The Swedish website hosts links to download mostly pirated free music and video.
Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.
"Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said.
A sixth ISP, BT, requested "a few more weeks" to consider their position on blocking the site.
BPI's chief executive Geoff Taylor said: "The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale.
"Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them.
......
Virgin Media told the BBC it will now comply with the request, but warned such measures are, in the long term, only part of the solution.
"As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price."
The Pirate Bay was launched in 2003 by a group of friends from Sweden and rapidly became one of the most famous file-sharing sites on the web.
It allows users to search for and access copyrighted content including movies, games and TV shows.
.....
In April 2009, the Swedish courts found the four founders of the site guilty of helping people circumvent copyright controls.
The ruling was upheld after an appeal in 2010, but the site continues to function.
The Pirate Party UK, a spin-off from the political movement started in Sweden that backs copyright reform, said this latest move will "not put any extra pennies into the pockets of artists".
"Unfortunately, the move to order blocking on The Pirate Bay comes as no surprise," party leader Loz Kaye told the BBC.
"The truth is that we are on a slippery slope towards internet censorship here in the United Kingdom."
.....
However, one analyst told the BBC that it was still worthwhile to take court action as it underlines the illegal nature of sites such as The Pirate Bay.
"I know it's fashionable to say 'oh, it just won't work', but we should keep trying," said Mark Little, principal analyst at Ovum.
"We should keep blocking them - they are stealing music illegally.
"The biggest culprits of this, really, are the younger demographic who just haven't been convinced that doing this is somehow morally uncomfortable.
"The principle that downloading music illegally is a bad thing to do has not been reinforced by schools or parents."
But Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, called the move "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," he said.
"Internet censorship is growing in scope and becoming easier. Yet it never has the effect desired. It simply turns criminals into heroes."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176)
Theft is theft, guys. Intellectual property is not only property, it's the most important kind of property. You can't make more snickers bars by stealing a snickers bar.
You can make more by stealing the recipe. Digital media is basically the recipe for multimedia entertainment.
syaoranvee, this law professor smashes your claim to pieces. Theft isn't black and white in the digital world - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/theft-law-in-the-21st-century.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/theft-law-in-the-21st-century.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all)
syaoranvee, this law professor smashes your claim to pieces. Theft isn't black and white in the digital world - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/theft-law-in-the-21st-century.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/theft-law-in-the-21st-century.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all)
The man in that article says illegal downloading is still a problem and should be stopped.
"Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said.
Quote"Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said.
I read that as "British Pornographic Industry."
Carry on.
Fucking proxies, how do they work?Sometimes the simplest tricks work like adding an S to http
This seems about as well thought out as the Internet filters my school uses. It blocks google but I can still access hardcore porn quite easily. Once I was using Askkids.com(one of the search engines the filter allows because it's supposed to be kid friendly) and searched something normal(I think it was "boredom") and got pictures of Satan masturbating ???.
Virgin Media put the block into place today...and god is it persistent. Changing DNS servers doesn't help and current proxy tests are bringing up nothing. Will need to run more tests.
Edit: tried another proxy, working perfectly. Time taken to bypass block: less than 5 minutes.
Copyright may have been a good idea at one point, but the way it is used now is mere corporate welfare.
Copyright may have been a good idea at one point, but the way it is used now is mere corporate welfare.
Not for nothing but when you pay the tens of thousand to hundreds of millions of dollars to fund a feature film, pay for the studio time or musicians to record an album, hire the artists to create a comic book, or produce a photograph/painting, then you can decide how it's distributed and for how much. To call all copyright protection "mere corporate welfare" is fucking idiotic.
Right, because copyright is the only way for studios/producers to recoup their investment. ::)
We as consumers are not morally obligated to prop up a business model made obsolete by technology.
+1 to Kit, plain and simple. Xyzzy or whatever the fuck his name is is about one step away from every "moral right to pirate" argument that makes my piss boil. Any time someone says they have some justification (or worse, obligation - at least you haven't gone that far) I just wanna slap that dumbass in the face. Just because it's easier than ever to steal something doesn't make it right, or okay, or anything else. It's still wrong, it still screws over the people who put their effort into making it. And I'm not sitting on a high horse here, claiming I've never done it. I have, on occasion, but at least I'm able to admit that I was wrong in doing so. Yeah, I made it up, sort of, by buying the items in question when I could, but that doesn't make it right. Honestly, I'd have less of a problem with piracy if people who do it admit the following:
"I really want this item, but I don't have a means of paying for it. Taking it without paying is wrong, but I'm going to do it anyway, because I want it."
