The Pirate Bay could be blocked in the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-uk-high-court
Should sites like that be blocked? Surely it'll be possible for piraters to get around with any blockage through some sort of proxy anyway?
Printable View
The Pirate Bay could be blocked in the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...-uk-high-court
Should sites like that be blocked? Surely it'll be possible for piraters to get around with any blockage through some sort of proxy anyway?
:confused: They're going to block the pirate bay? Where will I get my torrents then?
Oh yeah, any one of a dozen other sites.
Carry on. The pirate bay should totally be blocked. Goddamn infringers.
One of our ISPs, Elisa, was ordered by a court to block TPB. All media comment sections were flooded with instructions for Elisa customers to get around the ban. I think one of them involved using Google Translate or something. The court order is a joke and will not deter anyone with more than 2 minutes of spare time and a desire to watch Gregory House on the US schedule.
I mean, if you want a nice sentimental point, sure, you can dish out rulings like these. Will they have an impact on anything? I am more than a little skeptical.
Is this enough to convince you that this is an incredibly good idea? :o
That's what I expect to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
The block is pointless. You can download the site and its links in a 90mb file now. The Pirate Bay dropped torrent links a few weeks ago, they use magnet links now (a lot less information to store on their end). The best is yet to come however, Tribler is a semi-new program that completely removes any need for a central server, the only way to kill it is to kill the internet.
nice read: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...tories+2%29%29
Sounds like a return to previous P2P networks which were very easy to track who was downloading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
:confused: no different in tracking (or hiding) compared to other bittorrent programsQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Absolutely. It's horrible that cops and copyright holders are forced to do their fucking jobs by the current system. Also, blocking bittorrent sites will be a useless debacle that will be another demonstration of the good-for-nothing experiments that Leviathan government and current [copyright] law are. And God knows, it's been like 2 weeks since the last good one of those. :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Past history indicates that the absolute worst outcome for the government and big media will be if this ban actually accomplishes anything. Like how they eliminated music piracy by stamping out Napster. Or knocked everyone off Limewire and ended P2P piracy forever. Or, before that, how they stamped out the IRC (dal.net/ef.net) scene and piracy exploded onto the web.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'd frankly love for them to crack down real hard on internet piracy and try to stamp out online privacy (a bit disappointed SOPA and PIPA didn't pass) because all they'll accomplish is in driving everyone off the public web and onto the anything-still-goes alternatives out there, and spur innovation in that area. Try tracking down evil infringers over i2p and freenet and ToR and like that there, hah.
Basically that whole "way to dig yourself into a deeper hole, dumbasses" thing.
Right, well bittorrent was never designed to use for illegal file-sharing. The guy who coded it (an out of work programmer invented it on his own) remarked in an interview that it's so trivial to track people on bittorrent that only a moron would use it for anything illegal anyway... that was right as it was exploding big as a method of copyright infringement.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sure make it more difficult but really the best way to crack down is to punish criminally those who are the end users of pirated content. At the same time go after folks like little Kimmy (err big) and make an example out of em.
Eh, I am still wondering how users of pirated content are breaking any law.
Take this example and wrap your brain around it Lewky; an artist (big name, worldfamous) does a gig for some charity in a park. Nobody pays for the pleasure of seeing her. Some people whip out their fancy smart phones and film the show. Then some of them show their clips to friends and family, others put it online and some money is made through advertising when people click on the link. Which laws were broken Lewk? Who are the guilty people here?
Hint; don't even try to go down the road that ends in a 1st amendment violation, it would be a waste of your bandwidth.
Copyright laws were broken. The guilty people are those who recorded without consent and those who put it online and those who download it.
Something doesn't have to be charged for, in order for copyright to apply.
Really Randblade? Ever heard of the freedom of gathering of information? Are you seriously saying people who film the show and show it to their friends are breaking the law? You realise you just declared the entire profession of television journalism an illegal act?
Hint for you; it's not illegal to film it and to show it. Commercial TV channels can even make money by placing ads around it. Legally.
So any channel can show anything they want?
Hint for you: Commercial (and non-commercial) channels pay for the right to broadcast copyrighted acts.
