Slashdot Mirror


ISP Block on Pirate Bay Not Having Desired Effect

TechDirt is reporting that the recent block placed on The Pirate Bay torrent site is not only relatively ineffective, but actually driving more traffic to the site because of the attention. "The news from The Pirate Bay appears to confirm this suspicion. According to The Pirate Bay's new Court Blog, Danish traffic has not dropped since the implementation of the block. '...the number of visits from Denmark has increased by 12% thanks to IFPI,' the blog post reads. 'Our site http://thejesperbay.org is growing more because of the media attention than people actually coming to learn how to bypass the filter - our guess is that alot of the users on the site now run OpenDNS instead of the censoring DNS at Tele2.dk.' 'We also started tracking some stats before and after the block. There's no noticeable difference between the number of users from Tele2.dk before and after.'"

177 comments

  1. Oblig. Quote: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."

    -- John Gilmore

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Oblig. Quote: by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      YAARRRRR!!! Ye be right, Matey! It be Gasparilla here in Tampa, and thar be pirates! Ye shall not censor us, ye Landubbers! Now walk the plank! YAAAARRRRR!!!!!

    2. Re:Oblig. Quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."

      And the Net also has another interesting trait. It seems operate with a variation of Netwon's 3rd law. For every action there is an opposite + magnified reaction.

    3. Re:Oblig. Quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's good to see fellow pastafarians...

      I was getting worried that we died out.

    4. Re:Oblig. Quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      New quote: "The Net treats piracy as a feature and routes to it."

    5. Re:Oblig. Quote: by mpe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the Net also has another interesting trait. It seems operate with a variation of Netwon's 3rd law. For every action there is an opposite + magnified reaction.

      This has more to do with human behaviour and predates "the Net".
      Banning (or attempting to ban) just about anything is actually a very good way of advertising something. People who would otherwise never have heard about the whatever wanting to find out what all the fuss is about.

    6. Re:Oblig. Quote: by PirateBlis · · Score: 1, Funny

      YAAARRR Our booty still be safe from the pillagin' of them bandwith withholdin' scallywags!

    7. Re:Oblig. Quote: by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      "All in all it's just another brick in the wall"

      -- David Gilmour

    8. Re:Oblig. Quote: by Hurricane+Floyd · · Score: 1

      Interesting reference.

      Perhaps censorship should be considered damage on the internet?

      "The Internet" is a huge distributed computer system, almost an organism, damage the information that is present and the system (internet users) will route around the damage to make the information whole again, kinda like an immune system.

    9. Re:Oblig. Quote: by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However it is only in the age of the internet that you can easily gain access to something that is supposedly banned, at least in the EuroAmerican world (countries behind firewalls are a different story). Banning a book removes it from all bookstores and libraries and so makes it hard to acquire. Banning an internet site (or at least blackholing it like was done here) removes it from all government regulated areas of the internet, which is very small. It's like trying to ban a book without the power to stop importation or monitor smaller bookstores, you can get it removed from the big stores (the main DNS servers) but that will only serve to advertise the book and make it more popular in the smaller shops and to be imported.

      As a sidenote, OpenDNS for the win.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    10. Re:Oblig. Quote: by shayne321 · · Score: 1

      Actually, most (if not all) of The Wall album was actually written by Roger Waters. David Gilmour does perform the songs often (or at least, DID - not sure if he's still performing much), but the quote should probably be attributed to Roger Waters

      --
      Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
    11. Re:Oblig. Quote: by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      "All in all it's just another brick in the wall"

      -- David Gilmour

      No. Roger Waters.

    12. Re:Oblig. Quote: by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least he knew it wasn't Syd Barrett.

      --
      -- Alastair
    13. Re:Oblig. Quote: by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Damn it, you're right. *hides head in shame*

      I knew that, but just wanted a quick funny reply playing on the Gilmore/Gilmour words.

      Hope the joke was still slightly funny. :)

    14. Re:Oblig. Quote: by argiedot · · Score: 1

      True that. It's well known as the Streisand Effect. Okay, maybe not well known, but that's the name I heard it first under.

  2. This is exactly... by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...what everyone thought, I suppose. I'm wondering: did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy? I don't agree with filtering, but this is just embarrassing.

    1. Re:This is exactly... by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      No. Because tech guys work for the "other side"

    2. Re:This is exactly... by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unfortunately, they probably did. I know several well paid network engineers and sysadmins who really have no understanding of how the internet works, and would think a local ISP DNS block would work. The typical training for these positions is heavy on the "how", and light on the "why".

    3. Re:This is exactly... by xappax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps the ISP itself does not agree with the spirit of the censorship, and are merely going through the motions to satisfy the court and cover their asses. Basically, maybe they don't care whether people get around the block.

    4. Re:This is exactly... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...what everyone thought, I suppose. I'm wondering: did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy? I don't agree with filtering, but this is just embarrassing.

