British ISPs Ordered to Block The Pirate Bay [Archive]

MinionZombie

01-May-2012, 12:28 PM

Yep, aside from the file sharing issue the UK papers have also got their knickers in a twist over porn on the internet as well, especially the Daily Mail, and are leading a campaign to try and ban all access to it from every computer and smart phone in the land to try and stop kids seeing it. Now I totally agree that kids shouldnt be seeing it, but should that not be the responsibilty of parents to control and monitor what their kids are viewing, rather than an outright ban for responsible adults?

I think the Daily Mail got a bit carried away with it, YouGov asked:

Some people think that customers should have to choose to have their internet service filtered (an opt-in service), other people think that internet services should all be filtered unless customers ask for their service to be unfiltered (an opt-out service)

Opt-in (someone's internet service should only be filtered if they ask for it) 57% in support

Opt-out (people's internet service should be filtered unless they ask for it not to be) 36% in support

Don't know 8%

Apparently two thirds do back blocking, but only when users ask for it themselves (which makes sense, otherwise it's just censorship). However I'd imagine those proposing any legislation would rather see opt-in, because you know they watch porn online too, haha ... they wouldn't want to block their own access! :p

Better education for parents is the key - I remember back when I was in high school you had 11 year olds working their way around the security software and putting porn on the entire network - beating a 50+ year old IT teacher, and indeed beating the company that put the network in place originally, haha! More efficient and more resilient software is required to be used by those in charge (teachers/parents). It's simple really - it's the same thing with videogames, you've got Keith-fucking-Vaz mouthing off again about Call of Duty in the press (claiming that Anders Breivik used "Modern Warfare" ... erm, which MW, Vaz? ... as a training tool and therefore it's to blame :rolleyes:), and you've got many parents that just don't know about videogame ratings (unbelievable really seeing as they, until this summer anyway, have BBFC ratings on them that are no different to movies ... however in a couple of months they're going over to PEGI exclusively, and apparently there'll be a campaign to try and educate parents).

I do recall how I was bought games like Carmageddon, and Duke Nukem 3D by my folks - they knew full-well they were rated 18, but they also knew I was watching certain 18 rated movies and the content of the games didn't seem to be all that different from some of the movies I was watching at the time (Aliens, Terminator, The Fly ... flicks like that).

So if parents really are concerned, then they have to educate themselves - but clearly there is a bit of a gap that's still being filled - by which I mean, computers have just always been for kids today, but not necessarily for their parents. However in a few years time, almost all parents will be computer savvy ... relatively speaking anyway ... there's a bunch of people using computers that have no clue how to secure them properly, but the gap should shrink at least.

As in all things, education is the key.

Sliding a bit off topic technically, but thought I'd just go off on a tangent with what you were saying Trickster. :)

Neil

01-May-2012, 01:52 PM

I strongly disagree with you, Neil. That's all I can say. I think restrictions like this, any kind of restrictions, are fucked up and a taste of things to come.

This is a huge leap for the law to take, but the leap to the next site being banned isn't as big. And then the next one. And the next one.

So you're suggesting a method which allows anyone to download copyright material at the press of a button, and the method will only get more and more comon place, should just be left to its own devices?

As I've said before, I'm somewhat 'guilty', but even as it stands it's too easy to use these sites, and will only get easier unless something is done.

I was sitting somewhere yesterday, and no joke, heard prison guards talking about download a particular movie, which I know has not been released here yet... This thing is now so common place, and seen as so-the-norm, you even get people life prison guards openly discussing illegal activity :)

SymphonicX

01-May-2012, 01:55 PM

MikePizzoff

01-May-2012, 01:56 PM

I've always thought Pirate Bay was shit/sketchy anyway.

The only times I've gotten warnings from the MPAA was by using Pirate Bay.

There are plenty of private torrent sites out there that are way better.

shootemindehead

01-May-2012, 03:06 PM

Danny

01-May-2012, 03:37 PM

to be honest my first thought was 'people still use pirates bay'?

Christopher Jon

01-May-2012, 03:43 PM

Neil, it's the principle. Is this a free country? Is the internet not free? Or?
By your logic I should be able to just walk into your house and take anything I want. It's a free country, right?

Only thieves are crying over the pirate bay.

Tricky

01-May-2012, 03:49 PM

Danny

01-May-2012, 03:51 PM

See heres the thing with arguing this. torrents CAN be used for none illegal ip theft means. However this is rarely the case and they are such a convenient way to pirate films. So effectively thats all it becomes known for and is such an easy and open target for the industries that have their content stolen from that of course they are going to be blocked or brought down.
Is it an infringement on the neutrality of the internet? yes it is. Will it actually stop anyone who hardcore pirates in any way? not at all.

This is a weak attempt by an industry that doesn't understand just how powerful the internet can be. eventually they are going to learn that its the genie in the bottle, and the bottle was opened a long time ago. block the address? then people will get there using the i.p, remove it from direcctories? then its going deepweb and sharing via sites like 4chan. try and stop all p2p? then they will switch to magnet links or eventually some tech savvy folks will just figure out a way to make torrents redundant or just organise into more private none directory 'black market' sites.

What will this change? absolutely nothing.

Question is when said industry pundits with the politicians in their money pocket see this where do they go from here?

shootemindehead

01-May-2012, 03:57 PM

it's not just the daily mail doing it, they're all (media) wading into the debate and trying to create scandal around this subject, as well as internet piracy...they're also doing it with "internet trolls" as they are referred to.

They're basically trying to give us an internet worthy of China.

Last time this country saw government interference like this? oh yeah...last time the Tories were in power.

To be fair, it isn't just Conservatives that use these type of "moral outrages" to consolidate power. New Labour gits were looking to strengthen BBFC guidlines a few years ago too. I don't think many people took much notice.

LouCipherr

01-May-2012, 05:12 PM

By your logic I should be able to just walk into your house and take anything I want. It's a free country, right?

No.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/Useless%20Shit%202/piracynottheft.jpg

According to merriam-webster.com:

theft: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

piracy: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

Only thieves are crying over the pirate bay.

Not true at all. Hell, I have never used the pirate bay for anything (don't trust the site to be honest), and I don't even live in the UK and I'm not happy about it being blocked. Not because I support piracy, but because I am opposed to censorship in any form.