I thought this was funny: http://www.dailytech.com/Major+Recor...ticle20632.htm
No, actually it is. And people have lost big court cases (on this side of the pond, anyway) for trying to freely rebroadcast a free performance, which goes to show more about how good-for-nothing our legal system is than what "ought" to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Actually its good for what it should be. There's a world of difference between a one-off performance and a recording.
Switch it to be paid for. If I go to the cinema/theatre then I don't automatically get a DVD of the performance at the end. I have in fact bought many movies on DVD/Bluray which I'd seen first at the cinema.
No there isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There's a huge difference, the recording is much more useful
Yes there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Have already demonstrated why so if you have nothing further to add ...
I think the larger question here is if copyright laws, in this strict sense, need to evolve. Its already been proven with studies that piracy doesn't impact music or movie sales, hell some courts have even ruled as such. The way its being approach now, giving so much weight and say to dying groups like the MPAA and RIAA and how they are able to write, lobby and influence the laws around this, it smells more like fear of new technology and business models than anything else.
However OG I do wonder if the actions of RIAA etc intimidate many small fry potential pirates away and they end up paying? Yes the figures quoted by RIAA etc equivalating all piracy to lost sales is garbage ... But if the opposite happened and RIAA essentailly said "we can't stop piracy so won't even try" then might not everyone switch to pirating?
The more inconvenient piracy is, the simpler and cheaper 0.69 becomes on iTunes.
Just a thought.
Furthermore the talk of "old business models" worked back when I was downloading from Kazaa at uni a decade ago, when legal downloads didn't happen and they were still trying to just sell CDs at record shops, Woolworths etc. Woolworths closed down 3 years ago in large part due to the loss of CD sales, record shops have almost all closed down, CD sales are history. The charts I listen to if driving on a Sunday is exclusively downloaded music, from the likes of iTunes that sell music at about a quarter of the price an equivalent CD was a decade ago. No, I think thats a rather unfair complaint.
From the POV of most artists and labels I would say the business model hasn't changed very much at all (although there are some innovators out there).
Re. inconvenience, well, sure that has some merit. Why not. After all, the more inconvenient legal products are (eg. DRM on games etc) the more attractive piracy becomes.
Of course another way would be to just offer better value :noob:
The price of a single has come down more than 75% in 10 years.
Do you really think there are hordes out there put off by paying 0.69 for their favourite song? Or whatever it is where you live. What do you think would be more reasonable?
Anywhere that I could find those cases? Very often people get convicted because they charge for viewing or the copies they make. Those two would constitute breaches of copyright.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
No I don't think the intimidation angle works, because a vast majority of music/movie pirates don't follow or don't understand the legal cases or whats happening in the background. They see a site closed down and they move to something else. Thank the streisand effect. There hasn't been a case yet of closing a major piracy site (or service) paired with an increase in sales. In recent months its even gotten worse, when megaupload got shut down, piracy didn't drop at all, it simply moved and made data communications more expensive across the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If the RIAA was able to embrace file sharing as it is, I have no doubt they could monetize it in some fashion. Why risk piratebay and its sex ads and garbage files when you could get the torrents from a trusted source. Why would this be any different than how shows have embraced steaming from their own sites?
itunes isn't convenient for everyone. It requires plastic payments, and not all music fans have access to that. Especially underage fans. Why risk lunch money on a band/song/album you haven't heard and don't know its worth it? Thats the business model I'm talking about. The pay now, experience later idea. Pirates don't have that problem and, as its been shown before, pirates spend more on the industry than nonpirates do.
Even at 69 cents, you are still competing with free. and if free is easier to get, free is going to win. This is when the better value argument comes into play, and bands have taken all kinds of different avenues to make purchasing a physical (and to a lower level a digital) copy worth more than stopping at a free download.
perfect timing on finding this: http://paperlions.com/free-album This is what the RIAA/MPAA are fighting against. Artists having a voice, being able to go directly to their fans without a middleman.