      I'm certain they did. And they kept consulting with single tech guys, until they found one that would tell them what they wanted to hear.

      And seriously, if you were a tech guy, what would you do, actually put forth a herculean effort to attempt to violate the very policies that make up the internet so some twit politicians can block a PERFECTLY LEGAL WEBSITE, a block which would be bypassed almost instantly, or set up a token effort that gets you a nice paycheck and lets everyone save face? They both pay the same, both are just as effective, why not go the easy route?
    5. Re:This is exactly... by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as I've seen, DNS blocks are pretty standard for this type of blocking in 'the free world'.

      Basically, maybe they don't care whether people get around the block.

      Well, if the assholes at IFPI cant access the site anymore, maybe they'll stop complaining. And, hey, it's a best effort deal, most other possible blocking methods would risk catching even more innocent and entirely unrelated sites, without being much harder to bypass.

    6. Re:This is exactly... by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, they probably did. I know several well paid network engineers and sysadmins who really have no understanding of how the internet works, and would think a local ISP DNS block would work. The typical training for these positions is heavy on the "how", and light on the "why".


      More realistically, they know exactly why it isn't working and aren't trying very hard to implement it. It's called "paying lip-service". A DNS block does work fine, as long as your users don't want to, or don't try to circumvent it. Case in point, I'm using DNS block on my home/small business network to block out adservers, using the list from http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/. Works great, because nobody on the network has any interest at all in circumventing it. If I were blocking something like Google, the users would riot. And they'd switch to a different DNS server.

      Most people in the kind of position where they'd be able to implement a DNS block know that the only way to enforce it would be to block DNS traffic at the routers... or to silently redirect DNS traffic to the ISP's DNS server, something that's ridiculously easy to do with most routers/gateways/firewalls.
      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    7. Re:This is exactly... by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. Of course Tele2 wish to keep their subscribing pirates.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    8. Re:This is exactly... by andersa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lets get this straight, shall we?

      There was no new legislation introduced. IFPI complained to the special court called "Fogedretten" which only handles property disputes. A judge from Fogedretten made a ruling based purely on his interpretation of existing Danish IP law and ordered Tele2 to block the site. Also please remember that continental European law differs significantly from what you may be used to in US. We do not use common law. A ruling by Fogedretten does not set precedent, like a ruling in an American court would.

      Tele2 announced today that they are challenging the ruling in the city court, which means this will turn into a real court case. They are backed by a common interest board of other Danish ISPs.

    9. Re:This is exactly... by Ahruman · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering: did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy?
      Given that the relevant legislation - Danish law, and the EU Infosoc directive - clearly state that ISPs do not commit copyright infringement by routing traffic, I think the legislators probably did consult tech persons. Given that the court ruling explicitly mentions that traffic to and from The Pirate Bay is itself not copyright infringement, the court probably did too, but didn't pay enough attention.
  3. OpenDNS by kextyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why is anyone still using the DNS info provided by their ISP? I have been happy with OpenDNS for quite a while now. A lot of people may not think about what DNS server they're using untill something like this happens. My old ISP (Cox) is what made me use OpenDNS. They started blocking access to some certain questionable sites (relating to cracking programs.) They had good reason to though because the site was full of popups which always make my anti-virus go crazy. But since I use Opera I didn't see any of them unless I wanted to.

    1. Re:OpenDNS by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are asking the wrong question.

      The right question is: Why an ISP claiming to censor and filter is not transparently proxying DNS?

      It is the easiest protocol to abuse. A single line NAT entry can do the trick. 99.9% of access equipment out there is capable of doing that. Just add it to the default user profile along with the mandatory web proxy/cache and other similar lines.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:OpenDNS by Simon+(S2) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is anyone still using the DNS info provided by their ISP? I have been happy with OpenDNS for quite a while now.

      I don't use (only) OpenDNS because I don't like being tracked and their search page that pops up when you type a wrong address. I run my own caching name server (dnsmasq) that draws from a pool of DNS servers (OpenDNS too) and I get rid of their stupid search page with

      bogus-nxdomain=208.69.32.131
      bogus-nxdomain=208.69.32.130
      This is much faster than using a name server that is not in your intranet and has the advantage that I can give names to all machines in my lan (laptop, xbox, mediacenter, mobile phone...), and if one nameserver goes down or blocks something, there are others in my pool.
      --
      I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
    3. Re:OpenDNS by urbanriot · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because some of us don't trust OpenDNS's DNS filtering to think for us, and prefer to have unmoderated DNS results. Not to mention, my ISP's DNS resolving is considerably faster than OpenDNS's.

      Why is anyone still using the DNS info provided by their ISP? I have been happy with OpenDNS for quite a while now.
    4. Re:OpenDNS by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      is not transparently proxying DNS?

      That would be very easy to do but it would also be very easy to get around.

