British ISPs Ordered to Block The Pirate Bay

[Tricky]

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. Yep I think the Daily Mails reason for existence is to try and keep Britain like those 1950's "Nuclear family" posters, but society has moved on and they cant seem to accept it.

[Danny]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 , 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]

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

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

[EvilNed]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!