Even if the Pirate Bay is a "haven for pirates," there are plenty of other legit torrent sites/services out there that have nothing to do with illegal content. The real problem with this ruling is the precedent it sets. It's a slippery slope that will eventually end up in web censorship all over the place (as if that hasn't already started - this TPB stuff is just another nail in the internet coffin).

See heres the thing with arguing this. torrents CAN be used for none illegal ip theft means. However this is rarely the case and they are such a convenient way to pirate films. So effectively thats all it becomes known for and is such an easy and open target for the industries that have their content stolen from that of course they are going to be blocked or brought down.
Is it an infringement on the neutrality of the internet? yes it is. Will it actually stop anyone who hardcore pirates in any way? not at all.

This is a weak attempt by an industry that doesn't understand just how powerful the internet can be. eventually they are going to learn that its the genie in the bottle, and the bottle was opened a long time ago. block the address? then people will get there using the i.p, remove it from direcctories? then its going deepweb and sharing via sites like 4chan. try and stop all p2p? then they will switch to magnet links or eventually some tech savvy folks will just figure out a way to make torrents redundant or just organise into more private none directory 'black market' sites.

What will this change? absolutely nothing.

Question is when said industry pundits with the politicians in their money pocket see this where do they go from here?

Excellent post, Danny.

As far as where they'll go from here...? More censorship as they see fit.

If only they knew...

Danny

01-May-2012, 05:29 PM

heres where the 'but piracy makes a copy nothing is stolen!' rhetoric falls down. Its the seflish nature of it, it goes no further than the pirates wallet.

Are you stealing something? not physically. You just arent paying for said medias creators time and work. THAT is what makes pirates douchebags. and lets be honest, we all pirate stuff. but only a proper asshole pirates ALL the time.
Because if everybody pirates then the truly stellar work in movies and games gets no money which means no sequels which means shit like call of duty and scary movie keep going and we are so cheap we dont want to risk the investment of money on buying a product when its easier to pirate it and if its a let down theres no problem.

Its not an evil thing. its a convenience thing. I get it, i do it myself. Its just not defendable, if you truly defend piracy you are a dick. You aren't stealing an item, you are stealing a possible sale and at the end of the day thats what governs what companies stay afloat in this economy and what dont.

I pirate stuff, i wont lie, but when i do it i am not buying the product so they lose a sale. its theft in this situation, the only difference is theres no hard copy i am withholding from someone else. but i accept that. i dont think i am some fucking anarchist robin hood sticking it to the man.

because then i would be a fucking douchebag.

Lets be honest here, in part THIS is why we have had a decade of remakes. not the whole reason, but a strong part. you remake a familiar brand in hopes of making some money. because no mater what you do those theatre seats aint as full as they should be and a lot of those empty seats are folks torrenting the flicks.

Not defending the site blocking. Just saying defending piracy as anything but 'stealing' a sale from a creator because you are cheap and lazy, going for a free convenient alternative is NOT something any rational person should think is any better.

It all has an effect in the long run, both good and ill for both the pirate and the creator. Simple cause and effect.

LouCipherr

01-May-2012, 05:44 PM

Its not an evil thing. its a convenience thing. I get it, i do it myself. Its just not defendable, if you truly defend piracy you are a dick. You aren't stealing an item, you are stealing a possible sale and at the end of the day thats what governs what companies stay afloat in this economy and what dont.

I hope you realize I was just pointing out that the definitions are indeed different, and you can't make this case when comparing the two:

By your logic I should be able to just walk into your house and take anything I want. It's a free country, right?

because it's illogical when it comes to this argument.

I in no way "endorse" piracy, and I was in no way trying to justify it by posting that pic - but you simply cannot say piracy is the same thing as "coming into your house and stealing something" because it's not even close. One is theft, one is piracy. There is a difference by definition.

Hope that cleared that up. ;)

As far as:

Lets be honest here, in part THIS is why we have had a decade of remakes. not the whole reason, but a strong part. you remake a familiar brand in hopes of making some money. because no mater what you do those theatre seats aint as full as they should be and a lot of those empty seats are folks torrenting the flicks.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think it's more greed and laziness by the movie studios ("why should we put all this effort into an original idea when we can re-hash something and it will make us $ on the name alone!"). Granted, perhaps they're doing that same thing because they are "losing money" supposedly due to piracy, but then again, we've already seen the MPAA and RIAA lie about their "decreased numbers" - and it's not a little white lie, it's flat-out bald-face lying in HUGE numbers.

Again, not defending... just sayin'...

Danny

01-May-2012, 06:00 PM

I hope you realize I was just pointing out that the definitions are indeed different, and you can't make this case when comparing the two:

oh i wasnt directing that at you. im saying all of us are hypocritical douchebags when it comes to torrenting is all.

MinionZombie

01-May-2012, 06:00 PM

Didn't the Daily Mail run a campaign during the video nasties farce in the 80's. Honestly, a campaign should be run to ban the Daily Mail.

Thank god Whitehouse is dead.

Pity Graham Bright isn't, although I'm sure that there are other conservative fools ready to bite down hard for this.

It's a slippery slope that begins with the usual old maidish tropes...nudity and violence.

Actually almost the entire media, not to mention Houses of Parliament (regardless of rosette colour), were in on the hyperbole and panic. There were so few dissenting voices that they were pilloried and jabbed at in public for speaking out against a torrent, pun-semi-intended :p, of moral panic ... but then these moral panics happen all the time. Remember 2005 and the whole panic over Manhunt. Twats like Keith Vaz are still trying to blame videogames for all the moral evils in the world (when any evidence/research that's worth trusting says the complete opposite).

...

I do think it's off-colour to lament that someone isn't dead though. There's many people in the public eye who infuriate me to no end, or with whom I fundamentally disagree, but I would never wish for them to be dead, or lament that they're not dead yet ... I've seen many comments like that over the years, for different people and different reasons, and regardless of who is saying it or who the target it, it's decidedly the wrong thing to say. Mary Whitehouse's approach was indeed idiotic (she decried so many things she never actually watched, and sought to make everyone submit to the will of a few) ... education is key, but so is allowing your populace to make up their own mind about whether a film goes too far.

The media is awash with idiot pundits seeking to manipulate the story (it's frustratingly prevalent across all persuasions of media, and doubly worse when those who claim to be impartial are proven to be anything but) ... I don't watch mainstream news, I don't read newspapers, because it's all horseshit. Picking some moral panic, or hate figure, to cause mass hysteria and panic to sell papers and get viewers, and keep them informed with only half the fucking story (if that, even!). I'm getting off on a right old tangent here, but it pisses me off to no end, as I assume you can all figure out by now...