      I grew tired of Roadrunner's DNS re-direction for failed domains and started running my own DNS server. I configured it use the DNS server at work as a forwarder. It would be a small matter to go one more step and configure an encrypted VPN between my house and the office if my ISP started intercepting my DNS queries and redirecting them to their server.

      How long before OpenDNS or equivalent services offer a VPN'ed/encrypted method of getting to their DNS servers? Then all your ISP is going to see is a bunch of connections to IP addresses with no underlying DNS queries.

      Trying to block anything using DNS is a complete waste of time unless you intend to whitelist all of your customers traffic and deny anything not in the "approved" list.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because the techies working for the ISP know blocking the pirate bay is stupid and evil pandering to the pro-copyright infofascists, so they did absolute the minimum necessary to satisfy the letter of the order. Work-to-rule is a popular form of protest in europe - "Okay then, I'll do EXACTLY what you asked, to the letter."

    6. Re:OpenDNS by idiot900 · · Score: 1

      Here's my theory: the techs there aren't against TPB and they know they can do a crappy job of blocking but still look like they were following orders. Everyone wins (except those who can't figure out how to use OpenDNS).

    7. Re:OpenDNS by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Because they have no desire to comply except to avoid legal liability? They know, as does everyone else, that legal or illegal TPB is part of what gives a broadband connection value. They were instructed by the court to block TPBs DNS entry, and they did. They took more than enough bad press for complying with a court order (like they had a choice), why should they do anything that really could be construed to run the IFPIs errands? As long as they don't get on the wrong side of the law, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by being on their customers' side.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:OpenDNS by mrbcs · · Score: 2, Funny
      Thanks for the tip! Open dns works perfectly.

      Now do you know how to get around a damn ISP port 25 block when my domain email host won't offer a different port?

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    9. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that too is the wrong question.

      Secure alternatives to the existing DNS system are weeks away at most, worst possible case is a browser extension to query over HTTPS. ISP tele2 see how stupid this 'block' is and are appealing it, why then would they unnecessarily interfere with customers DNS traffic by proxying it?

    10. Re:OpenDNS by harry666t · · Score: 1

      > unless you intend to whitelist all of
      > your customers traffic and deny anything
      > not in the "approved" list.

      Wanna bet it'll be the next step?

    11. Re:OpenDNS by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How long before OpenDNS or equivalent services offer a VPN'ed/encrypted method of getting to their DNS servers? Then all your ISP is going to see is a bunch of connections to IP addresses with no underlying DNS queries.

      Interesting question. Here's another one, following the path you suggested:

      How long before RIAA/MPAA attempts to have said OpenDNS encrypted DNS query service shut down, on the grounds that it facilitates piracy?
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    12. Re:OpenDNS by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How long before RIAA/MPAA attempts to have said OpenDNS encrypted DNS query service shut down, on the grounds that it facilitates piracy?

      Well, I could come back with arguments like "It wouldn't stop piracy, you can do this yourself without OpenDNS", "they'd have no legal basis for that", but such realistic assessments of the situation have never stopped them before.

      I guess the best we could hope for is that enough people would become angry enough to donate money to a legal defense fund for OpenDNS. In any case, as long as they are the ones responding to us and not the other way around it's only a matter of time before we win.

      Nothing worth doing or fighting for is ever easy.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:OpenDNS by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Wanna bet it'll be the next step?

      I find it highly unlikely.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:OpenDNS by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I run my own caching name server (dnsmasq) that draws from a pool of DNS servers (OpenDNS too)

      Why not just use the root servers and run a fully recursive nameserver of your own instead of relying on a list of forwarders that may or may not have an agenda?

      The only reason my nameserver (BIND) at home isn't fully recursive is because I have full control over a fully recursive server (at the office) that I can use as a forwarder. If I didn't have that then my server at home would be doing all the legwork for me.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    15. Re:OpenDNS by kextyn · · Score: 1

      I didn't say everyone should use OpenDNS. I just asked why anyone would still be using the DNS from their ISP. If you have a better solution that's great. For myself I don't need anything beyond OpenDNS. I know it works and I don't have to have my own DNS server running. If you have any good alternatives to OpenDNS which you do trust, please share.

    16. Re:OpenDNS by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      If its as simple as incoming port 25 open, outgoing port 25 blocked: NOIP has a service... outbound SMTP reflector. I think its $19/year, and has limit of 100 outgoing messages. Set your mailserver to send to them on a different port, then they reflect that out on port 25 of their own.

    17. Re:OpenDNS by arivanov · · Score: 1

      It is already the next step with the minor difference that approved is QoS-ed into specific class while non-approved goes into the junk category to fight for its 64K with P2P and other bottom feeders. Quite a few ISPs are doing that. A jolly good use for Ellacoya, PCube and other DPI gear.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    18. Re:OpenDNS by davidu · · Score: 1

      Maybe he likes our domain filtering and other features... ?

      He would be better of just emailing us and working with support to get NXDomain responses handed back directly.

