Let the whack-a-mole begin
ISPs will block existing addresses, and the pirates will find other ones. Repeat until somebody makes a big mistake and gets caught.
The UK's largest internet service providers must block access to websites that enable people to pirate Nintendo Switch games, the High Court has ruled. Sky, BT, EE, Talktalk and Virgin Media have been ordered to "block, or at least impede access" to four sites that help distribute pirated Switch games, or facilitate copyright …
Or the crims will hack the government servers & use those to host the pirated files which will get the government itself forced on the banned sites list. The government will find out about it & try to clean their servers but then the crims will find other government servers to pwn & the game starts a fresh round of whack a mole. Muhhahahahahahahahaha!
This post has been deleted by its author
well, it's one law for the plebs, and an another law (optional) for the masters.
disclaimer (1): it would be unfair to suggest this is unique to this gov or this country. To a degree it happens, more or less blatantly, everywhere.
disclaimer (2): which doesn't make it any less disgraceful.
You're assuming the WTO will still be relevant by then. Trump seems to be blocking it as much as possible these days.
And the UK is already independent, it's a member of a treaty organisation called the EU in the same way that it's a member of the United Nations or the WTO.
Incidentally, if EU law trumps UK law, how come EU directives need to be made into law in each individual state within two years before they actually become effective? Sounds more like a sovereign parliament implementing the agreements of a democratically elected parliament of a treaty-based organisation to me. Because if they're not democratically elected, then I'd like to know who I've been voting for in those EU elections all these years...
No - EU law is enshrined in UK law by parliament. Doing so is entirely optional (but is a prerequisite to benefit from things like access to European markets).
Also, we (used to) have a say in EU law, but we won't anymore (we'll still need to follow it for any and all exports to the EU of course).
"...we'll still need to follow it for any and all exports to the EU of course"
Well, in so far as China and New Zealand "follow" EU law in order to sell their wares into the EU, and the way the UK already "follows" US law in order to export to the US, etc.
One reason that there is a flag domain name an ISP can implement to have browsers opt out of DNSoH negotiation by browser at the start.
That doesn't prevent an advanced user from implementing their own DNS setup, just like now. But due to measures like this, DNSoH is going to probably be flagged by all ISPs in UK and other places that require these blocks.
> One reason that there is a flag domain name an ISP can implement to have browsers opt out of DNSoH negotiation by browser at the start.
That flag is only effective, though, if the user has left the setting at default. If they've actively enabled DoH, then it is ignored.
At least, that's what Firefox's documentation claims :)
If we see this blocking becoming problematic, these defaults may change in the future.
But either way, I think the sort of people looking for the material which is blocked will be perfectly capable of finding ways to circumvent the blocks - leaving the rest to suffer when something perfectly innocent gets inadvertently blocked in the process.
There's a handy list of DoH servers to add to your blacklist here https://github.com/curl/curl/wiki/DNS-over-HTTPS If you're using Firefox, use about:networking#dns to check how effectively you're blocking DoH (and if you choose to, IPv6) there is supposed to be a pihole update coming to deal with the https://use-application-dns.net/ canary, regardless of configuration. On a side-note, whilst checking traffic at my router, I also found that some devices had a DNS server hardcoded and used that address id the pihole was blackholing their requests, so it may be worth checking that all DNS traffic is blocked at the router, save for your pihole IP address, obviously!
This was added by Mozilla just so they can say, they "tried", it will be interesting to see if pressure is applied to have the "If manually" set override removed.
Personally, I run a PiHole with the the DNS-over-HTTPS module.. Then just because I can, I tunnel this over a VPN (using Policy based routing).
Depends. DoH isn't a full solution as the ISP can still deep inspect the SNI part of the packet to see what website you requested.
ESNI removes this problem (but is not yet widely supported or switched on in broswers), and combined with networks like Cloudflare, the ISP has no idea what website you are trying to reach
Thank you for that link, it is very interesting. But I just want to say this for the record, to anyone who is listening:
I'm on record on this forum, since at *least* 2104, stating my belief that TCP/IP is fundamentally broken due to not having encryption baked-in as default:
Yet here is one of the largest companies on the internet, Cloudflare, saying the same thing, in 2018:
"The fact that encryption wasn't built into the web from the beginning was, in our mind, a bug."
Yet very few people believed me over the years, mostly downvoting my opinion when I post it
So I am taking this time to say: You're welcome
While I respect your opinion, it is being stated without any context of when TCP/IP was developed.