As for the problem of piracy - Danny is quite right when he says you've got an industry that has no idea how to employ the internet. If you create easy online access for people to view their favourite content how they want and when they want, and make it easy and cheap to pay for, then you'll see how popular it becomes. Look at how insanely popular iTunes is (not with me though, I hate iTunes ... it's such a shitty piece of software, but clearly it's been very successful). You shouldn't penalise paying customers to make sure they haven't ripped off whatever it is - say a videogame - so you have a situation where you've paid, but you've got so many frustrating hoops to jump through, but those who pirate have none of that hassle (but ripping off a game isn't exactly simple either).

Education is also extremely important, but access to content - or rather lack of access in the way you want - is one of the key reasons piracy has become popular. However there is also the fact that not every download translates to a lost sale. So many people download stuff they'd never buy in the first place anyway, and many will no doubt download so much that they'll never get around to viewing/listening to/playing it all.

The approach to 'fighting piracy' is also rather cack handed, but it is also a difficult proposition in order to maintain the freedom of speech and transmission of ideas and content that the internet represents. These industries pissing and moaning also need to look at the content they're putting out - if it's shit, nobody will buy it, but curious parties might download it ... a lack of personalism is also a problem (mighty corporations chuntering out product, with little heart or meaning, let alone connection to the fanbase). There's a much smarter way out there, but nobody can be arsed to find it...

LouCipherr

01-May-2012, 06:05 PM

oh i wasnt directing that at you. im saying all of us are hypocritical douchebags when it comes to torrenting is all.

:cool:

No prob, Danny, and I agree. I just wasn't sure where we were going and I wanted to explain my position that I don't "agree" with piracy, but there is definitely a difference between downloading a song or a movie and "hey, I'm going to come in your house and take this here TV" ;)

shootemindehead

01-May-2012, 09:17 PM

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think it's more greed and laziness by the movie studios ("why should we put all this effort into an original idea when we can re-hash something and it will make us $ on the name alone!"). Granted, perhaps they're doing that same thing because they are "losing money" supposedly due to piracy, but then again, we've already seen the MPAA and RIAA lie about their "decreased numbers" - and it's not a little white lie, it's flat-out bald-face lying in HUGE numbers.

Again, not defending... just sayin'...

Yeh, I agree.

Let's be clear here, it's big corporate companies that are complaining about online piracy to a VERY large degree. They couldn't give a tinkers cuss about quality or the artists. It's the potential loss of margin that they are worried about...that's potential loss. So, remakes would be the order of the day with or without online piracy. It simply laziness as Lou has put it. Large movie companies haven't been willing to take risks since the 70's. It's been playing it safe for decades, with various fads. The current sequels decade is just an extention of this. My father used to say years ago, that Hollywood had long since run out of ideas. He was right.

I've also wondered just how much it is damaging the entertainment industry. I reckon that it's not as damaging as large companies have tried to make it out. In fact, I'd say that it is nowhere near the degree that is put forward.

Most people who I know, who pirate, still buy DVDs of movies and series that they like. I'm the same. I'll might download a flick to test the waters, as it were. Then buy, if it's worth the bother. If there's a film on in the cinema that I want to go to, I'll go to it. If I deem it worth actually owning on DVD for posterity, then I'll buy it when it comes out.

Online piracy hasn't really affected my personal purchasing habits one iota and I'd wager that is the case for most people.

-- -------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Actually almost the entire media, not to mention Houses of Parliament (regardless of rosette colour), were in on the hyperbole and panic. There were so few dissenting voices that they were pilloried and jabbed at in public for speaking out against a torrent, pun-semi-intended :p, of moral panic ... but then these moral panics happen all the time. Remember 2005 and the whole panic over Manhunt. Twats like Keith Vaz are still trying to blame videogames for all the moral evils in the world (when any evidence/research that's worth trusting says the complete opposite).

...

I do think it's off-colour to lament that someone isn't dead though. There's many people in the public eye who infuriate me to no end, or with whom I fundamentally disagree, but I would never wish for them to be dead, or lament that they're not dead yet ... I've seen many comments like that over the years, for different people and different reasons, and regardless of who is saying it or who the target it, it's decidedly the wrong thing to say. Mary Whitehouse's approach was indeed idiotic (she decried so many things she never actually watched, and sought to make everyone submit to the will of a few) ... education is key, but so is allowing your populace to make up their own mind about whether a film goes too far.

Actually, I have a number of years on you and remember very clearly which quarter initiated the various "scares" that culminated in a Conservative bill that was responsible for prosecuting horror films and having the effect of reducing horror films to a ridiculous level throughout the 80's and 90's. Buying a video of a horror film, or even a thriller was a minefield of cuts and censorship throughout the mid 80's to late 90's. In some cases it was hardly worth the purchase. For instance 'Dawn of the Dead' was cut to ribbons in the British Isles, until the advent of DVD. Which, I've no doubt , EVERYONE on this site would deem farcical.

It came VERY MUCH from the right of centre, regardless of who may have jumped onto it later. Whitehouse and her oganisation engaged like minds to do her bidding, because the conservative right was more open to her ideas regarding censorship of public material. They always were.

As far as Mary Whitehouse and her ilk being dead...well, good riddance, I say. To hell with them. No loss. :D

Education may be the key, but people like her don't want you to be educated, they want you to be controlled.

EvilNed

01-May-2012, 09:31 PM

So you're suggesting a method which allows anyone to download copyright material at the press of a button, and the method will only get more and more comon place, should just be left to its own devices?

Yes. Rather than enforcing laws that limit your freedom of information, work around it. More people are going to the movies now than ever before. Torrenting films are probably not helping, but they're not detracting either. Would you want to live in a country where certain books were outlawed?

By your logic I should be able to just walk into your house and take anything I want. It's a free country, right?

Please explain? How is banning websites/information in any way similar to walking into somebodys home and taking what I want?

Neil

01-May-2012, 09:34 PM

Please explain? How is banning websites/information in any way similar to walking into somebodys home and taking what I want?

I think people are trying to be clever with the words and examples they use.

Let's consider the simple case of an author who has written a book. It's available in both printed and audio format.

Now, consider these days how many people download that book in those formats illegally, instead of purchasing it. It's getting easier all the time!