      -davidu

      --

      # Hack the planet, it's important.
    19. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'the pro copyright infofascists'

      Jesus get a fucking clue. People who work hard to create stuff and want to be paid for their work aren't 'fascists', and frankly its juvenile drivel like that that makes anyone who produces content that can be encoded digitally these days, seriously consider just getting a new career.
      I'm an entertainment software developer, but am seriously considering changing careers to get a job in marketing. there is literally zero future in making entertainment software any more if dickheads like you have your way.

    20. Re:OpenDNS by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Easy for you, maybe. Easy for the average user? Hell no.

      Changing the DNS numbers in your TCP/IP stack is really easy to do. Just open the settings, and poof, it's there. Setting up a VPN to a corporate network requires: a job which allows you to VPN into the network, that your corporate network has a DNS server on a different ISP, a fair degree of knowhow to set up the VPN on your system, and an ISP that doesn't deprioritize encrypted traffic. It's something that's a lot more technical to do, and has a lot more ifs involved.

      Setting it up to transparently proxy the DNS is something that's ridiculously easy to do. More than that, it'd probably cut out more than 90% of the pirate traffic. Sure, it's not 100%. Blocking out 100% is nearly impossible with the way the 'net is designed. But 90% is better than zero.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    21. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, and here I thought the entertainment software industry was somewhere in the multi-billion dollar a year area. Surely, a sign the entire industry is on it's last legs as you predict in your silly doomsday forecast. Oh noes, teh skies are falling!!!11!!!1!

      Take in the fact that small independent software developers are actually flourishing more then ever using things like digital distribution, removing bullshit DRM, and, brace yourself, making quality products.

      Here's a tip for anyone in the *insert industry with digital product* that wants to bitch about piracy ruining sales, MAKE SHIT PEOPLE WANT TO BUY!!! We, the paying customers, are done subsidizing your shitty games/movies/music with a 1000% sticker price to cover the 7 out of 10 that are utter failures.

      Great bands are still doing just fine and the successful few that are breaking from the corporate fascists the parent was referring to are doing extremely well and opening new avenues of revenue through *gasp* innovation, not censorship and stifling draconian laws that try to paint everyone a criminal.

      Based on your narrow, fearful view of the world, perhaps marketing is more your thing. It sounds like technology is leaving you behind and you can't cope. I'm sure they could use a few more guys to "think outside the box" in the fast paced world of shoving ads down people's throats.

    22. Re:OpenDNS by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Setting it up to transparently proxy the DNS is something that's ridiculously easy to do. More than that, it'd probably cut out more than 90% of the pirate traffic. Sure, it's not 100%. Blocking out 100% is nearly impossible with the way the 'net is designed. But 90% is better than zero.

      The only problem with your theory is that it's not going to take very much time at all for a solution to be worked out. You spent a whole paragraph criticizing my solution for being "hard" to implement, yet completely missed the part where I suggested that it was only a matter of time before OpenDNS & friends come up with an encrypted solution of their own.

      and an ISP that doesn't deprioritize encrypted traffic

      Even if your ISP does "deprioritize" encrypted traffic, that's not going to make that much of a dent to a encrypted DNS solution. DNS queries don't exactly suck up huge amounts of bandwidth. Unless they decided to start blocking encrypted traffic altogether I really fail to see how they could prevent such a solution from being effective. And how would you "deprioritize" it anyway without harming your VPN users?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ISP Blocks port 25 as well as others, but fortunately for me my domain email supports SSL for POP3 and SMTP. Check with your Domain Host to see what alternatives they support.

    24. Re:OpenDNS by dissy · · Score: 1

      I don't use (only) OpenDNS because I don't like being tracked and their search page that pops up when you type a wrong address. You can create an account with them, login, list your IP blocks so it knows what queries your settings apply to, then you can disable the search page, and even set it so a nonexistant domain returns NXDOMAIN like it should.

      There are many other settings too, you can pretty much enable/disable any of their dns add-ons, to leave only the ones you actually want.

      If you are concerned about tracking, you will need to keep your current cache server setup, but I'm willing to bet the setting in the opendns dashboard would be alot easier to use than however you are filtering out their search page replies :}

    25. Re:OpenDNS by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That works great. Found out it's 150 messages a day. I do like 150 a month but $19 is a pretty cheap solution.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    26. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, he just said: his ISP. Mine works fine as well; it's updated at a normal pace, they haven't censored anything, and it's quite a bit faster than OpenDNS. That with DNS caching on my router seems ideal.

    27. Re:OpenDNS by davidu · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't use (only) OpenDNS because I don't like being tracked... We don't track you. The stats and charts are for your network only and we only log that if you tell us to. Additionally, we provide a clear "don't log my queries" option along with a "purge all historical data" button in the interface to make everything crystal clear.
      It doesn't get much more transparent -- or easier -- than that. Users without an account do not have their DNS requests logged, obviously.
      We're running a service used by hundreds of thousands of IT professionals and millions of users around the world -- we can't even keep stats fast enough as it is for the users who want them, let alone deal with everyone else.
      -david (CEO and occasional janitor over at OpenDNS)
      --

      # Hack the planet, it's important.
    28. Re:OpenDNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... 2 Figure UID?