You have to keep in mind that TCP/IP was developed in the mid-70's, and at that time cryptographic technology was highly classified and treated as a weapon for export purposes. So yes - encryption *could* have been baked into the design of TCP/IP at a fundamental level, however doing so would have placed such massive legal constraints on it that it would have meant that the original ARPANET (which eventually grew into the Internet that we all know and love) would never have expanded outside of the shores of the USA. We would probably have seen some other technology fulfilling that role instead, one that would have been developed with the same legal constraints and hence have had the same flaws.
While this is true, trying to do deep packet inspection of all traffic on the fly would be so unworkable (and bog down connections so badly) it's very unlikely the ISPs would be willing to do it. Against a specific individual and with a court order or as part of a criminal investigation sure, but not against every single connection just to blacklist a few sites
Some of them already are doing it.
I mean you're right, the cost and complexity of it is huge, and they'd probably really rather not do it if they were given the choice. The problem is, they don't have a choice - the Govt requires them to have measures in place.
"[...] it's still not clear why hiding the ip address lookup stops ISPs blocking the ip addresses that are found."
The single IP address may be a large host running many HTTPS services for many different suppliers. The host then uses another level of information inside the request to route it to the correct web site on its internal servers.
I have an SSH tunnel to a dedicated outside server.
To my knowledge, over all the years I've been doing that, not one dedicated server provider is subject to these kinds of blocks.
Any consumer is (i.e. my home connection, the leased line in work, etc.) but not datacentres.
And most datacentres a) don't care unless your name pops up somewhere, b) have explicit terms that VPN is fine so long as it terminates at the server and isn't just a passthrough, c) are easily replaced by just about any other datacentre from another provider in seconds.
Thus I have a route to double-check all my DNS is identical from two locations (home and the dedicated server), and I also have things like DNSCrypt and DNSoTLS if I want it.
Blocking DNS at the moment is really like asking the Royal Mail not to deliver packages that look like CDs to a particular person at a very particular address. Nothing at all to stop you using an alternative courier, obscuring the actual recipient, obscuring the contents of the parcel, or just having them delivered to the side-door or shed.
Ironically, I don't pirate anything whatsoever, and even pay proper licences for things like my forum avatar (on sites that let you have them, *cough*). If I can't get it legally, or only in an incredibly restrictive way, I just don't see why I'd try to... they obviously don't want my custom or me to watch it, so problem solved.
Hell, even my emulators are backed by having an original physical copy of the games I used to play lying around should anyone question it. And I'm not even sure why I'd want to hack an expensive piece of hardware such that it probably wouldn't play future official games, just for the sake of a cheap game.
If a game's good... pay for it.
But if even I can bypass these restrictions with nothing more than a router with a VPN option, running SimpleDNSCrypt, or even a VPS that costs a pittance each month, I don't see that you're hindering the true pirates at all.
As to UK law being optional then since these are merely regulations rather than common law then after opting out presumably they are.
An increasingly attractive option with the current state of prohibition on anything that a wellfunded minority is willing to pay to push through.
Lets fix your comment.
You have a a car, I steal the car, you no longer have the car.
You have a car, I copy your car, you still have your car.
Piracy is not theft or stealing. I'm not saying piracy is right but it needs to be treated differently and not at the behest of corporations that lobby governments.
Piracy exists in games because they are too expensive. £60 for game? Then DLC on top of that. Disgraceful.
Piracy exists in television and movies because you now have to subscribe to multiple services to get everything.
Piracy exists in football for the same reason.
I will close with the argument that piracy wouldn't exist/be as bad if these companies and rights holders didn't try to screw every single last penny out of people. If all the Nintendo switch games were £20 I doubt many people would actually pirate them.
"piracy wouldn't exist/be as bad if these companies and rights holders didn't try to screw every single last penny out of people. "
Or if the companies didn't try to recoup their expenses in hiring developers to create game in the first place, then publishing it, and turn a profit (as each of us is wont to do) on that investment.
Yes but you miss the point, if it's a fair price and not worth pirating then no one will pirate and they will make more money. When you are charging £60 for a game then adding DLC at more cost then the temptation to pirate becomes too much. Pirates pay nothing at all.
Nintendo made 1.8b profit on 9.7b of revenue ($) 2018 so don't tell me they can't afford to do it. The large difference between profit and revenue as we all know will be to avoid tax because they certainly didn't pay out 7.9b in operating costs when a lot of the games and the switch itself were made prior to that up to it's release in 2017.