Now, would you agree, if this has prevented the downloader from otherwise purchasing it, money has been denied to someone who deserves it?

EvilNed

01-May-2012, 09:48 PM

I think people are trying to be clever with the words and examples they use.

Let's consider the simple case of an author who has written a book. It's available in both printed and audio format.

Now, consider these days how many people download that book in those formats illegally, instead of purchasing it. It's getting easier all the time!

Now, would you agree, if this has prevented the downloader from otherwise purchasing it, money has been denied to someone who deserves it?

I disagree, because you're making the same assumption that everyone else is doing. And it's obviously a wrong one. The assumption being that somebody who downloads something would otherwise have gone out and BOUGHT it, had the piracy option not been available.

Let's say Star Wars comes out in 1977. 5 million people go to see it. In 1999, Star Wars Episode 1 comes out. An equally proportional amount of people go and see it in the cinemas. A select other few download it. But there's no loss involved.

In other words, you cannot deny someone something that was never there to begin with.

I borrow physical DVDs, CDs, books and stuff from friend all the time. All the time. And I mean ALL THE TIME. And books? Hell, I got a library card. I can get any book I want for free for the amount of time it takes for me to read it.

That's why the real issue here isn't about what's the "moral thing to do", it's more about are you willing to let major coorporations, that already make millions (most of it from our wallets anyway), dictate and control censorship in the state that you call a home and that you pay the taxes in? If you're fine with that, then I'm surprised, but go ahead. But in 20 years time, when your internet is just as sealed off as China's don't forget where it started.

shootemindehead

01-May-2012, 10:56 PM

In many ways too, the industry benefits from people downloading material. There are certain films that people would never have bothered going to see, rent or buy. But they've downloaded and liked...and subsequently bought.

For instance, I have a friend who wouldn't have bothered with the 'Game of Thrones' at all, despite my urging to check it out. So, they downloaded a few episodes and are now hooked. They'll buy the Series 1 box set and the subsequent ones too.

That purchase came from downloading the first few episodes. Otherwise it would never have happened.

Neil

01-May-2012, 11:05 PM

I disagree, because you're making the same assumption that everyone else is doing. And it's obviously a wrong one. The assumption being that somebody who downloads something would otherwise have gone out and BOUGHT it, had the piracy option not been available. .

I made no such assumption, hence my comment, "if this has prevented the downloader from otherwise purchasing it."

Now of course not every item downloaded prevents a purchase, but would you see it a fair assumption it's more than nil? From personal experience I can easily state it's prevented CD purchases, the hiring of films, and purchasing of films to some degree!

They'll buy the Series 1 box set and the subsequent ones too.And many more will not, because they can download them easily at the press of a button and save themselves money!

EvilNed

01-May-2012, 11:39 PM

I made no such assumption, hence my comment, "if this has prevented the downloader from otherwise purchasing it."

Now of course not every item downloaded prevents a purchase, but would you see it a fair assumption it's more than nil? From personal experience I can easily state it's prevented CD purchases, the hiring of films, and purchasing of films to some degree!

Sorry, I'm with shootemindehead. From personal experience I've probably bought more films after watching them and liking them rather than watching something, loving it and then keeping it on my harddrive. I've bought more music post-Napster than pre-Napster (but I still haven't bought much).

I think the idea that downloading prevents profit is an easy and comfortable opinion to hold, but it's probably not as true as you think. Again, movie sales going up not down. Along with piracy.

Sammich

02-May-2012, 12:07 AM

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."- Benito Mussolini

I remember when movie studios were crying that the VCR would destroy their industry. Then the record companies were crying that cassette tape recorders would destroy their industry.

The old farts in the MPAA and RIAA should think of ways of using these technologies to their advantage instead of continually trying to destroy by using "campaign donations" to buy off those in government. Remember, once again, movie and tv ceos were saying youtube would ruin them? Well, gee what from what media are all of the viral marketing campaigns now based? YOUTUBE.

You would think that the priority of government would be to protect it's citizens from "terrorists" or other nasties, but grease enough palms in government and police resources can be diverted to protect corporate profits instead.

Police Dogs Sniff for Pirated DVDs (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1944531&page=1)

An alliance of film industry groups that includes the Motion Picture Association of America and the Federation Against Copyright Theft has announced the world's first dogs specially trained to detect CDs and DVDs in bags and packages. The idea is that the dogs may be able to alert police to large stashes of pirated movies.

shootemindehead

02-May-2012, 12:32 AM

And many more will not, because they can download them easily at the press of a button and save themselves money!

I'm sure there'll be people who'll download and leave it at that. But how many of them would have bought the box set anyway, in the first place. I'd wager very few indeed. So, there's not that much of a hit to the producers pocket either way.

People who are into certain material usually want to buy the best copy of that material that they can. In fact, people often repeat buy certain items. In fact, I've lost count of how many times I've actually bought 'Dawn of the Dead' over the years. And if there's a new version with another 20 minutes of extra footage thrown in made available in a few years time...I'll probably get that too, even though I have no doubt that it would be available on the web within a week of the official release.

There may also be the idle curious who'll download the avi to have a look, but the vast majority of those people wouldn't even think of forking out the shillings for the legit DVD in any case.

-- -------- Post added at 12:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

An alliance of film industry groups that includes the Motion Picture Association of America and the Federation Against Copyright Theft has announced the world's first dogs specially trained to detect CDs and DVDs in bags and packages. The idea is that the dogs may be able to alert police to large stashes of pirated movies.

JEEEESUSSSS CHRIIIST!

http://cdn103.iofferphoto.com/img/item/190/800/148/g_john-amplas-hand-signed-8-x-10-photograph-b4c05.jpg

Neil

02-May-2012, 09:19 AM

I'm sure there'll be people who'll download and leave it at that. But how many of them would have bought the box set anyway, in the first place. I'd wager very few indeed. So, there's not that much of a hit to the producers pocket either way.

I suspect it's a high percentage of people who download CDs and films and do not buy the original, that would have otherwise... And I see the percentage growing. Five years ago, people had to download material and then go through the hassle of burning to CD or DVD. Now, it's getting to the stage where you simply drag the CDs, DVDs and bluray copies to your media players and that's it.

Downloading is getting easier, the quality better and the ease of playing simpler!