      *Collapses*

    29. Re:OpenDNS by nametaken · · Score: 1

      You know, I think the silent winner here is OpenDNS. I've been using their service at our company for about a year now, and never a glitch. I've also seen very few references to them... to a point where I've felt compelled to evangelize for them a bit. Now their name is everywhere, in a good, geeky way. :)

    30. Re:OpenDNS by davidu · · Score: 2

      The geeks have heard of us, and use us. The rest of the world hasnt'. And still a lot of the techies don't know that they can create an account and manage all the settings and features they want (or don't want).

      -david

      --

      # Hack the planet, it's important.
  4. Miss Streisand by techpawn · · Score: 2

    We're seeing your effect and we're kind of glad. It's like the shinny red button that says "DO NOT PRESS!" people want to press it more now, than ever.

    Also, bittorrent is the only thing I know to get better with the Streisand and Slashdot effects...

    --
    Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
    1. Re:Miss Streisand by kb0hae · · Score: 1

      Yep. Kinda like in the BBS days, a friend and I were co-sysops on a local BBS. Just for fun, we put a "Sysop Access" option in the main menu of the BBS. All that this option did was give the user a warning message, we just did it to see how many users would select that option. Very few users didn't try it at least once!

      In a marginally related story, we later on set up a program on the BBS called AIchat. This was an AI program that took the place of the sysop when the user wanted to chat. The program's responses could be edited. We set this up because of one very annoying teenager that wanted to chat whenever he logged in, reguardless of the time or any other factor. If anyone ever caught on that it was'nt a real person they were chatting with, they never said anything.

  5. You Know. by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

    I hate it when non tech people underestimate us... hokay, time to teach them a lesson... oh wait, Piratebay is already doing that...

  6. More of the story.. by rdradar · · Score: 1

    http://www.torrentcentral.net/news/The%2BPirate%2BBay%2Band%2BFilesharers%2BBacked%2Bby%2BSwedish%2BPoliticians But I guess isp played some part on this, enabling such an easy way around it :) Even banning their ip's would have had more effect.

    1. Re:More of the story.. by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Even banning their ip's would have had more effect.

      And that's probably the next thing the Swedish courts are going to order the Swedish ISPs to do.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  7. On a sumewhat related note- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    publicity over the shutdown of something called demonoid led me to discover the wonders of .cbr files

    1. Re:On a sumewhat related note- by gallwapa · · Score: 1

      comic book archives?

    2. Re:On a sumewhat related note- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Manga, I'd guess. Possibly hentai (comics aren't just for kids thanks to the Japanese).

  8. a question by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    non-english speaking cultural output is a lot smaller than english language output. not only because its large, but english language output tends to penetrate non-english speaking countries, not the other way around

    therefore, when say, germans abandon the financial support for german cultural output, this should have a more devastating effect on financing german cultural output than when english language fans pirate music or movies

    and since piracy is hugely prevalent in europe, i wonder what the epxerience has been for danish movie, czech music, etc.

    incidentally, i think that the financial support for all culture via traditional means SHOULD collapse. it isn't viable anymore with the internet. new channels of financial support will emerge (concerts, advertising, etc.), but i think they will be permanently reduced funds. not that this is a big problem:

    1. no more need for a middle man who presses lps and cds and tapes
    2. the cost of production, sutdios, cameras, etc.: shrinking dramatically every day in the digital era. to make an album nowadays, all you need is a laptop
    3. people are motivated to do art for the sake of art. if you were guaranteed to make $0 from making a song or a movie, people would still make songs and movies. it's called love of art, not love of money. money is an artificial injection into the creation of art

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:a question by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      incidentally, i think that the financial support for all culture via traditional means SHOULD collapse.

      Indeed, creative works should be a drain on society. Manual labor during the day and creative works during the night. Assuming you're not too tired to do anyhting.

      new channels of financial support will emerge (concerts, advertising, etc.), but i think they will be permanently reduced funds. not that this is a big problem:

      Don't know about you but I don't see films being done as concerts (as plays and films are entirely different mediums.) And of course, having reduced ability to do something is always good. Cutting back opportunity is always a benefit.

      no more need for a middle man who presses lps and cds and tapes

      Ok. So cost of duplication is gone.

      the cost of production, sutdios, cameras, etc.: shrinking dramatically every day in the digital era. to make an album nowadays, all you need is a laptop

      You love this example because it lets you convince yourself that all you need to do anything is a laptop, and you let yourself ignore ALL of the other costs that go into the production of an album. Never mind that human creativity reaches beyond music albums (and you need more than a laptop if you want to make something that sounds good. I hear microphones are pretty expensive still.)

      people are motivated to do art for the sake of art.

