No one cares...
... The people who don't use them don't are. The people who do use them know the work-arounds and alternatives. More money wasted by all concerned. Good news for lawyers and BMW dealers though.
The number of blacklisted torrent sites has doubled in Blighty after the High Court blocked a record number of piratical webpages. Blighty's top six ISPs have been ordered to prevent access to 53 torrent services, bringing the total number of banned pages up to 93. New sites on the list include BitSoup, IP Torrents, Isohunt, …
The money is not entirely wasted; the goverment is providing the useful service of highlighting the most active and useful torrent sites on the internet. Any pirates or would-be pirates looking for new torrent sites to check out, and willing to spend the five minutes it probably takes to circumvent the block, should make that list their first stop!
There's something so futile about this sort of action. Site(s) are available (so a friend tells me) that send you to a different proxy of tpb every time. One time my friend might be on an argentine proxy, the next time a norwiegian one. The media industry bodies are like my cat chasing a dot from a laser pointer. He chases it, in the sure hope that he's gonna catch it. But the technology is beyond his understanding, and he doesn't realise that the dot is intangible, and way too fast for him anyways. But he still feels compelled to try to kill it....
"Rather justifies the MPAAs motives, if not methods, doesn't it?"
Indeed it does. They know fine well that none of this is going to get rid of the torrent sites. However, they will continue to extort money from their members, telling them they are tackling the problem head-on, and are making plenty of dosh for themselves and their lawyer cronies.
Every now and again, someone will be prosecuted, so even more money for them. Meanwhile, the end-user, who actually pays for the copyrighted material, ends up funding these shysters and their cronies and suffering a product crippled with FACT messages etc. etc.
As many surveys have shown, if legal, easy and cheap alternatives are available then most people will use them.
The issue at the moment is that the content is relatively limited and mixed between providers and to get the best mix you'd end up spending a fortune on Netflix, NowTV/Sky, BlinkBox, Amazon Prime etc etc to get all the content you might want with lots of cross over between providers.
As for TV programmes, a 7 day catchup service is a bit crappy if you go on holiday for 2 weeks or don't realise that a new series has started and miss the first few.
All we ask is that we can watch what we want, when we want at a sensible price. Surely it can't be too hard to have a legit torrent service that can automatically add advertisement chunks based on some Google AdSense type process.
All we ask is that we can watch what we want, when we want at a sensible price.
Surely it can't be too hard to have a legit torrent service that can automatically add advertisement chunks based on some Google AdSense type process.
When I'm paying to watch something, why should I be bombarded by adverts for stuff I'll never buy anyway?
I'm happy to pay for what I want to watch, but please do not add adverts! I'm paying to watch, so you're getting your money!
Have to agree with you there. One of the main attractions to downloading tv shows (apart from getting them sometimes months ahead of the UK) is that there are no adverts. If I want to watch some show then thats what I want to watch, not see how to get those pesky stains out of my tighty whities.
Even when I am watching tv shows "live" as it were on Sky+ I will go watch something else for a few minutes after it starts just so that when I go back to it, I can fast forward past all the adverts.
It is not an unreasonable request to just watch the thing you want to watch and nothing else surely?
When I'm paying to watch something, why should I be bombarded by adverts for stuff I'll never buy anyway?
If Google, Facebook, and Twitter have taught me anything, it's that if you are being bombarded by adverts, you should be getting the content for free (because you are the product). That's how it now works here in internet land.
Maybe it's time we point this out to the MPAA?
How many times is this going to be used to justify using illegal actions because WHAT I WANT MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE?!
I hear paraphrases of that all the time, from politicians and security service agents. We have clear laws on, for instance, wiretapping, which are ignored time and again because what the NSA want must take precedence. What GCHQ want must take precedence. What Theresa May wants must take precedence.
We, the people, are simply learning by observing. Funny how that works out, isn't it?
You don't need surveys - just ask the pirates. There's a fair bit of concern in the pirate community at the number of people being lured away by legitimacy. Ever since iTunes and Netflix came along, it's been getting steadily harder to draw people in to the world of piracy. The legal services are just so good, you actually can compete with free.