I know for example that I can have a CD in FLAC format on my media player within a few minutes, for free... It's actually easier than buying it, and then converting it, and certainly far far quicker! Are you telling me that's not affecting sales?

I know I can have a film in reasonably high quality bluray format on my media player within a couple of hours, for free (before it's even released here in the UK)... Are you telling me that's not affecting sales?

I suspect the amount of sales usurped by downloading is fairly high and growing all the time!

-- -------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------

I remember when movie studios were crying that the VCR would destroy their industry. Then the record companies were crying that cassette tape recorders would destroy their industry.

Slightly different scenario though isn't it.
a) You could of course copy peoples material using VHS and cassettes, but the quality would suffer.
b) The copying would typically be to people you knew so not wide spread.

Today, a single perfect digital copy of a CD or film can multiply across the world, without losing quality. It's infinitely quicker, and infinitely easier! And only getting quicker and easier still!

Tricky

02-May-2012, 09:26 AM

And times are hard at the moment, people being made redundant all over the country, cost of living shooting up, wages not going up with it, people cant afford to be frittering away money on CD's, games, Blu-Rays or even legit downloads when they have a car and house to run, but they still want them so if they can get them for free through torrents or whatever then they will. That is not a mindset that is easy to change or indeed possible. Hell I know plenty of people who earn a lot of money who still refuse to pay for music, games & films if they can get them for free

MinionZombie

02-May-2012, 11:02 AM

:cool:

No prob, Danny, and I agree. I just wasn't sure where we were going and I wanted to explain my position that I don't "agree" with piracy, but there is definitely a difference between downloading a song or a movie and "hey, I'm going to come in your house and take this here TV" ;)

I think it's just human nature ultimately - everyone loves a bargain, and piracy is the ultimate bargain. It's easy to do, so many people do it, the harder it becomes, the less people will get into it ... but it doesn't necessarily mean sales will sky rocket again...

And times are hard at the moment, people being made redundant all over the country, cost of living shooting up, wages not going up with it, people cant afford to be frittering away money on CD's, games, Blu-Rays or even legit downloads when they have a car and house to run, but they still want them so if they can get them for free through torrents or whatever then they will. That is not a mindset that is easy to change or indeed possible. Hell I know plenty of people who earn a lot of money who still refuse to pay for music, games & films if they can get them for free

Indeed - times are hard - but I've found myself instead waiting for bargains and buying stuff legit. There have been some excellent deals and bargains on games/cds/dvds/blu-rays in recent months, but you just have to wait for them and window shop like a mallrat. However it pays off, but I definitely buy a lot less of those aforementioned things these days - no doubt about that whatsoever - I'd even say my budget for such things has easily halved since last year, but because I focus on cheap deals then I can get a bit more bang for my buck - but then again I do have to wait a lot longer for a deal to come along.

I've also recently turned to trading in old videogames that I don't use anymore (I've never done that before, I just stock-piled) - and I've been able to take the money from that to buy up some things I've been after for a long old while, which is nice.

Tricky

02-May-2012, 11:21 AM

I've also recently turned to trading in old videogames that I don't use anymore (I've never done that before, I just stock-piled) - and I've been able to take the money from that to buy up some things I've been after for a long old while, which is nice.

I ought to do that really, I've got a huge stack of PS1 and PS2 games in the bottom of my wardrobe taking up space, I keep telling myself that I'll play them again because they're all classics but the reality is that I barely have time to play the new games I've got, never mind trying to complete FF7 again or Metal Gear Solid. Its my teenage self talking to my adult self :rolleyes: I wont get much for them but I really should have a clear out!

LouCipherr

02-May-2012, 01:54 PM

Let's consider the simple case of an author who has written a book. It's available in both printed and audio format.

Now, consider these days how many people download that book in those formats illegally, instead of purchasing it. It's getting easier all the time!

In many ways too, the industry benefits from people downloading material.

I'll just leave this here:

0Qkyt1wXNlI

;)

shootemindehead

02-May-2012, 02:10 PM

I know for example that I can have a CD in FLAC format on my media player within a few minutes, for free... It's actually easier than buying it, and then converting it, and certainly far far quicker! Are you telling me that's not affecting sales?

I'd say that the amount of people who actually know what a FLAC is, would be quite small in the grand scheme of things Neil. :D You and I know what formats are available, but the vast majority of people surfing the web wouldn't even know what an avi or a torrent is.

How is it that Apple can makes millions off of iTunes, when nearly everything they have on the music store can be downloaded for nothing? The reason is that the majority of people still buy, if it's marketed correctly to them. The majority of people also wouldn't know where to look for free music.

I'll agree that perhaps the music industry has somewhat more of a case to put, than the film industry has. But even then, I'm not willing to accept that piracy is THAT crippling to them. However, I'd make the case that it's the state of the music industry at present that would affect sales to a greater degree. By and large, it's terrible. Mind numbing, here-today-gone-tomorrow manufactured nonsense that people are embarrassed to say they actually bought (or downloaded) within a few years of release. Although, I must admit that "mainstream" has always turned me off. It's that, that will hurt the industry more in the long run.

Film, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. As people have said, attendances are going up and DVD/blu-ray sell through remains very high as well. I just don't see the writing on the wall that suited mouthpieces want us to see.

As I said, the case against piracy (ie, that it's supposedly hurting sales) is WAAAAYYY overstated by vested interests.

-- -------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------

And times are hard at the moment, people being made redundant all over the country, cost of living shooting up, wages not going up with it, people cant afford to be frittering away money on CD's, games, Blu-Rays or even legit downloads when they have a car and house to run, but they still want them so if they can get them for free through torrents or whatever then they will. That is not a mindset that is easy to change or indeed possible. Hell I know plenty of people who earn a lot of money who still refuse to pay for music, games & films if they can get them for free
I'm about to lose my job at the end of the month, so Mr Recession has hit me, square in the face. Will I suddenly go and download the web? No, I don't think so. In fact, I'm not even on any torrent sites. Will I continue to buy films and TV shows that I would like to keep and watch again (I'm a repeat watcher)? Yes, I will. But, I'll be as discerning as ever.

Sure, the recession will hit people hard in the pocket, but the question remains the same. Would they have been buying the DVD in the first place.

The logical answer in the vast majority of cases, is no.

So, there would have been no "sale" to begin with...hence no loss to Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal etc...the poor things.

Hollyweird has MUCH more to fear from the likes of Netflix, than it does from people torrenting on the interweb.