That's really the heart of what piracy is. And don't even get me started about restrictive DRM, particularly in video games. Yeah, it sucks. It's almost draconian at times. But you know something? You numbnuts that keep pirating shit? You're the reason it exists. If a good game has that kind of DRM and you don't like it, do what I do - don't buy it, and don't pirate it. You're just justifying to them, when you pirate and break their DRM, that they're justified in doing what they do. Orif you're gonna break the DRM, at least do it with a legally bought copy. For fuck's sake.
Go ahead, tell me how wrong I am. Call me all the names you like.
I'm not suggesting that we get rid of copyright altogether. I'm saying that the system has been used and abused by big media. The DMCA is but one example of this.Except you said this:
Copyright may have been a good idea at one point, but the way it is used now is mere corporate welfare.
ost movies (at least the big Hollywood productions) succeed or fail on their opening weekends, when people pay upwards of $10 to sit in theaters and watch 20 minutes of commercials before the movie even begins. Those people who pirate such goods may not have the means or the desire to pay for what they copy anyway--the economy sucks, and the quantity of movies/music released is greater than quality, so the "lost sales" argument is weak, at best.1) If someone feels a work has value but is unwilling to pay for that value, they're a cockface. In my opinion.
Edit: tried another proxy, working perfectly. Time taken to bypass block: less than 5 minutes.
The only restriction I'll ever implement is an activation code you plug into the game when you install.
The production and distribution of media has essentially gone the same way as aluminum. Back when aluminum was difficult to refine, it was worth about as much as gold. But once someone figured out how to mass-refine it, the price massively dropped. Yet digital media, which requires no printing or shipping of anything and can be mass-produced infinitely for free, still costs roughly the same amount as its physical counterpart. It's $1600/oz aluminum foil.
QuoteThe only restriction I'll ever implement is an activation code you plug into the game when you install.
Which a pirate will make some sort of a program to bypass and bundle it with the game when they put it up on whatever torrent site they frequent. So overall useless, which is why companies have stepped up to try different things such as the forms of DRM.
A lot of the stuff I've downloaded is not even commercially available (or at least, not available in the USA), so no sales were lost. Does that still make me a thief?
I've compiled mix CDs for friends who want to get into new music. Does that make me a thief?
I haven't deprived anyone of the possession, title, or usage of any of their own media. Does that make me a thief?
This is true, but it's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that, because digital media is in infinite supply, the perceived value to the customer is zero. Therefore, the problem is that some sort of strategy needs to be employed to make it so the customer doesn't feel like you're making them pay for water or something. Something like Steam where having a paid account nets you extra benefits, benefits which can't be pirated, therefore the commercial product no longer appears infinitely plentiful.The production and distribution of media has essentially gone the same way as aluminum. Back when aluminum was difficult to refine, it was worth about as much as gold. But once someone figured out how to mass-refine it, the price massively dropped. Yet digital media, which requires no printing or shipping of anything and can be mass-produced infinitely for free, still costs roughly the same amount as its physical counterpart. It's $1600/oz aluminum foil.
We can either have movies that cost $200 Million to make or we can have movies that cost $0.99 to purchase. I don't think we can have both, not any time soon.
I haven't deprived anyone of the possession, title, or usage of any of their own media. Does that make me a thief?
If you don't pay for content, yes it does make you a thief. If you don't like how that sounds don't fucking do it.
A lot of the stuff I've downloaded is not even commercially available (or at least, not available in the USA), so no sales were lost. Does that still make me a thief?
Yes, just because it is not available for you to buy it does not give you the right to take it.
One word: YouTube.Which is why a lot of music publishers have Youtube partnered accounts that generate ad revenue, right?
In the eyes of the companies that produce the content, The Pirate Bay and YouTube are the same thing. Ever listened to a song on YouTube? Congratulations, you are a criminal.
A lot of the stuff I've downloaded is not even commercially available (or at least, not available in the USA), so no sales were lost. Does that still make me a thief?
Yes, just because it is not available for you to buy it does not give you the right to take it.
Quote from: FpqxzI've compiled mix CDs for friends who want to get into new music. Does that make me a thief?
Again, yes.
Quote from: FpqxzI haven't deprived anyone of the possession, title, or usage of any of their own media. Does that make me a thief?
If you don't pay for content, yes it does make you a thief. If you don't like how that sounds don't fucking do it.
Right, because copyright is the only way for studios/producers to recoup their investment. ::)
No, but charging money for it is. Even the "pay what you want" model implies that some transaction of funds is expected. Piracy involves no transaction of money. In fact, the lack of copyright protection would be a worse model than we have now. The second anything was released to the public, any idiot could copy it and sell it without having to kick any money back to the people who actually produced it or own it.
One word: YouTube.
In the eyes of the companies that produce the content, The Pirate Bay and YouTube are the same thing. Ever listened to a song on YouTube? Congratulations, you are a criminal.
Please tell me how it is illegal to violate the copyright law of a county you aren't even in. How can you violate copyright if there they have no copyright to violate?