"Netflix, NowTV/Sky, BlinkBox, Amazon Prime"
...and until companies like Sky will sell us the packages/channels we want instead of carefully making sure that the only way to get the mix you want is to buy it all, then people will continue to be pissed off at them. Market forces can't work when the market is rigged against the customer.
I'm a massive hypocrite for saying this given the catalog of soon to be released movies on my PC BUT
The argument is that if you had no intention of paying for them then you shouldn't be watching them.
Its like saying that its OK to bypass your water meter, because water is free and you don't intend on paying for it... regardless of the cost to SOMEONE to get that water to you, fair enough if you want to dunk your head in a river drink up, fill your boots but if you want good quality treated clean water delivered to your door, you should be prepared to pay for the infrastructure that provides that.
I can almost hear the argument "Well they make enough money without me paying for it" if everyone had the same attitude then "they" wouldn't make as much and quality would go down the pan. Fact is we should pay a fair price for content, which of course leads to an argument about a fair price, fact is producers of content can set the prices, Supply and demand, the price is set to what the audience will pay.
This is the preamble to the 'every download is a lost sale' premise. which has been thoroughly debunked time and time again.
There is an adjustment needed in _everyones_ attitudes to this change in technology.
Though having spent the best part of 1/2 a century being screwed by these guy's (music biz mostly) it's a little bit hard to feel all that sorry for them getting a bit of their own medicine.
So technically the point is accepted: of course it's theft... but looking at the victims... meh :-)
It's very difficult to assess the impact of piracy.
The obvious approach is to just count the number of infringing downloads, multiply by retail price, and get your damage figure. Easy. And useless, because most of those downloads are not lost sales. Pirates may happily build up a library of tens of thousands of songs, but they aren't going to buy those all on CD. Nor would they buy all those films on blu-ray - they'd be a few, but most would be left until they can be watched on TV or gotten for £4.99 in the bargin bin.
So you can try to estimate lost sales. Which is difficult, because pirates aren't very honest in answering surveys. But it can be attempted. Estimates only vary by a couple of orders of magnitude.
That's a little better. But then you've got network effects to take into account. Even if you conclude that piracy is resulting in huge numbers of lost sales, that might not capture the full damage - because if you're putting distributers out of business, or causing studios to spend less, that means lots of people who are now unemployed and thus have greatly reduced spending. This can amplify the impact of piracy. That is, if you can seperate it from other changes in the market: Piracy may be hurting the record store, but iTunes is arguably hurting it a lot more.
Then there's the issue of network effects working the other way. What happens to all that money not being spent on movie tickets and CDs? It returns to discressionary income. That means people spending more on other forms of luxury. Tech-toys, holidays, furnishings and general tat. Piracy has benefits and harms that are not obviously connected. It certainly drives a lot of hard-drive sales.
Given that the movie industry breaks their previous box-office takings record every year, and music industry revenue continues to climb, it's hard to see piracy as having much of an impact at all.
I'd also toss into the mix the various studies that examine the legal content purchased by pirates and find that they lean towards having bought many times more content. Anecdotally this matches the data observed in the econometric studies, we find this area fascinating, but....
This post has been deleted by its author
If i've bought a packet of crisps and whilst making my way home i meet a friend and share those crisps with him i don't expect a tap on the shoulder from Mr 'Walkers' who then proceeds to tell me off for 'sharing' and then informs me that the packet of crisps is 'one licence, one user' and that my infringment is now my 'first strike'.
I've tried to imagine what 'copyright' is and the best i can come up with is that its some kind of scroll made out of ancient papyrus and inked in Unicorn tears....am i right?
When i share music or games or films i'm not stealing someones 'copyright' as i'm not trying to pass the thing off as my own.....sharing is nice, its polite and i'm just a very polite person......m'lud...m'lud why are you putting that black cloth on top of your head?
The thing is that it's not up to you to share as you are not the originator of the work. If you were, then that's your choice. But some people depend on selling their works for a living (think starving artists). You're likely stealing a sale (and it's not black and white if someone would not buy if given no alternative--some people would capitulate while others would walk away) which can mean bread money to the artist.