Wow I was thinking things like a cloud locker for music, permanent ownership of music, ability to stream to any device, unlimited access for a monthly fee, better songs, awesome matching technology like Pandora, better split between labels and artists, that sorta thing :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You really haven't. You stated it, gave a really poor analogy that's not actually analogous... which made me snicker and assume you're something of a Luddite when it comes to technology, but that doesn't so much qualify as "demonstrated" to my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I'm not aware of like a database or list of such cases, though maybe someone like the EFF would good for that. I was thinking more along the lines of those Euro sites that caught in the crosshairs of "Operation In Our Sites" for making live sports feeds (commercials and all) available online, and a few cases over here where NFL and MLB went after people for broadcasting sports games at social events (parties or business functions with no attendance fee, but 100+ attendees). Just because it's spewed out for no cost doesn't mean you can legally rebroadcast or record it, no matter how fucking stupid and backwards that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Plus, Apple's shit and evil as hell to boot. That doesn't help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Right, and that's what I think the entertainment industry is really trying to fight off - the idea that they might have to operate like every other fucking industry and provide a product that's worth what they charge. If I'm unsatisfied with any physical product, I can return it for my money back. Imagine if big media had to play by those rules too... good for us, but very bad for lots of them who couldn't rely on shoving out crapware and awful movies or music and then hiding behind their "no refunds because of copying" crap they've been using as a crutch for decades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yeah, it's funny how people are willing to pay for quality and ease. By the way, the other day I bought 'Social Network' on iTunes for €5,99. It took more than 2 hours and 2 attempts to download the damn thing. That's easily 3 times longer than files of an equal size over torrents using the same set-up.
Yeah, you'd almost think there was a business model in there somewhere, if only someone could find a way to make the concept simple enough for executives and politicians and other mentally challenged folks to understand. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
The not-so-secret truth about piracy being that piracy is so successfully because it delivers a better product and a better experience than the legal option you have to pay for, and it's the better product more than the cost savings that makes it so popular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
we are half way there. When they were trying to pass SOPA, someone traced hundreds of bittorrent files (largely porn), to several offices held by members of congressQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
That doesn't mean shit, though. Hypocrisy is about the only field that politicians routinely excel in. OTOH, if you make them and their lobbyists understand that there's money to made in filesharing, they'll monetize it instead of trying to criminalize it.
It's like that jackass who got caught up in the federal felony he co-sponsored when those texts of him coming onto his underage male pages came to light. Catching him out in that felony didn't change shit as it regards that stupid law, nor does catching out the big record labels for making money off of piracy (Minx's link). The only thing that will change it is convincing them that there's more money to be had in selling the services they're trying to criminalize. And of course, the only reason they haven't figured this out already is that they're obviously seriously mentally challenged/severely brain damaged as it is, sigh.
That's distinctly not what I'm talking about. Intimidation has nothing to do with those who are already pirating, or hardcore pirates. Hardcore pirates will always find a way. What I'm referring to are people on the margins who won't download because of the risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
When I lived with my parents after uni, when it was on the news now and then about people getting fines/court summons for pirating my father said he didn't want me to download anything illegal as it was his IP address. I respected that. If RIAA dropped all lawsuits then people like that would no longer be put off.
Again there are many paid-for sites, iTunes is not the only one. I believe some do use file-sharing technologies - as does for instance Steam I believe? Yet you still see games on The Pirate Bay. That's not due to a lack of alternatives.Quote:
If the RIAA was able to embrace file sharing as it is, I have no doubt they could monetize it in some fashion. Why risk piratebay and its sex ads and garbage files when you could get the torrents from a trusted source. Why would this be any different than how shows have embraced steaming from their own sites?
Two things:Quote:
itunes isn't convenient for everyone. It requires plastic payments, and not all music fans have access to that. Especially underage fans. Why risk lunch money on a band/song/album you haven't heard and don't know its worth it? Thats the business model I'm talking about. The pay now, experience later idea. Pirates don't have that problem and, as its been shown before, pirates spend more on the industry than nonpirates do.
One: Payment has to happen somehow if you're paying. Online its generally either Paypal or Plastic. You can even pay by cash by buying pre-paid cards in many stores which you can then use online, which are great for giving to kids. What alternatives do you propose?
