[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

That's not what he asked for and you know it.

It is, however, the point I was making when I made the prior post, as it was in response to someone going on about 'fairness' to justify their downloading. Alright then, how about Itunes US? I mean, all you guys have proxies right?

When will they block Google do you think?

When Google fail to co-operate with legal procedures such as takedown notices. Maybe when google start posting childish responses to them as if its something to be proud about. Or perhaps when Google is predominantly linking to illegal content with a token amount of artist-approved links.

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

It is, however, the point I was making when I made the prior post, as it was in response to someone going on about 'fairness' to justify their downloading. Alright then, how about Itunes US? I mean, all you guys have proxies right?

Using a proxy to bypass territorial restrictions to licensed content is in fact illegal.

You wouldn't want us to get into trouble would you?

[paulbrock]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

Using a proxy to bypass territorial restrictions to legal content is in fact illegal.

You wouldn't want us to get into trouble would you?

just admit you only do it because its free, and care not a jot for censorship, artists, sensible prices, bit rates or anything else. Saves a couple of pages of the thread where you pretend you're the victim.

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

just admit you only do it because its free, and care not a jot for censorship, artists, sensible prices, bit rates or anything else. Saves a couple of pages of the thread where you pretend you're the victim.

A swing and a miss.

My vast DVD/Bluray collection is 100% legal, my TV programs are received via Sky at the UK pace, and I don't care for music much.

[tghe-retford]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

does it? Is there historical precedent for censorship starting with piracy/terrorism and then spreading into "anything the government doesn't like"?

(I'll add that I've not yet heard a convincing explanation that shutting down Pirate Bay IS censorship.)

Those were exactly the sentiments being used to promote SOPA/PIPA. Enacting laws which could be abused by any company to get a website shutdown in order without a court order for any reason. "Piracy" was just used as a ruse to get people on side - after all, who is going to support illegal acts? And indeed, the IFPI accused opponents of SOPA/PIPA as pirates even though many were campaigning against censorship and had never committed an act of piracy in their life and were also law-abiding citizens.

Claire Perry MP wishes to use the same type of tactics used during the debates on SOPA and PIPA to bring her ideology that she stated on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 to light. After the blocking of the Pirate Bay decision in court, she used the takedown of a piracy website to further expand her ideology for a whitelist/licensing approach to the Internet:

“I think the time is coming when the Internet should not be treated differently from any other form of media. We don’t accept it with any other media, with tele, or mobile phones, or anything else. Why should the Internet be any different?”

So now we have an MP and the best-selling tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail, using the takedown of The Pirate Bay to extend an agenda on blocking, or worse still with Perry's ultimate desire, whitelisting websites. The examples Perry gives when she talks about treating the Internet like any other form of media outlet is that those she gave examples of are regulated through licensing by Ofcom and with those licences come fees and conditions attached. No licence = no legal way your service or message can be seen or heard by the public. Where Perry gets it wrong is that licensing for TV, radio and mobile phone operators is used to protect the limited resources of radio spectrum. What Perry wants licensing and whitelisting used for is to protect children, prevent illegal acts (like the Pirate Bay), protect morals and so forth. In reality, as seen with SOPA/PIPA, it could be open to abuse and censorship.

So, we've gone on a debate on BBC Radio 4's Today from tackling piracy to censorship by the Government. Today, the Daily Mail, who are backing Perry's agenda, quoted a headteacher who states that Facebook promotes pornography and grooming. All this has stemmed from the blocking of the Pirate Bay and Perry's agenda as a result to capitalise on said blocking to further her agenda.

As with SOPA and PIPA, the Government and a tabloid newspaper is using the argument of piracy to pursue a more widescale agenda of censorship.

[Nyota]

Originally Posted by paulbrock

I trust that fairness extends to paying for what you download.

When it's available legally, yes!

[tghe-retford]

This was posted on my ISP's forum:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1152.html

The judgement itself refers to the requirement that IP blocking will be used, not the DNS blocking that people assumed.

I have also been informed by a member of said forum that The Pirate Bay will be blocked eventually through the Internet Watch Foundation's block list normally reserved for child pornography. Even if your ISP is not on the court order, the media industries have still got it blocked on your behalf. We might have to wait and see if any user of an ISP beyond that list finds they get denied access to TPB.

According to the BBC, VPN's may be the next target for the media industry bodies to get blocked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17922214

Chilling.

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

According to the BBC, VPN's may be the next target for the media industry bodies to get blocked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17922214

Chilling.

TBH, that article is just a poor piece of scare mongering hackery. I'm disappointed in the BBC.

Some industry experts now believe that VPNs could become publishers' next target.

I'm not sure which "experts" the BBC have been talking too, but VPNs are used by a great many businesses and organisations (including the Government and the BBC).

A blanket ban would cause utter chaos, not to mention the costs involved in restructuring business networks around the country to use an alternative.

[Thine Wonk]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

TBH, that article is just a poor piece of scare mongering hackery. I'm disappointed in the BBC.



I'm not sure which "experts" the BBC have been talking too, but VPNs are used by a great many businesses and organisations (including the Government and the BBC).