>think starving artists
Starving artists would be delighted to sell direct. Piracy doesn't necessarily help artists, but most artists get screwed far more badly by the music and movie oligopolies.
In an ideal world artists would sell cut out the middle corporation, paying a management/sales team to work for them.
Currently the management/sales team believes it owns the artist's career, which is not a good thing for anyone.
Re: "It carefully targets sites whose sole purpose is to make money off the back of other people's content while paying nothing back into the legitimate economy."
A truly legitimate economy would not even *have* players like the MPAA and RIAA, let alone be sending them money for the right to access cultural artifacts already bought and paid for by somebody else.
File sharing services are people voting with their feet. If it is a small number, then it does less harm than the draconian measures being taken and we should let it go. If it is not a small number then the 'rights' regime is de-facto illegitimate. Either way, concerted state backed attacks on people sharing files is not legitimate by any measure. Those things are *grants* extended at the pleasure of the body politic and only then because of an expectation that they are net beneficial. Once we collectively decide not to extend those grants, that is the end of them.
At some point it is time to start taking names. People attempting to wrest our culture away from us and those aiding and abetting should be put on notice and ultimately be held responsible for the damage they do.
Our government's only legitimate reason to exist is to aid and protect and advance the interests of the people that make up the body politic. Similarly, corporations are legal fictions whose only legitimate purpose is to make a net positive contribution with a minimum of disruption.
Nobody should be going to jail or having their livelihood taken away for sharing a song or reading a journal article.
There have been a series of poisonous precedents set that pervert the sense of our constitutions. Were judges referring reasonably to the spirit and intent of the fundamental laws nothing like what is described in this article would happen. These things are at worst civil breaches and it is not up to the people (us) to pay the bills to press those cases.
"File sharing services are people voting with their feet."
Bollocks it is. It's an indication that when people are given the choice of paying for digital content, and not paying for digital content, they tend to choose "not paying". Amazing, eh?
They then invent 1001 justifications along the lines of "it's crap anyway" and "I wasn't going to buy it anyway". In which case the question is that if it is crap with no value, why do you want it?
File sharing services are people voting with their feet. If it is a small number, then it does less harm than the draconian measures being taken and we should let it go. If it is not a small number then the 'rights' regime is de-facto illegitimate.
Rubbish. I'm paid to write software, my wife is paid to write books. If people simply copied that software or books when they wanted to we would both be out of work. We, as the creators of the work, are entitled to benefit from our labour, which is what copyright law is for. If you make a copy without our permission, you're defrauding us.
Now, you can come up with some tired old arguments that you wouldn't have bought a copy anyway, so we haven't lost out, but the obvious question then is why would you want a copy? The very fact that you want a copy indicates that it has some value to you. Maybe you consider that because it's not that valuable to you, it's OK to make copies, and only the people who consider it to be really valuable should pay? In that case, would you be OK if I stole your car, if it's a model I don't like? Or screwed your wife, if I didn't really think she was all that pretty?
Copyright exists to protect honest work. Honest people respect that, and don't look for specious arguments about why they are exempt.
I sympathize with you.
But if you stole his car, that would be theft as he would no longer have his car. If you screwed his wife (without consent) that would be rape. If you copied his car and cloned (if it were legal) his wife, I'd doubt he would care one way or another. Making a copy is not theft no matter how you twist it.
"Copyright exists to protect honest work. Honest people respect that, and don't look for specious arguments about why they are exempt."
And there's the crux, isn't it? We're not dealing with individuals here, but with pretty corrupt corporations who, like the industrial robber-barons of old, try to wring every cent out of their "copyright" above and beyond what, and who, the concept is meant for to begin with.
People are *well* willing to support individuals by buying their stuff, especially when said stuff is of quality, and adresses a viable market. People are a lot less inclined to support byzantine constructions that makes [stuff] artificially rare, overpriced, or simply impossible to get while still being advertised as Available! Get It Nao! in your face.
...Some cloud locker services are suspected of actively colluding with pirates and creaming off revenue from advertising, copyright cops once told us. ...