      Of course they are, but they need to eat too.

      if you were guaranteed to make $0 from making a song or a movie, people would still make songs and movies.

      They would, but you'd see a lot fewer people making it. Go ahead and tell yourself that ALL the bad things would go away and all that would remain would be good things.

      it's called love of art, not love of money. money is an artificial injection into the creation of art

      In a world driven by money and commerce, the injection of money into artistic works is NOT artifical. It's the natural product of the way the world works.

      I'd rather have enforced copyright of reasonable length than be reduced to crap packed to the gills with advertising, or more American Idol type trash. Which is largely what you'd get if what you want were to happen.
    2. Re:a question by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Indeed, creative works should be a drain on society. Manual labor during the day and creative works during the night. Assuming you're not too tired to do anyhting."

      got it. because creative output depends upon enforcing a corrupt and failed economic model. it always has. the creative class as a mafia of extortion is the only way it can ever get funds. pffffffft. moron: you confused me attacking the current failed economic model of cultural creation, for attacking the very idea of supprting cultural creation. which is an absurd mistake to make, but you made it

      "Don't know about you but I don't see films being done as concerts (as plays and films are entirely different mediums.) And of course, having reduced ability to do something is always good. Cutting back opportunity is always a benefit."

      yes, because in my brief comment, i outlined everythign possible. i didn't mention movie houses, but apparently you can't imagine that that controlled venue functions the same ways a concert does in terms of guaranteed financial support. oh, and about that cutting back of opportunity: the mpaa fought the vhs aftermarket tooth and nail because they thought it would destroy movie houses. now, they fight tooth and nail to preserve the dvd aftermarket. gee, they were wrong before. could it be they are wrong again, or that you are wrong? i mean, we all know that once people got television for FREE, supported by ADVERTISING, what I AM SUGGESTING, in the 1950s, that the movie industry was totally destroyed, right? fucking moron

      "Ok. So cost of duplication is gone."

      gee, i dunno. i just dragged this file into this folder and turned on emule. oh shit, that cost of duplication was $175,000. (snicker)

      "You love this example because it lets you convince yourself that all you need to do anything is a laptop, and you let yourself ignore ALL of the other costs that go into the production of an album. Never mind that human creativity reaches beyond music albums (and you need more than a laptop if you want to make something that sounds good. I hear microphones are pretty expensive still.)"

      uh... what? this is slashdot my friend. the people here tend to have a pretty good feel about how progress in technolgy changes things, leverages your effort in amazing ways, reduces the cost of doing things by orders of magnitude. sell your luddite static unchanging understanding of the world elsewhere dude. no one's going to buy it here. oh! but a good microphone is hard for middle class teenager to afford, so there! after all, advances in music, like the scratch turntable, the 808 drum machine, etc.: these addvances were all made by fabulously wealthy patrons of the art, not by poor starving teenagers who loved music. you obviously need a LOT of money to make good music, right? teehee

      "Of course they are, but they need to eat too."

      exactly what do you think that means? that you have a right to eat because you want to make a song? i want to make a song, so give me a steak. no, moron, this is how it works, and has always worked, and always will work: you have a passion in something, you invest your own time and energy in it, and you prove yourself by other people liking it, and THEN someone MAY reward you for your effort. just because you have a song in your head doesn't mean God Himself comes down from the heavens and gives you $. you speak from a position of false entitlement. must be some sort of upper middle class turd who never had to work a day in his life

      in fact, if you love your art enough, you in fact may starve in order to make it. but you do not fucking go "oh, there's a jingle in my head and i want to commit it to audio tape so you owe me $." are you trying to make yourself look like a total moron on purpose?

      "They would, but you'd see a lot fewer people making it. Go ahead and tell yourself that ALL the bad things would go away and all that would remain would be good things."

      in fact, the digital HD revolution has results in scads of really awful movies. but:
      1.

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:a question by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Don't know about you but I don't see films being done as concerts (as plays and films are entirely different mediums.) And of course, having reduced ability to do something is always good. Cutting back opportunity is always a benefit.

      Now if only there was some sort of building where they could display films at. What they could do is charge a fee in exchange for permission to enter. This would allow them to make money off their effort without restricting my freedom of speech.

    4. Re:a question by Microlith · · Score: 1

      This would allow them to make money off their effort without restricting my freedom of speech.

      They already got in trouble once for owning the theaters, which they would have to do or the same thing that lets you exercise your "freedom of speech" would allow theater owners to trade copies of the film for zero cost.

      And copyright doesn't infringe upon YOUR freedom of speech. You're still free to say what you want. This just raises the bar temporarily and forces you to create something instead of just reiterating something someone else "said."
    5. Re:a question by kocsonya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > In a world driven by money and commerce, the injection of money into artistic works is
      > NOT artifical. It's the natural product of the way the world works.
      >
      > I'd rather have enforced copyright of reasonable length than be reduced to crap
      > packed to the gills with advertising, or more American Idol type trash. Which is
      > largely what you'd get if what you want were to happen.