MinionZombie

02-May-2012, 05:36 PM

Lou - I see your Gaiman, and raise you a Buxton...

xLZpxVI7Pa8

LouCipherr

02-May-2012, 06:27 PM

How is it that Apple can makes millions off of iTunes, when nearly everything they have on the music store can be downloaded for nothing? The reason is that the majority of people still buy, if it's marketed correctly to them. The majority of people also wouldn't know where to look for free music.

Again, I have to agree 100%.

The REAL issue with "piracy" in my extremely humble opinion is "availability at a reasonable price" - for example, for the longest time, I couldn't find the old John Belushi movie "Neighbors" on DVD. It was, however, run on cable recently and someone recorded it and has made it available as a HQ AVI file. Yes, I downloaded it and converted it to DVD so I have the movie in my collection - why not? It was apparent Sony wasn't interested in selling it to the public, so I found a way to get it myself (perhaps "necessity is the mother of invention" would be an appropriate correlation here and for piracy in general). Would I have downloaded that had the movie been available? No. There ZERO reason why this movie shouldn't be available to me for purchase at a reasonable price (that is a key part of this). Hell, do one of those "burn the disc on demand" archive deals if you feel you won't be able to sell enough copies to make it worthwhile to do the proper remastering, packaging, etc.

That being said, Amazon made the DVD of Neighbors available for the first time ever last year. Remember, this is a movie from 1981 that didn't exactly do "stellar" business. So, Amazon makes it available through Sony's Archive DVD-R releases (ie: you want a movie? Sony will burn a copy of it for you, but it's not like they remastered it for DVD, so it's not a "great" quality copy either) - The problem is, it was $19.99 for the DVD. That's not a blu-ray, that's a non-remastered-VHS-master-recorded-directly-to-a-dvdr-disc-in-all-it's-crap-quality. Did I buy it yet? HELL NO.

Why?

Well, I don't see why I should be paying Sony $20 for a sub-par quality, standard def DVD-r of the movie. That's bullshit. I can buy high-def blu-ray recent releases and even older movies for HALF that price.

Now, had Sony put that DVD up for, say, $9.99? $11.99 (this is a DVD-r disc, mind you, so I feel those are 'reasonable' prices for a burned dvd-r movie from the 'archives')? I would've jumped on it in a heartbeat.

It's all about availability to the consumer at a reasonable price. If they would crowbar that logic into their thick skulls and every day thinking, i think all of these movie and music companies would be in a lot better shape than they are.

Lou - I see your Gaiman, and raise you a Buxton...

xLZpxVI7Pa8

Dammit MZ, I'm at work today and my computer has no speakers - I will check it out later tonight! :D

Sammich

02-May-2012, 07:55 PM

Slightly different scenario though isn't it.
a) You could of course copy peoples material using VHS and cassettes, but the quality would suffer.
b) The copying would typically be to people you knew so not wide spread.

Today, a single perfect digital copy of a CD or film can multiply across the world, without losing quality. It's infinitely quicker, and infinitely easier! And only getting quicker and easier still!

No it isn't slightly different. The quality of the duplicate never the issue back then, nor is it today. The movie and recording industry views as a threat ANY technology that allows for the POSSIBLE copying of their products and then goes on to lobby lawmakers to ban, regulate or heavily tax such technologies.

Here are other examples. Some legislation passed, others did not. The relevant fact is once again, governments are becoming the strong arm for private corporate interests that buy off legislators to do their bidding. Public tax payer resources are being diverted to support a private industry, while veterans sit homeless on the streets and are being denied mental and medical services.

Recording Industry Lobbying Group Pushes Congress To Tax Radio Stations More (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/1511393886.shtml)

"MusicFIRST, a recording industry lobbying group that already has some controversy surrounding it due to contributions from groups not allowed to be involved in lobbying, is continuing to push forward with its campaign to claim that radio is a kind of piracy and demanding legislation that forces radio stations to pay extra to play music."

When 70% Of The Cost Of Blank CDs Goes Straight To The Recording Industry (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060227/0211220.shtml)

"It's well known that Canada has a "private copying levy" on blank CDs. This tax was pushed by the entertainment industry as compensation for the fact that many people will use blank CDs to record music. It's somewhat up in the air whether or not this means that private copying is completely legal in Canada (the recording industry still insists no, many people insist yes)."

Music Tax Details From Source: "Pay Us Not To Sue You" (http://techcrunch.com/2008/03/28/the-music-tax-details-of-the-plan-they-dont-want-you-to-know/)

"We learned yesterday that Warner Music, the third largest music label, is gunning for a $5/month music tax on U.S. residents.

So the plan essentially comes down to telling ISPs that they can avoid any copyright infringement liability if they pay the fee on behalf of customers. And while the government wouldn’t be directly involved, the willingness of law enforcement agencies and the judicial system to enforce civil and criminal copyright infringement laws is the stick by which Griffin will convince ISPs to jump on board. It’s government endorsed extortion, nothing more and nothing less."

Forget the iPod Tax - Canadian Copyright Collective Demanding Memory Card Tax (http://www.backbonemag.com/Backblog/forget-the-ipod-tax-canadian-copyright-collective-demanding-memory-card-tax.aspx)

"During the most recent election campaign, there was no shortage of debate over the so-called iPod Tax, a proposed levy on iPods and similar devices to compensate for copies of sound recordings. While the prospect of an iPod tax in Canada died with the Conservative majority, the existing private copying system remains unchanged.

Canadians currently pay levies on blank CDs (and cassettes) and now the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which collects the private copying revenues, would like to establish a new levy on blank memory cards used in a wide range of devices such as smartphones and digital cameras.

As Howard Knopf notes, the CPCC has just filed for the following levy:

50¢ for each electronic memory card with 1 gigabyte of memory or less, $1.00 for each electronic memory card with more than one gigabyte of memory but less than 8 gigabytes of memory, and $3.00 for each electronic memory card with 8 gigabytes of memory or more"

The DAT Tax (http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/dat_tax.html)

"In 1992 congress passed legislation ( The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 ) that amends the Copyright Act of 1976 to do the following:

imposes a "royalty" tax on DAT recorders (section 1004(a))
imposes a "royalty" tax on blank DAT media (section 1004(b))
establishes a complicated procedure for distributing the collected "royalty" tax to artists, performers, writers, and publishers (sections 1006 and 1007)
requires DAT recorders to use the Serial Copy Management System (SCMS), which prevents digital dubbing beyond one generation (section 1002(a))
prohibits manufacture and sale of devices whose primary purpose is to circumvent SCMS (section 1002(c))"

Dutch plans for iPod tax could kill MP3 industry (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/27/netherlands_ipod_tax/)

"A Netherlands proposed tax on MP3 players could devastate sales of hard disk players, and set up international waves over copyright legislation.