Who exactly is being hurt by that? No sales revenues are lost; in fact, no one is losing anything. By supporting litigation by copyright owners for works not for sale, you are supporting copyright trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll), which is a serious misuse of intellectual property rights.
So by giving free publicity to bands these people might otherwise not hear or even know about, I'm stealing from them? Do you know how many bands became popular and increase album sales through word-of-mouth and tape/CD trading?
Let me explain one more time: if I take a physical object from you, such as your car, that's theft. If I were to make an exact replica or working model of your car, and didn't take the one that belonged to you...that might be patent infringement (maybe) but it sure as hell isn't theft. It's not the same thing.
And I couldn't help but notice that no one has refuted my arguments about investment capital or the big media companies distributing file sharing software. Hmm...
Sorry, it does not work that way. Many times the owners of the song will put them up on YouTube. Then you also have fair use. So unless you are ripping content from YouTube you are not breaking any laws.
Sorry, it does not work that way. Many times the owners of the song will put them up on YouTube. Then you also have fair use. So unless you are ripping content from YouTube you are not breaking any laws.
The 3rd ed. of Oxford's The Australian Student's Colour Dictionary states;
steal verb 1. to take another person's property without right or permission, to take dishonestly
Therefore, if you have ever watched a video on Youtube with the owner did upload, then you are now a thief. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it still be theft if the artist placed a song on Youtube against the wishes of their recording company.
One word: YouTube.Sorry, it does not work that way. Many times the owners of the song will put them up on YouTube. Then you also have fair use. So unless you are ripping content from YouTube you are not breaking any laws.
In the eyes of the companies that produce the content, The Pirate Bay and YouTube are the same thing. Ever listened to a song on YouTube? Congratulations, you are a criminal.
Please tell me how it is illegal to violate the copyright law of a county you aren't even in. How can you violate copyright if there they have no copyright to violate?You violate the laws of the country the material is copy written in. Just because you are in a different country does not mean anything.
I guess that means that every time I drive on the right side of the road here in the US, then I am breaking UK traffic laws.
That's how stupid you sound.
I guess that means that every time I drive on the right side of the road here in the US, then I am breaking UK traffic laws.
That's how stupid you sound.
The difference is that driving in US roads does not affect UK roads, while technically, pirating from US companies affects US companies, so your allegory is bullshit, too.
I guess that means that every time I drive on the right side of the road here in the US, then I am breaking UK traffic laws.
That's how stupid you sound.
The difference is that driving in US roads does not affect UK roads, while technically, pirating from US companies affects US companies, so your allegory is bullshit, too.
How can a sale be lost to piracy if that sale could never be made in the first place? I'm wondering this.
Let me explain that your idea of what is and what is not thief is flat ass wrong. You are simply trying to twist the definition as to not label what you do, or what to, as theft. It is. Deal with it or don't do it. Taking content that you don't pay for, or have no right to make you a thief.
Here's a question for someone with more legal expertise than me that I've been wondering about:
How do intellectual property rights intersect with free speech rights?
I ask this because I know numerous examples of things like DVD commentaries and interviews that have had to be edited, or are otherwise prohibited from distribution in certain countries, solely because the person talking made a reference to a copyrighted or trademarked product. How does that work? What about going on stage in front of an audience and singing a copyrighted song? How does having legal repercussions for that behavior not end up a violation of free speech? Why can we only write works of fiction involving people living in a generic, brand-name-less world containing no recognizable commercial cultural references without having to pay someone for the right to even mention them?
I think people have a right to their works, but going so far as to allow private entities to impose punishments on people for the manner they choose to express themselves seems downright unconstitutional.
You have no idea how streaming video works, do you?
I guess that means that every time I drive on the right side of the road here in the US, then I am breaking UK traffic laws.
You didn't read a single word I wrote, did you?
And anyway, the legal definition of theft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft) is quite a bit different from the legal definition of copyright infringement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement) (especially in common law countries). The U.S. Supreme Court even said as much (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_%281985%29). You wanna argue with them, be my guest.
You're out of your depth, m52nickerson. So why don't you do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up before you make an even bigger pretentious ass of yourself.
Yes, I do know that. I've known that for years. What does that have anything to do with my post?You have no idea how streaming video works, do you?I guess you don't get that you can capture streaming video and save it on your PC.
Thanks for agreeing with me. You are right, it's not illegal. That's exactly what I was saying.QuoteI guess that means that every time I drive on the right side of the road here in the US, then I am breaking UK traffic laws.Not unless you can pick up the road in the in the US and move it to the UK. Try again.
What if I want a game that is no longer for sale and can't be obtained anywhere except maybe a garage sale? An example being an old Mechwarrior game. How do you propose I acquire it other than downloading it from someone who put it up on the internet?Ebay exists for a reason.