Two: The "pay now experience later model" just doesn't exist. Its a fiction. The music industry does provide free ways to listen to music. Besides TV stations and radio, online there is for the last few years sites like Youtube. If you want to listen to any song before buying it, is going to Youtube really that inconvenient? My favourite band still performing is Coldplay, got tickets to see them in June and Amanda got me their CD for Christmas (a very unusual thing for me nowadays a CD!) But if I wanted to listen to their songs before downloading then I easily could
That was uploaded to be listened to for free by (shock, horror) the music industry. So drop the claptrap. YouTube is a far better medium to try bands you've "never heard of before" than The Pirate Bay is, click from related link to related link and you never end up where you started and it starts immediately every time. The Pirate Bay simply doesn't do that, you choose in advance what you want to download and get it. The idea that finding new bands is easier on The Pirate Bay than on YouTube is not intellectually credible.
The only reason they are competing with free is because of illegal piracy, and while it is perceived online as cool to moan the truth is that the industry has done a heck of a lot in the last decade to revolutionise. Far more than other industries struggling to cope with online like the dead tree press. Making it easy to listen to songs before getting them for free, slashing prices, making it easy to download.Quote:
Even at 69 cents, you are still competing with free. and if free is easier to get, free is going to win. This is when the better value argument comes into play, and bands have taken all kinds of different avenues to make purchasing a physical (and to a lower level a digital) copy worth more than stopping at a free download.
But it'll never be enough for some people.
The first four are all available while most sites try to provide the sixth, as for quality of songs that depends upon personal judgement. The UK music industry right now seems to be performing as well as it ever has done (taking home much of the grammies even). Maybe its not piracy/the industry but maybe its just what quality is out there. As it always has been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
A luddite? You really don't know me if you think I'm a luddite. It is entirely analogous, a permanent medium is regarded in every sense different to a temporal experience. That is not messed up, that's working as designed.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Why not use the countless means that the music industry provides to try before you buy?Quote:
Right, and that's what I think the entertainment industry is really trying to fight off - the idea that they might have to operate like every other fucking industry and provide a product that's worth what they charge. If I'm unsatisfied with any physical product, I can return it for my money back. Imagine if big media had to play by those rules too... good for us, but very bad for lots of them who couldn't rely on shoving out crapware and awful movies or music and then hiding behind their "no refunds because of copying" crap they've been using as a crutch for decades.
We are talking about the same group of people. The people who use p2p services occasionally. The ones who don't know anyone who has been sued, don't understand the technology behind how they can be traced. The ones who don't watch the news for mentions of lawsuits. Hell, a lot of people don't even know what the RIAA is.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
These people simply know of a service that gives them music for free. The don't understand the legal aspects, or if they are being tracked or breaking the law. I deal with these people in the library system all day long.
and to stick a wrench in your system, the RIAA has already announced that they would no longer be directly suing music fans. Yet somehow, the industry hasn't collapsed, piracy hasn't destroyed them. Who would have guessed. :noob: Now, if you weren't aware of that, why do you hold that people should be aware of the (no longer existent) threat of lawsuits?
No steam does not use p2p to distribute games. They do use the tech for other parts of the system however. Not that I see how the number of services out there makes a damn lick of sense. If they suck, they suck. People won't use them. and why do most services suck? because these industry bodies do it to themselves out of fear. Even ebooks suffer from this. The publisher Penguin doesn't allow borrowed kindle books to be wirelessly transferred for example. Thats not convenient.
Piracy will never go away. Its always been there, always will be. Thats the point. Instead of attacking the legal owners with DRM and hoops to jump through, the services need to be made easier to use for the one willing to spend money. This is why Steam is so popular. People seem willing to support a person/group when they can, and when they know they will get a good product. Look at Doublefine's kick starter, or any of the previous humble bundles. Hell, even Alan Wake made up its entire production expense in 48 hours.
Game piracy might as well be the evolution of game demos.
Not everything is on youtube, and not everyone is in favor of google's privacy policies. Not to mention that a large percentage of youtube vevo videos aren't available worldwide. and you do realize that vevo videos are stuffed with ads right? Something to the tune of $3000 per million views. So that video you linked has brought in almost a quarter of a million dollars. So payment is being made, but not directly from the consumer. No, that money comes in from physical products and concerts. Because, as I've mentioned before, pirates spend more than non pirates.Quote:
Two things:
One: Payment has to happen somehow if you're paying. Online its generally either Paypal or Plastic. You can even pay by cash by buying pre-paid cards in many stores which you can then use online, which are great for giving to kids. What alternatives do you propose?