      Um, American Idol and adware ridden rubbish *is* the result of money driven "art". If you could not make money out of American Idol, it would not be on show.

      Also, don't forget that the whole film industry is using the copyright the same way they fight so vehemently. You make a play on stage, pay the actors, the theatre, all the other artists (painters, designers, whatever) and people come and pay to see it. Now here comes Hollywood: Make the same play, but store it on a medium that is very easy to copy (i.e. film). Then you can cash in from that single performance many, many times because the copying costs are very low. Since you have eneromous profits, you can afford to build your custom theatre, pay obscene salaries to your actors and so on. What's more, you have enough money to get the entire lawmaking and enforcing on your budget to guarantee that you and only you can copy the material, thus quaranteeing the profit level. Naturally, you go for the lowest common denominator, that being the largest market, that is, you generate crap. There's nothing about "art" anywhere near the whole thing. (As a side issue, if you manage to push the general level of expectation aka dumb people down as much as possible, they became a better target for advertisements, increasing your revenue and they will become more controllable, to the pleasure of your governmental pals).

      Hollywood and music studios now face the problem that copying became not just extremely cheap and available for everyone, but it is pretty technically feasible for a layman to create perfect copies, you need neither equipment (apart from that is already available in the household) nor sophistication to download MP3-s or MPEG4-s from the 'Web.

      Nevertheless, art is what you get when the motivation is *not* money. American Idol, the soap operas, the run-of-the-mill bands, Rocky-XXXVIII and alike is what you get if the motivation *is* money - if it didn't make money it simply would not be made/aired.

    6. Re:a question by aeoo · · Score: 1

      In a world driven by money and commerce, the injection of money into artistic works is NOT artifical. It's the natural product of the way the world works.


      You don't understand the word "artifical" correctly in this case. Artificial here does not mean unnatural, but it means having a pretentious reason. So for example, if I don't care about sculpture, but I have heard that you can make lots of money making sculptures, and I train myself to be a mediocre sculptor and thus make lots of money, my reason for sculpting is artificial in a sense that normally people expert and consider love of the art to be inherent in the art, and yet when they view my sculptures they are seeing greed and artifice but not love. So I am pretending to love sculpting (by my actions, if not by words), but at heart I don't love it at all, but I just love money. This is the artifice that we talk about.

      Unfortunately at this time this kind of pretense is so common that it is natural without being something other than pretense. So it is natural and artificial at the same time and there is no contradiction because the words "natural" and "artifical" are used in two different senses here. By "natural" I mean "not violating the laws of nature" and by "artificial" I mean pretentious and/or disingenuous.
    7. Re:a question by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have enforced copyright of reasonable length ...
      You lose the argument right there. There is no efficient way to enforce copyright. When copyright infringement is commercial, you can go after the money. But for casual trade between people (wherein P2P also falls), the only way you can enforce the law is by installing a Big Brother style framework to watch everyone, all the time. Kinda like the Secure Hardware Environment in Vinge's "Rainbows End" - but that, of course, is effectively a tool of a totalitarian state...

      If the choice is between that, and having some (not all) of the good works disappear along with the profit-driven art, I think it should be obvious.

  9. Truth, ignorance, and condoms. by erick99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is absolutely true but most folks in government (worldwide) don't seem to get that. It's as if the people who typically go after Internet issues haven't spent much time using it outside of checking the weather and ordering condoms (size extra small) from Amazon.

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Truth, ignorance, and condoms. by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Condoms from Amazon? Are they like, really really BIG condoms for warrior women?

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:Truth, ignorance, and condoms. by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      Condoms from Amazon? Are they like, really really BIG condoms for warrior women? no, the are from the amazon, made of leapordskin and torched rainforest
  10. Anakata on TV by rdradar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anakata from The Pirate Bay also talked on tv about commenting their a few years ago bust and working style of anti-piracy companies.

    1. Re:Anakata on TV by grimJester · · Score: 1

      The clip finishes up showing Swedish musician, Pernilla Andersson (apparently Sweden's answer to Vanessa Paradis), who is by the reporters account, suffering at the hands of The Pirate Bay. I personally couldn't find any of her work indexed on the site.

      I thought this was a bit funny. I checked and couldn't find anything either. Maybe her record company paid for product placement ;)

  11. Streisand effect by Phyrexicaid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, does no one advise upper management that trying to block something on the internet just draws *more* attention to it? Happens over and over.

    --
    The meme is dead, long live the meme!
    1. Re:Streisand effect by corsec67 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Isn't that just a manifestation of "no publicity is bad publicity"?

      Of course, the "Steisand effect" is very specific: an attempt to block information spreads it instead.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:Streisand effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the idea of filtering, but if we didn't block youtube, myspace, etc at work then it would be anarchy!

    3. Re:Streisand effect by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Seriously, does no one advise upper management that trying to block something on the internet just draws *more* attention to it? Happens over and over.