They absolutely paid that out in operating costs. The numbers you listed give 18.5% profit margin, which is a great number- Apple’s margin is higher than that, but most companies are far less, usually single digits.
This doesn’t really counter your other point that they could afford to be less strict here - I just want you to come at it from the right direction.
You do realise these are "billions" were talking about here and a console that was finished in 2017 so there are only manufacturing costs which is the same for all the software released prior to 2018. I'm sure they do put a healthy chunk into R&D each year without doubt but profits are the taxable part of a companies revenue so are usually kept artificially low. That's beside the point, games being too expensive encourages privacy in my opinion.
"Yes but you miss the point, if it's a fair price and not worth pirating then no one will pirate and they will make more money."
Real evidence from the last 20 years suggests you are dead wrong.
"Pay what you want" experiments in music distribution crashed on the rocks of freetard economics more than once. REM tried it. U2 Tried it.
Software will *never* be cheap enough for thieves to start paying for it if they do not have to.
Sure, there are niches where the "cheap means no stealing" works. Gaming has a fringe industry built around the concept. But in the mainstream the idea always runs afoul of the digitally entitled.
I agree; to expound a bit...
Piracy (as defined by the software industry) occurs for the same reason as smuggling - economics.
If an item is locally highly taxed, then either:
1. A person goes to a locality it is not heavily taxed, purchases the item and returns home with local government none the wiser although there have been occasions state police set up at the state line for this type of thing (there are many examples of this *)
2. A person goes into business to buy the same items more cheaply and sell them into the market (avoiding the local taxation). With a connected world, this is easier than ever.
Game piracy is the same; the higher the price of an item, the fewer will choose to buy it at full price (there are exceptions of course where an item may be required) but it may not reduce the total demand for the product and hence an industry pops up to satisfy that demand.
I am not looking at whether this is right or wrong; it is simply rational economic behaviour.
This is one of the reasons that the so-called 'harm' to game publishers is a lot lower than actually claimed; if the game were not free (or at a significantly lower price) the publisher would have no revenue stream anyway for those copies.
* This happens a lot in the USA where sales taxes are set at state (and even county / city / municipality level just to make things more confusing). Massachusetts residents regularly popped across the state line into New Hampshire for things like alcohol and cigarettes in the late 90s due to the very different levels of taxation. When I lived in Pennsylvania and worked in New Jersey I would always fill the tank in NJ (fuel was much cheaper there even though fuel stations required attendants!).
I seem to recall that the denizens of northern Michigan would routinely flock across into Canada for the same reasons.
Another amusing one is that Delaware has a 0% sales tax, so residents around Philadelphia (a short drive really) would pop down to the very conveniently located mall just inside the state line to buy high value stuff.
"Another amusing one is that Delaware has a 0% sales tax, so residents around Philadelphia (a short drive really) would pop down to the very conveniently located mall just inside the state line to buy high value stuff."
...And then they'd bring the stuff into the local store for warranty repairs. Thus the Radio Shack in Delaware would get the profits from the sale but our store was liable for the cost of the repair.
We LOVED customers who did that. VERY amusing.
Theft of revenue stream is still theft. Ask the Cable TV services.
Here's a thought: If your neighbour starts piggy-backing your paid-for TV channels, shouldn't he sub-up for a share of the costs, or don't you care on the grounds that "you still have the TV program"?
We must agree to disagree. Once someone starts playing the game, their "wouldn't have paid for it" rings hollow, and is irrelevant anyway. Theft.
In my opinion.
Section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 states that: 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
I don't think there is any intention at all. The pirate does not care if someone else pays for the software therefore there is no intention to permanently deprive the copyright holder of the revenue stream.
Personally I pirate games and I buy games. There is no way I am spending £60 on a game I might not enjoy. I pirate nearly every big game released and most of them last five minutes before I switch it off and uninstall. The ones I enjoy, I buy. If they were cheaper I would be much more inclined to take a chance.
Personally I play so few games these days they are either highly researched and 'right up my street' or they're 'free' (eg Subnautica or ps+).
Which is ironic because I can afford anything I like now. When I was a kid I pirated pretty much like the AC did above and bought games I really liked after testing a *lot* for now't. So all in all I probably spent 10* as much when I was a pirate than I do now, go figure.
I don't know if it's a mis-spent youth playing Monkey Island, but whenever I read headlines using the word 'Pirate' to refer to illegal duplication of software or media, I think of 'Har Har', cut-throats, wooden legs and Grog (oh, and terrible singing).