The tax is being proposed by the Stichting Thuiskopie foundation, and is set to become law in the Netherlands in a few short months unless the European Commission finds a reason to intervene. It is unlikely that will happen, as it has failed to come up with a policy for levy taxation so far.

The idea of all levy based legislation is that some form of copyright collections agency collects tax by imposing a surcharge at the point of sale for any storage devices that could possibly be used to store pirated works. This certainly extends to the iPod which has up to 60 GB of storage, and which can store MP3 files."

Everyone is already familiar with the recently failed SOPA and PIPA, but now another even more far reaching one is in the works: CISPA.

If you are already being forced to pay a government mandated tax that goes to the recording industry as compensation for POSSIBLE piracy, how many more levels of this type of legislation will be enough for them? In some countries people are already paying TWICE for copyright, once for the media in the form of a compensatory "piracy" tax and then again when the actual movie/music is bought. If this continues, the MPAA/RIAA will probably get some government to pass a law stating that their claim of ownership extends to any and all media (past, present and future) the moment that a movie/music is placed upon it.

LouCipherr

02-May-2012, 08:27 PM

Gotta love how these shitheads tax people on things like blank CD's, DAT tapes, and it looks like soon enough, flash memory cards - all because they assume they will be used for piracy - when in fact, most of them are not. I don't know about you guys, but I've never personally traded music on flash card or a DAT. :lol:

All these examples Sammich gave us are prime examples of these industries not having a blessed clue as to what's going on around them. They still want to operate like it's 1975. So, how's that workin' out for you guys? :rockbrow:

EvilNed

02-May-2012, 09:09 PM

Hear, Hear! Lou and Sammich, voices of reason.

What really rustles my jimmies is that people make assumptions regarding piracy. You can read it all through this thread. People assume that the big media companies are losing millions of dollars. People assume this.

I don't know about you, but if somebody wanted to censor something because they assumed it was bad for you, then I'd tell them to VUn07dB645c

Also, I'll leave you with this, for all you people who think this is somehow "OK".

http://www.barackobama.ir/files/en/news/2012/1/29/1938_159.jpg

Sammich

02-May-2012, 11:31 PM

As Gerald Celente has said, the government at all levels, especially the court system in the U.S. has become so saturated with corporate influence (i.e. BRIBES) that it has gone from "justice" to "just us" as in laws only apply to "just us" peasants.

The MPAA/RIAA are only one part of the multi-national corporate takeovers of America and other countries. The latest Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people shows how high this infiltration has become.

I have absolutely nothing against capitalism and am all for it. Under capitalism one rises or falls based upon one's own successes or failures. Profits are kept private and the same private entity is responsible to deal with losses. Under the emerging system of corporatism (fascism) one rises or falls based upon how much influence can be gained in government with the objective of creating a state enforced monopoly. In this system profits are kept private and losses are recouped by forced payment from tax payers. TARP is a huge unprecedented example of this. Austerity measures are another. It is fast becoming time for nations to begin declaring odious debt for all of the crooked dealings that have been taking place for decades.

Neil

03-May-2012, 10:12 AM

http://www.barackobama.ir/files/en/news/2012/1/29/1938_159.jpg
Ummm... Kim Schmitz hasn't had a trial yet!?

LouCipherr

03-May-2012, 06:01 PM

Ummm... Kim Schmitz hasn't had a trial yet!?

This is true, but he's "facing" 50 years in prison. Amazing. So, I can go get drunk and plow into a minivan full of kids, kill them all, and only end up getting 10-20 years (if that)... but if I pirate music, movies, etc. I end up possibly facing 50 years?!

The Justice system in the US is FUBAR'd beyond all belief.

While some might bring up the amount of copyright infringement by Kim "dotcom" Schmitz and Megaupload, let's also keep in mind that Megaupload was nowhere near the largest file locker/copyright infringing website out there.

EvilNed

04-May-2012, 12:00 AM

Ummm... Kim Schmitz hasn't had a trial yet!?

As said, the crimes he's being charged with will put him in prison for 50 years. This is just sick, and you know it.

Sammich

04-May-2012, 12:12 AM

As said, the crimes he's being charged with will put him in prison for 50 years. This is just sick, and you know it.

Another example of the perverted justice system is John Corzine (former CEO Goldman Sachs, former Governor of New Jersey, and former CEO of MF Global), who "misplaced" $1.2 billion from 38,000 MF Global customer accounts and has yet to even be arrested.

LouCipherr

04-May-2012, 04:51 PM

Another example of the perverted justice system is John Corzine (former CEO Goldman Sachs, former Governor of New Jersey, and former CEO of MF Global), who "misplaced" $1.2 billion from 38,000 MF Global customer accounts and has yet to even be arrested.

Much less charged with any wrong doings.

+1, Sammich. :thumbsup:

Sammich

04-May-2012, 07:17 PM

A member of the old boy's club "misplaces" $1.2 billion and gets off scott free, but a peasant forgets to pay for a $5 sandwich, gets arrested and has their kid taken away:

Makiki couple arrested over $5 sandwich (http://www.khon2.com/mostpopular/story/Makiki-couple-arrested-over-5-sandwich/h-yUAH_SuEOvm_PZfXUcZA.cspx)

A couple's three-year-old daughter was taken away from them for 18 hours after being arrested for forgetting to pay for a $5 sandwich while grocery shopping.

"This is unreal this could happen to a family like ours," says Makiki resident Nicole Leszczynski.

She is thankful to have her 3-year-old daughter Zophia back home. She says Wednesday their family was torn apart while on a shopping trip at Safeway on Beretania street.

"We walked a long way to the grocery store and I was feeling faint, dizzy, like I needed to eat something so we decided to pick up some sandwiches and eat them while we were shopping," she says.

Leszczynski who is 30-weeks pregnant, her husband Marcin and daughter Zophia loaded up a shopping cart and paid for $50 worth of groceries. But forgot about the $5 sandwich.