I'm sure that they are also suspected of hosting paedophile links, terrorist plans and climate-change denier plots. And any other smear the 'copyright cops' can think up. Perhaps they'll bring back Communism?
Can we all take a look at Steam for a moment?
I have no idea how many games I own on Steam, but it's a lot* I've not felt in the slightest way inclined to pirate a video game in years. Why, you ask? Am I just that nice? No, actually, it's just that it's actually more effort than it's worth and just paying a relatively small amount for a digital licence that I can transfer between as many machines as I happen to be sat in front of is totally worth it. I've ended up with a policy of actively not playing games that aren't on steam because their publishers are making it hard for me. I'm "voting with my wallet" if you like. I don't think there's a single game I've really wanted to play that this has stopped me from getting it's become such a defacto standard.
If a system like that existed for movies/TV I would use it, but it doesn't so I can't. I can live with waiting a few months for things to get over the "release day" pricing, I can wait for sales, but even at full price there really isn't a one-stop-shop out there for movies and TV. Now why is that? Because all the studios are busy fighting with one another over who should be in charge and desperately trying to ensure that they can enforce their already inflated pricing model. Well, guess what happened guys? None of you got to be in charge. Now stop bickering and give me Steam for Video where you all have to compete on a level playing field and I'll pay you for it.
*Yes, I'm sure it would tell me if i had it installed on this machine so I could look.
I just checked out Isohunt out of curiosity and was greeted by a message saying the site was permanently shut down by a United States federal court. I then googled Isohunt and was taken to the working site. Why should I believe the powers that be, when they lie about shutting things down? The domain was seized, the site is up and running for all to use.
Pirate Browser (Google it)
Circumvent the blocks and go straight to the sites without having to find new proxies, it's FireFox with TOR in a nice neat package all configured for you.
What you do with such capabilities is your decision, not the governments or 'copyright protection' (extortion?) companies.
Closing the pirate sites is a start but prosecution and imprisonment of those who create and operate the sites along with multi-million dollar fines are a necessity. While authorities will never stop all piracy they can put a dent in it and get a lot of scum off the streets for the next 20+ years and that's a very good thing.
If ignorance is bliss.... I can just as easily tap a site on the other side of the planet as I can those hosted on the server next to my desk across the room. All that it requires is an address and that address need not be human readable. Now what has happened is that the human readable address has been obscured and if you take away the government issued rose-colored glasses you can see all the addresses out the as well. You can also take to the hidden paths, that while slower, allow you to avoid governmental, and non-governmental, highwayman/revenuers.
The only way to enforce your desire is not only be able to censor all speech about such information (locations, means) but absolute control of the global internet so that none of this is possible, anywhere and everywhere, despite others' desires to the contrary.
I can't speak to your country, but you try to enforce such a regime in the U.S. the results wouldn't be pretty for the enforcers. And our weapons are nastier. Although given the way things are going, we'll do it to ourselves and make most everyone else suffer as well. TTIP, TAFTA, whatever other alphabet soup abbreviations we come up with to conceal the fitting of our slave collars.
"Closing the pirate sites is a start but prosecution and imprisonment of those who create and operate the sites along with multi-million dollar fines are a necessity. While authorities will never stop all piracy they can put a dent in it and get a lot of scum off the streets for the next 20+ years and that's a very good thing."
Until they discover the site operators live in western-hostile countries who will refuse to honor takedown or extradition requests. What then?
Very few people understand how difficult it is to buy content legitimately as a legitimate broadcaster. Once you get over the fact that many operators are rejected at the whims of a suit, you then realize that its easier and more profitable to run a torrent site. Instead of content providers using every possible tool available to extend distribution that can be monetized, people catch feelings, stick to exclusivity, and well, some people no longer have the patience.
I work for a provider who is now turning to pirated content because their money is not wanted by the studios. No BS.
As far as they're concerned, those hashes may as well be keys and enablers. I'm sure if they could, they'd put up a firewall that would put China to shame as well as outlaw any and all encrypted traffic altogether (and then find ways around steganography as well—and there are ways to make stego impractical for a truly paranoid state).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021