to peer traffic and our losses amount to over €60m per annum"

It's where this goes that is the concern. I first used the web in 1993/4 (mosaic, gopher etc.) and there was a pioneering spirit about it. Seeing a web page I never visit blanket blocked today at the bequest of a lobby group is a game changer.

A lot of people seem to be saying "so what" and looking at this move as little more than an inconvenience or else a just ruling to stop piracy. There general public seems to see nothing wrong with what has happened here and many genuinely believe that the good guys one. What this decision has done is set a dangerous precedent that could have serious implications in the future. The pirate bay, for all intents and purposes is full of links to copyrighted material and while I could argue to the merits of the site I'm not going to do so here. Blocking the pirate bay has done what exactly? Bar making people spend 4 seconds googling pirate bay proxy, not a thing. in fact anyone looking for links to warez sites can simply enter the name of the product they want into google and have a few thousands results in a matter of seconds. Under the ruling it's quite likely that if they so pleased the same people could take a case against google and have it blocked for the same reasons they had pirate bay blocked. Granted it's unlikely but it's a possibility.

What's more likely is that these major corporations will go after smaller sites which can't afford to fight them in court. What happens if say, a small site dedicated to reviewing music suddenly slates the latest release from EMI and it goes viral. Major online sites are re-posting this scathing review review and linking to it. It is conceivable that if the original site contained images belonging to EMI that were not properly cleared that EMI could have the site blocked. Yes, it is an extreme but given the ruling it's a possibility.

This decision is a win for no one other than high up in these companies who no doubt saw their bonus cheques increase as soon as the decision was made. The artists will see no more income nor will anyone else working there. We live in a world where a band such as 30 Second to Mars can sell millions of records and then tour successfully across the world yet still owe their record label 30 million dollars. It's not uncommon for a record label to make tens of millions of dollars in profit off of an artist and for the artist to
owe the label money.

dasdog

dasdog wrote: »

It's where this goes that is the concern. I first used the web in 1993/4 (mosaic, gopher etc.) and there was a pioneering spirit about it. Seeing a web page I never visit blanket blocked today at the bequest of a lobby group is a game changer.

Yeah I was on the net in 94/95 and remember the Blue Ribbon speech compaign, hopefully the EU will stop this.

elfy4eva

NoDrama wrote: »

Yeah I was on the net in 94/95 and remember the Blue Ribbon speech compaign, hopefully the EU will stop this.

Here's Hoping! That would be a right kick up the arse to the media moguls, the Irish court system and Sean Sherlock TD the little smug sh*t.

Disconnection In French Three Strikes Law Scrapped
Some progress