A blanket ban would cause utter chaos, not to mention the costs involved in restructuring business networks around the country to use an alternative.

Services designed specifically to get around the block could be though, and the others could be forced to block pirate sites too.

[zx50]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

That's not what he asked for and you know it.

Exactly. He just completely dodged the question and gave his 'own answer'.

[Nyota]

Originally Posted by Jittlov

TBH, that article is just a poor piece of scare mongering hackery. I'm disappointed in the BBC.

If anyone watched the BBC's piss-poor investigation into internet trolls, you'd see that they know absolutely NOTHING about the internet...so while there may be shards of truth in what they're saying, the day I put any real trust in anything they have to say to do with the internet and computing is the day pigs fly.

It's shocking that an organsiation like the BBC can be so completely backwards regarding technology.

[Jittlov]

Originally Posted by Thine Wonk

Services designed specifically to get around the block could be though, and the others could be forced to block pirate sites too.

A VPN service operating outside the UK is not subject to UK law, and since they are encrypted, any sort of monitoring wont work either.

[StalwartUK]

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

This was posted on my ISP's forum:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1152.html

The judgement itself refers to the requirement that IP blocking will be used, not the DNS blocking that people assumed.

I have also been informed by a member of said forum that The Pirate Bay will be blocked eventually through the Internet Watch Foundation's block list normally reserved for child pornography. Even if your ISP is not on the court order, the media industries have still got it blocked on your behalf. We might have to wait and see if any user of an ISP beyond that list finds they get denied access to TPB.

That doesn't sound right at all. Now they're using a system previously used to block supposed child p**n to blocking a filesharing sites. What's next? Anything that disagrees with the Government?

At least I can say I've never bought anything off those music companies.

The BBC also neglected to say that in places like the Netherlands, blocking Pirate Bay has had little effect.

[alcockell]

As I work from home, I hope the VPN access into work and volumes commensurate with a Citrix session will be viewed as legal...

[tghe-retford]

Originally Posted by alcockell

As I work from home, I hope the VPN access into work and volumes commensurate with a Citrix session will be viewed as legal...

Don't wish to be that bloke that puts the tinfoil hat on and hide in a cupboard, but what's coming up this summer? I'd be very worried if our Government foils a terror plot and announces very publicly that VPN's were used to allow terrorists to communicate with one another, hence giving the Government a very valid reason to bring in legalisation against VPN's "for your own safety". After all, who's going to disagree with fighting terrorism? Now the average person can't use a VPN to access The Pirate Bay.

I'm not saying that this scenario will happen, but keep your eyes open, it'll be how the Government forces through their own way - through fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[Stig]

Originally Posted by tghe-retford

Don't wish to be that bloke that puts the tinfoil hat on and hide in a cupboard, but what's coming up this summer? I'd be very worried if our Government foils a terror plot and announces very publicly that VPN's were used to allow terrorists to communicate with one another, hence giving the Government a very valid reason to bring in legalisation against VPN's "for your own safety". After all, who's going to disagree with fighting terrorism? Now the average person can't use a VPN to access The Pirate Bay.

I'm not saying that this scenario will happen, but keep your eyes open, it'll be how the Government forces through their own way - through fear, uncertainty and doubt.

As far as I know there is no government on the planet (including China and the Middle Eastern states) who block VPN, so the chances of this happening in the UK are nil.

This type of paranoia does not help the digital media debate.

[flagpole]

when is this bloc happening?

[Stig]

Originally Posted by flagpole

when is this bloc happening?

You can't be bothered to read the thread then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17951067

[Neda_Turk]

Originally Posted by Stig

You can't be bothered to read the thread then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17951067

This thread is about Pirate Bay not child porn opt outs-ins.

And as of this posting time, whilst Virgin seems to have already blocked The Pirate Bay, it's still up and running on Sky broadband.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by Stig

You can't be bothered to read the thread then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17951067

no i'm aware of the nanny provision.

i mean the TPB block.

[Daedroth]

Originally Posted by flagpole;58*****1

no i'm aware of the nanny provision.

i mean the TPB block.

TPB was blocked on Virgin Media from last week.

[flagpole]

Originally Posted by Daedroth

TPB was blocked on Virgin Media from last week.

the ***** in my quote were because the post number appears to contain an element of a premium rate phone number.

still there on O2. unless it is a simple DNS block.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Stig

Oooo, semantics. There's a novel addition to the debate.

The sad part is these free loaders are putting peoples jobs at risk and they just don't care so long as they can carry on getting something for nothing. What a sad indictment of society. Wonder if they had jobs how they would feel if their livelihood was threatened? Mind you I'm asking a question of conscience of people who clearly don't have one.

[Neda_Turk]

Easy for people with money to spend to be self-righteous isn't it?

How lacking in consciousness about how other people live are they?

Still, I'm asking a question about people who don't care about others and their situations.

[zx50]

Originally Posted by Neda_Turk

Easy for people with money to spend to be self-righteous isn't it?

How lacking in consciousness about how other people live are they?

Still, I'm asking a question about people who don't care about others and their situations.

Oh yeah, VERY easy. I think for some it's just a wind up though.