Two: The "pay now experience later model" just doesn't exist. Its a fiction. The music industry does provide free ways to listen to music. Besides TV stations and radio, online there is for the last few years sites like Youtube. If you want to listen to any song before buying it, is going to Youtube really that inconvenient? My favourite band still performing is Coldplay, got tickets to see them in June and Amanda got me their CD for Christmas (a very unusual thing for me nowadays a CD!) But if I wanted to listen to their songs before downloading then I easily could
That was uploaded to be listened to for free by (shock, horror) the music industry. So drop the claptrap. YouTube is a far better medium to try bands you've "never heard of before" than The Pirate Bay is, click from related link to related link and you never end up where you started and it starts immediately every time. The Pirate Bay simply doesn't do that, you choose in advance what you want to download and get it. The idea that finding new bands is easier on The Pirate Bay than on YouTube is not intellectually credible.
oh, torrents and magnet links do allow streaming.
the industry was dragged into the last decade kicking and screaming. and it took them forever to get here. We can thank apple for the lower prices, not that it didn't come with all kinds of DRM and hoops to jump through when it first came about. and piracy existed long before the internet. thanks to tape desks and vcrs, which the industry also tried to abort.Quote:
The only reason they are competing with free is because of illegal piracy, and while it is perceived online as cool to moan the truth is that the industry has done a heck of a lot in the last decade to revolutionise. Far more than other industries struggling to cope with online like the dead tree press. Making it easy to listen to songs before getting them for free, slashing prices, making it easy to download.
thats the point you're missing. they usually suck.Quote:
Why not use the countless means that the music industry provides to try before you buy?
---------------
Honestly, i think the biggest misunderstanding is that piracy is a 1:1 type of system. A shared song/movie/game doesn't mean a lost sale. Sometimes its someone looking into something they otherwise wouldn't have wasted money experiencing, and sometimes its because of financial reasons, and sometimes its because of distribution restrictions.
One problem is that the quality of digital downloads is often a far cry from CD quality, while illegally I can download pretty much anything ever put on a CD, in CD quality. And there's issues of availability, DRM, it's really a lot more hassle to buy stuff than to pirate it. And honestly, if something net Netflix actually existed here, I'd be a subscriber, but we don't have it. I do have a spotify premium account, though.
By the way, you are forgetting music industry is also actually profiting from piracy. If your artist gets downloaded a lot, more people know the music than if people only buy it. People buy merchandise, tickets, etc., big artists are more of a whole product line these days than just music. Hell, without privacy, Justin Bieber would not have been discovered, and they certainly earned a lot on him. So aside from the fact that an illegal download does not equal a lost sale, it's also 'free' PR.
And even more importantly, people despise and do not trust the copyright organizations, and rightly so. If we legally pay for our music, and royalties are collected through those organizations, they are lucky to get anything. And I'm not overstating it. Over here, one artist wanted to get a few million he was owed back from the copyright organization, got on the phone with an executive because it simply took forever. He was smart enough to record it though, and he was explained that he would only get his money if said executive received 1/3 of it. Not to mention they also used music in their own promotional videos, without ever paying a single fee for it (the artist in question is suing now). So how comes an organization as inherently corrupt and fucked up as that gets to sue me, and change our legislation? If I perform with my band, the venue has to pay them a fee, even when we only play our own songs. If someone manages to explain to me how that can possibly be fair... I think I'd rather just pay for concert tickets and albums and t-shirts at venues, and downloading their shit for free online, than to send my money down that hole.
Which is by the way also the best way business adapt: use mp3s as promotion, the more people who hear it the better, even if they don't pay; cash in on shows, merchandise, and albums for real fans (make it a fancy design, special editions, etc., sells quite well).
Oh, and the movie industry... Cinemas have sold more tickets last year than ever before, while ticket prices are higher than ever before, and people often actually pay for watching on-demand videos, so they shouldn't really be complaining. Who knows, maybe cinema attendance is at its peak because people have watched more films because they could download them for free, found out what films they like, and go see those in cinema.