Blighty's telcos set to CHOKE off another fistful of piracy gateways More websites serving as gateways for Brits seeking pirated content online are set to be blocked by the country's biggest ISPs. The Register understands that 21 sites are on a new hit list, after the UK's courts told Virgin Media, BT, BSkyB, TalkTalk, EE and O2 to comply with an order to kill access to sites that tout torrents …
The Ignorance of Copyright Cocks is still as high as always I see.
You think these people will ever understand that blocking websites will never stop people accessing them? Since TPB was 'blocked', there are now more proxy sites than there are countries who have blocked the site! (probably).
So basically... it'll actually makes such sites MORE ACCESSIBLE!
And how many lawyers care about that? They'll get paid for all the hard work they've put in fighting the war against online piracy. New house, new sports car, big holiday.
12 months down the line, a bunch of new popular download sites will be compiled. Back to court then. They'll get paid for all the hard work they've put in fighting the war against online piracy. New house, new sports car, big holiday.
12 months down the line........
It's got nothing to do with protecting music/films etc. It's about making money for lawyers. Same as the constant patent battles in the mobile phone industry.
... and as the court is actively promoting those sites by naming them, we should also block the UK legal system (well, until it's idiot-free, which will be never, until lawyers are required to pass an IQ test before being allowed anywhere near the Internet)
More fun, however, would be for everyone to upload a torrent link to legitimate downloads - say, Linux distro of your choice - to each of these sites, then all club together to raise the funds to sue the idiot who granted this order for blocking access to legitimate content.
"More fun, however, would be for everyone to upload a torrent link to legitimate downloads - say, Linux distro of your choice - to each of these sites, then all club together to raise the funds to sue the idiot who granted this order for blocking access to legitimate content."
Except they already have a counter for it in that, since the content is legitimate, the content can safely be hosted in places other than torrent distribution sites. Sites like, maybe, the distros' own websites, which IINM most of them keep at least one. In their minds, the primary reason the torrent sites exist is because there is no legitimate place for them otherwise. It's like saying, 'Where else can pirates find haven except in a pirate's cove?"
The reason torrents are a popular dissemination method, is because it can get very expensive for a site to host a very popular file (the site-owner has to pay bandwidth costs), so instead if a file is torrented, those costs are dispersed among users/downloaders/uploaders (which cost reduction helps if you distribute free software of course).
But hosting the Torrent file on their own website can serve the same effect, which is what I'm saying. There is logic to this. Why else would the other torrents be hosted in "haven" websites other than they have no place to call home? That's why I use the "pirate's cove" argument.
If a torrent is for legitimate content, these torrents can be hosted on mainstream websites legally. Most of the distro sites I've seen are more than capable of hosting torrents for their own distros, and since it's for THEIR OWN content, hosting these torrents on their websites puts them in no legal trouble and also allows them to provide some safeguards like hosting hash files for verification.
More fun, however, would be for everyone to upload a torrent link to legitimate downloads - say, Linux distro of your choice - to each of these sites, then all club together to raise the funds to sue the idiot who granted this order for blocking access to legitimate content.
The argument they use is that the sites contain more infringing content than they do legitimate downloads. So what needs to happen is the uploading of loads of stuff, and then an attempt to get the order overturned.
1) Setup website 'mumblysomething_downloader.com' or even 'Download_Pirated_Stuff_Here.com'
2) Do not put anything on site apart from the homepage and a picture you took yourself of a kitten.
3) Wait for takedown requests.
4) Sue person who initiated takedown request for loads a mullah
5) Profit?????
6) repeat as desired.
where do i begin....
Amazon are big enough to be in the same group of companies that have a fat pipe right out of their data centre and into the intelligence agency cloud.
You need to use a credit card to set up an aws account which unless you have obtained on under a different identity, makes you very easily traceable should the need arise.
It's too much hassle for the average internet user to do, they will simply move on and in some cases go legit.
Amazon, can at any time, apply their own blocking methods and since they are american, probably will at some stage.
it's a nice try but far from ideal. Your ssh tunnel is commendable though, providing that it terminates somewhere safe and out of reach, say russia or india perhaps.
We should all be thankful that big business, the government and lawyers understand very little about how the internet works.
I am all for paying artists for their hard work and skill but paying a music company who screwed same artists over, stealing all their rights and leaving them penniless I definitely won't. If an artist received a reasonable amount of money from the cost of an album then we would all happily pay because we love what they do but the music company gets an excessive cut of that money. The only way real bands make money is through live concerts these days which I will gladly pay to go see but the ticket sellers screw us over making us pay them excessive fees for selling us a bit of paper.
So the bands get screwed, the fans get screwed. Big business makes more money than they deserve and they wonder why piracy is the biggest bandwidth user on the internet. Do companies like Sony really think they can persuade pirates to go legit? Ha!
I don't think the Telco's do that much really. They follow the letter of the law, as they must, but not much more. After all who would want 10M+ broadband just to send email, surf the net, play games, and watch IPlayer? If they were ever really effective in blocking sites, then a lot of people would ditch those "High Speed" connections and just go for the cheapest one that fits basic needs. I really don't think that the service providers are that keen to cut their own throats.
"I really don't think that the service providers are that keen to cut their own throats."
I don't think so either, seeing they have just done NOTHING to really stop it, maybe slowed first time users, thats all, GOOGLE is a torrent search engine it finds all for me, it gives torrents in results, even if u dont look for them, will they block access to that ....?
This post has been deleted by its author
This is such a waste of time, resources, and currency, and is de-facto corporate subsidy paid for by us tax, debt, and inflation slaves; f'ing corporatist thieves!
I do what I do because the rotters ripped me off for years, including via taxes and other costs, so I'll keep reclaiming compensation for this, indirectly, to compensate for their theft and inconvenience; this nonsense won't stop me.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