More of the "just us" system at work:

Feds Seized Hip-Hop Site for a Year, Waiting for Proof of Infringement (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/weak-evidence-seizure/)

Federal authorities who seized a popular hip-hop music site based on assertions from the Recording Industry Association of America that it was linking to four “pre-release” music tracks gave it back more than a year later without filing civil or criminal charges because of apparent recording industry delays in confirming infringement, according to court records obtained by Wired.

“Here you have ICE making a seizure, based on the say-so of the record company guys, and getting secret extensions as they wait for their masters, the record companies, for evidence to prosecute,” Cohn said in a telephone interview. “This is the RIAA controlling a government investigation and holding it up for a year.”

It just doesn't get anymore blatant than that, but it does get more absurd:

Terrorist link to copyright piracy alleged (http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html)

That's what the Senate Homeland Security committee heard Wednesday from John Stedman, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who's responsible for an eight-person team of intellectual property (IPR) investigators.

"Some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR crime," Stedman said. "During the course of our investigations, we have encountered suspects who have shown great affinity for Hezbollah and its leadership."

But another witness, Kris Buckner, the president of a private investigation firm that looks into intellectual property violations, said: "I am also frequently asked if terrorist groups profit from the sale of counterfeit goods. I do not know the answer to that question." Buckner has, however, heard "subjects make anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish statements" on raids.

What is next? Getting renditioned to Guantanamo Bay because you visted a website that had a link to a copy of Avengers?

LouCipherr

04-May-2012, 07:28 PM

More of the "just us" system at work:

Feds Seized Hip-Hop Site for a Year, Waiting for Proof of Infringement (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/weak-evidence-seizure/)

Federal authorities who seized a popular hip-hop music site based on assertions from the Recording Industry Association of America that it was linking to four “pre-release” music tracks gave it back more than a year later without filing civil or criminal charges because of apparent recording industry delays in confirming infringement, according to court records obtained by Wired.

“Here you have ICE making a seizure, based on the say-so of the record company guys, and getting secret extensions as they wait for their masters, the record companies, for evidence to prosecute,” Cohn said in a telephone interview. “This is the RIAA controlling a government investigation and holding it up for a year.”

Just started a thread about that very same topic here: Obama is the RIAA's bitch-boy (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?20207-Obama-is-apparently-the-RIAA-s-bitch.)

What is next? Getting renditioned to Guantanamo Bay because you visted a website that had a link to a copy of Avengers?

As much as it pains me to say it? Yes. :rolleyes:

Danny

04-May-2012, 07:46 PM

What is next? Getting renditioned to Guantanamo Bay because you visted a website that had a link to a copy of Avengers?

given sci-fi horrors like the patriot act and CISPA exist today i would say thats a given. Not long till you get sent there for 'crimes of independent and dangerous thought"

sanabatool

12-May-2012, 12:38 PM

http://www.webcam-steamate.com/cookies/43/b/happy.gif

Britain's internet providers have been ordered by the high court to block access to the filesharing website The Pirate Bay.

The high court on Monday told five leading internet service providers (ISPs) , including Sky and Virgin Media, to block the site in the UK after ruling that it breaches copyright laws.

The block, starting within weeks, will mean millions of Britons will no longer be able to access one of the biggest and longest-running global filesharing sites.

The high court order provoked criticism from internet advocacy groups, who likened action against illicit filesharing websites to other forms of online censorship.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: "Blocking The Pirate Bay is pointless and dangerous.It will fuel calls for further, wider and even more drastic calls for Internet censorship of many kinds, from pornography to extremism.

"Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes."

The order to block The Pirate Bay – requested by the major music groups, represented by the British Phonographic Industry – comes as authorities and courts have tightened the net on illicit downloading sites, which film studios and music majors claim are responsible for billions of pounds in lost revenue.

Robert Ashcroft, chief executive of the musicians' lobbying group PRS for Music, said: "We're delighted the high court has sent another clear signal to damaging sites like the Pirate Bay that they will be blocked."

In the order, the judge Mr Justice Arnold told Sky, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, O2 and Everything Everywhere to begin blocking access to The Pirate Bay.

Britain's biggest ISP, BT, also received the court order but has requested further time to consider how to block the site.

According to record labels, The Pirate Bay generated up to $3m (£1.8m) from advertising last October by making 4m copies of music and films available to its 30 million users worldwide. The site has 3.7 million users in the UK, according to comScore.

Mr Justice Arnold said in a written judgment in February: "In my judgment, the operators of [The Pirate Bay] do authorise its users' infringing acts of copying and communication to the public. They go far beyond merely enabling or assisting.

"I conclude that both users and the operators of [The Pirate Bay] infringe the copyrights of the claimants … in the UK."

The high court action follows a blocking order made against the Newzbin2 website in October, after a judge found it infringed copyright on a grand scale.

The case was seen as a green light for rights holders to force ISPs to block access to a number of high-profile filesharing sites in the UK, using the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

lewisjerry274

14-Jun-2012, 02:48 PM

http://www.uuom.com/cs/images/signature_Amz.jpg

British courts have ruled that internet service providers in the United Kingdom must block file-sharing site The Pirate Bay. Back in February, a British High Court ruling found that TPB and users of the service breach copyright on a major scale. Justice Arnold of the British High Court ruled that TPB went "far beyond merely enabling or assisting" copyright infringement. Now it seems access to The Pirate Bay will soon be blocked by ISPs across the country.

The BBC reports that today's ruling orders five major UK ISPs to block subscribers from accessing TPB. Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media will all have to block The Pirate Bay while British Telecom has asked for more time to review the situation. The case is a massive win for the music and entertainment industry as a whole but particularly for the British Phonographic Industry, which requested that the ISPs voluntarily block TPB late last year.

"The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale," the BBC cites BPI as saying in a statement today. "Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them. This is wrong - musicians, sound engineers and video editors deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else."

Speaking about the decision, a spokesperson for the Pirate Party UK said that today's ruling was a step toward web censorship in the UK.

"Unfortunately, the move to order blocking on The Pirate Bay comes as no surprise," Loz Kaye told the BBC. "The truth is that we are on a slippery slope towards internet censorship here in the United Kingdom."

The order to block The Pirate Bay follows similar proceedings that saw access to another file-sharing site, Newzbin2, blocked. ISPs were last year ordered to block access to Newzbin2 following a ruling from Mr Justice Arnold, the same judge that presided over today's Pirate Bay case.