The former just doesn't gel with latter in my head.
Does this mean I'll never grow up?
When you were playing Monkey Island, weren't you also surrounded by adverts like this, and warnings that "Home taping is killing music"? I think of piracy in those terms at least as much as Treasure Island.
(Ironically when I first played Monkey Island on my Amiga it was via a pirated copy. I've since bought it at least once.)
Yes, probably. But irrelevant.
The 'Yo Ho Ho' image dominates for 'pirate'.
If there's an afterlife 'eternal' punishment for 'Piracy' sweaty little poseurs caught taping Metallica or Genesis albums will have been consigned there along with various peg-legged 'coloured beards' parrot abusers and eye-patch wearers, but fortunately, I think the universe is much better designed than the U.S justice system - or at least I hope.
You think that the ISPs are really bothered about whether you use DOH or a VPN to get around government or court mandated site blocks?
The ISPs will do the bare minimum to block access to websites that costs them the least amount of money to do, usually by sink holing the DNS requests on their DNS servers. If you happen to have your computer set to use different DNS servers or using DOH in your browser and can get passed the blocks, so what? The ISPs don't care as they still get your monthly payment and they can show they have implemented the blocks if someone from the government comes to inspect. The ISPs won't do anything about people using DOH until the law says they have to do so, as it will cost them money to install more equipment with no gain to them to do it off their own backs.
Whatever they do, I think it's more than just sinkhole the DNS requests. You still get "This is blocked by a court order" message even using Google DNS on say Virgin Media.
EE is apparemtly too small for these blocks to apply to them even though owned by BT and I can happily browse any otherwise blocked sites on my mobile phone if I don't have a VPN to hand.
Thought that I would look at the document, see what sites they were blocking. It's not about blocking piracy sites, it's about blocking sites that provide the SX dongle and software. But that is kind of pointless when you can just get the opensource atmosphere right off github. Are they going to block github next, that would be funny.
Here's a legit reason to go the 'Arrrrrr' route:
Getting content that the current owner of refuses to make available via any commercially accepted means except via broadcast.
There was a rather good cartoon made back in the mid 90's. it was only three seasons, but it does have a fanbase. Said property was created by a certain mega-corp with mouse ears.
As of this writing, I can only find the first two seasons of that show for commercial sale on DVD. (We'll politely ignore the fact that it took mega-corp nearly ten years to release the second half of the second season...) They've never released the last season on dvd. ever.
If I want that magical last season for completion's sake? Guess what, I have to put on my eyepatch and fire up the ol' bittorrent client, because that's the only place I can get it without doing rather a lot of work. (plus, other people have been polite enough to do said work and put it on said torrent sites...)
After I was made redundant at one employer I sat watching episodes of a US animation series (the excellent Duckman) on YouTube whilst waiting for my final meeting. Somebody said if I liked that so much maybe I should buy a copy of the DVDs instead of just watching it on the internet which they equated to piracy. I said that I'd love to but it hasn't been released in the UK. Therefore I can't buy it but I could import a copy once the bbfc have given it a rating. Given how much they charge to do that and the inevitable length of time it would take I'll stick to YouTube.
Oh and is that copy of WinZip on your machine a licensed copy? He went quiet after that.
That's fine. I was planning to buy a Switch in about 10 years once the "anti-piracy" / "anti-digital preservation" twats like UKIE lose interest and want it to all go into landfill like a bunch of environment killing arseholes.
I am only just getting to the end of my (almost entirely free) Playstation 3 collection so I am in no rush :)
iPhone Dev Team came out with the first jailbreak. I used it to install games on my 1st gen iPod touch. There was zero piracy. There was no app store, nor public plans to one day have an app store, there was only native features and web apps.
Their initial efforts were in large part why jailbreaking was granted a DMCA anti-circumvention exemption.
If you read the article the court found almost 300 non pirated games created for Jailbroke Nintendo switches.
Allowing side loading while checking adding anti-piracy fingerprint checks in the firmware you will get rid of 95% of the resources developed toward circumvention.
Or you can try to make proxies, VPN and github banned as well. Good luck with that.
1. It's likely that some level of piracy is good for a gaming platform, I seem to recall music pirates bought a lot more music than non-pirates.
2. Increasing incentives to use technologies such as VPN will make the jobs of security agencies more difficult through the can't-see-the-wood-for-the trees effect.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022