Oh Celestia, it's Nickerson vs. Lithp all over again!
What if I want a game that is no longer for sale and can't be obtained anywhere except maybe a garage sale? An example being an old Mechwarrior game. How do you propose I acquire it other than downloading it from someone who put it up on the internet?
Oh Celestia, it's Nickerson vs. Lithp all over again!If the game is no longer for sale, then the original creators aren't making money off of it anyway. You can't deny them a sale if they're not selling it.
What if I want a game that is no longer for sale and can't be obtained anywhere except maybe a garage sale? An example being an old Mechwarrior game. How do you propose I acquire it other than downloading it from someone who put it up on the internet?
Ebay exists for a reason.When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?
When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?Like it or not, that's generally how you go about legally acquiring stuff that's no longer in production.
When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?Like it or not, that's generally how you go about legally acquiring stuff that's no longer in production.
I don't think they'd disagree that it's currently a legal alternative to piracy, which is what I'm saying.Game makers would love to disagree with that, as they'd rather games never get resold at all.When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?Like it or not, that's generally how you go about legally acquiring stuff that's no longer in production.
I don't think they'd disagree that it's currently a legal alternative to piracy, which is what I'm saying.Game makers would love to disagree with that, as they'd rather games never get resold at all.When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?Like it or not, that's generally how you go about legally acquiring stuff that's no longer in production.
I don't misunderstand, I was hoping to confer that it's a whole separate issue. That is unless of course you're saying that it justifies piracy.You misunderstand me.I don't think they'd disagree that it's currently a legal alternative to piracy, which is what I'm saying.Game makers would love to disagree with that, as they'd rather games never get resold at all.When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?Like it or not, that's generally how you go about legally acquiring stuff that's no longer in production.
I'm saying that they don't want it to be a legal alternative. They want it to be considered more or less the same.
Not necessarily all game makers, just the tripe like EA and shit like that.
Yes, I do know that. I've known that for years. What does that have anything to do with my post?
From a legal standpoint, streaming a copyrighted video and downloading it are the same thing. You seem to think that somehow, streaming a copyrighted song from YouTube without permission of the copyright holder is legal while downloading it without permission of the copyright holder is not legal.
Thanks for agreeing with me. You are right, it's not illegal. That's exactly what I was saying.
I have no idea what point you were trying to make here.
I think you might be confused. You should probably go back and re-read my post until you fully understand what I was saying.
I will give you another example. There is a death metal band that I particularly like, called The Chasm. They are from Mexico, and their stuff is hard to find in the USA. Most of their titles are out of print, and were produced on a very limited basis in their initial run. I tracked down two of their albums used, but I downloaded the rest. If those albums were to be reissued and offered for sale in the States, you bet your ass I would buy them. Unfortunately, pirating was the only option I had to hear their excellent work.
As for looking on Ebay, I wasn't able to find their stuff on CD there. What little I saw of their stuff on Ebay was being offered for $100 and up. I'm not going to pay that much when the money will just go to some greasy neckbearded shut-in, rather than the band. Fuck that noise.
I don't misunderstand, I was hoping to confer that it's a whole separate issue. That is unless of course you're saying that it justifies piracy.You misunderstand me.I don't think they'd disagree that it's currently a legal alternative to piracy, which is what I'm saying.Game makers would love to disagree with that, as they'd rather games never get resold at all.When you buy something off of Ebay, none of that money goes to the people who created it. They are no better off financially than if you had just downloaded it. That is what this argument is about, isn't it?Like it or not, that's generally how you go about legally acquiring stuff that's no longer in production.
I'm saying that they don't want it to be a legal alternative. They want it to be considered more or less the same.
Not necessarily all game makers, just the tripe like EA and shit like that.
No, not saying it justifies piracy.Like I said, that's a whole separate issue.
Just that some game makers consider it the same as piracy.
As for looking on Ebay, I wasn't able to find their stuff on CD there. What little I saw of their stuff on Ebay was being offered for $100 and up. I'm not going to pay that much when the money will just go to some greasy neckbearded shut-in, rather than the band. Fuck that noise.Still not a justification for piracy. You have a legal way to get the music, you are simply unwilling to pay that price. Just because a album, or game is no longer being sold or made does not give you the right to take it.
As for looking on Ebay, I wasn't able to find their stuff on CD there. What little I saw of their stuff on Ebay was being offered for $100 and up. I'm not going to pay that much when the money will just go to some greasy neckbearded shut-in, rather than the band. Fuck that noise.Still not a justification for piracy. You have a legal way to get the music, you are simply unwilling to pay that price. Just because a album, or game is no longer being sold or made does not give you the right to take it.
There's a distinction between something being technically illegal and morally wrong. This is a good example.