      Wouldn't do much good if you did. The court ordered it, so it must be done.

      Any halfway-competent ISP could null-route the appropriate IP address(es) easily enough. If feeling really clever, they could even whip up a script which would automatically do an nslookup of www.thepiratebay.com and null route based on the results of that - meaning that the pirate bay switching ISPs would achieve absolutely nothing.

      Combine this with a transparent HTTP and DNS proxy doing something similar, and it'd be very hard for the great majority of users to get to the pirate bay.

      But they're a business. They're in it to make money, not lose customers. Makes far more sense to implement just enough so that if they find themselves back in court, they can explain that they have done all that they reasonably can, but the Internet is explicitly designed to deal with things being made inaccessible and this aspect can't be changed.

    4. Re:Streisand effect by Heddahenrik · · Score: 1

      It's not that easy! Any attempt to block the web-page http://thepiratebay.org/ will make users use a web-proxy. And there are thousands on web-proxies out there so they are impossible for any ISP to block unless they block everything that isn't accepted.

      It's the trackers' IPs that can be blocked, but ThePirateBay can easily change these IPs. I'm not totally sure about the details of this though. I guess people have to download updated torrents.

      In the end the outcome of this battle will be who of the ISP and ThePirateBay with friends have the most time to spend on filter or help users get around filters. I'm pretty sure that the pirates will win that. The ISPs could of course monitor their users instead and put them in jail. But not even in Denmark would that be politically possible.

    5. Re:Streisand effect by Frostalicious · · Score: 1

      Well if you were the tech, and instructed to do something that promotes the Pirate Bay and the free spread of information, would you complain?

    6. Re:Streisand effect by vldmr_krn · · Score: 1

      Seriously, does no one advise upper management that trying to block something on the internet just draws *more* attention to it? Happens over and over.

      And what do you know about all the times when the censorship was successful?

      The Internet is not a benevolent spirit who will liberate you from the necessity of vigilantly protecting your rights.

    7. Re:Streisand effect by jimicus · · Score: 1

      We could spend all day here coming up with measures and counter-measures.

      I would point out that an invisible proxy will still be used regardless of what proxy the customer themselves uses - but then the customer could use a proxy over a secure channel such as HTTPS.

      I have known ISPs bar HTTPS web proxies (generally when they're providing a filtered service to organisations like schools) - but then you're in a constant arms race to list every secure proxy out there.

      Assuming the RIAA (or whatever the Danish equivalent is) decides to push the issue further, sooner or later the ISP is going to have to stand up in court and say "Look, we've done all we can, we're haemorraging customers and it is plain impossible to make a block any more effective. If you order us to do so, the only way we can comply with such an order is to shut down. And if you do that, then it follows you'll have to do the same for every other ISP in Denmark."

  12. In Other News... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    In other news, RIAA and MPAA lawsuits have still not stopped illegal downloading. Stayed tuned for more from the Blatantly Obvious News Network!

    1. Re:In Other News... by techpawn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stayed tuned for more from the Blatantly Obvious News Network!
      Wait... B.O.N.N? Are you saying something about the hygiene of your average slashdotter too?
      --
      Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
  13. Just maybe by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Those crafty TeleDK network admins were incompetent "accidentally on purpose" so people wouldn't find it too difficult to get round the block....

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Just maybe by Spand · · Score: 2, Informative

      No they were not. They did as instructed by the court. It was during the allofmp3 case that they started using this kind of blocking. The court was presented with four (as far as I can remember) options on how to block a site, one of which was IP blocking. The court then found the DNS method sufficient despite it being possible to circumvent it. Also, I suspect the court thought of it as a "proven" technology, as an identical system was already in place to block child pornography sites.

      and yes.. I live in Denmark.

  14. Information Technology Board by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe IT needs an "IT Board" the way doctors have a "Medical Board". Instead of letting brain-dead politicians make decisions about things they do not (and probably can never) understand, we need to do intelligent self-governance.

    Think about it. Is being subject to the cyberspace rules of politicians who know nothing about IT any different than being subject to the meatspace rules of politicians from some island half-way around the other side of the Earth?

    Maybe it's time for another revolution?

  15. Appropriate quote at the bottom of the page by kryten_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

    A furore Normanorum libera nos, O Domine! [From the fury of the norsemen deliver us, O Lord!] -- Medieval prayer

    I always thought those were random :)

    --
    For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
  16. HuH ? by RockedMan40 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I certainly must have missed something. They are only doing a DNS level "block" of Pirate Bay? No shutting down of specific IP addresses that go to servers or at least some attempt at firewall (ie, Great Wall of China variant) filtering ?!?!?

    I really hope some other ./'ers can say they are doing something different - or I am going to spend alot of time chuckling over the brandy tonight....

    1. Re:HuH ? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Informative

      I certainly must have missed something. They are only doing a DNS level "block" of Pirate Bay? No shutting down of specific IP addresses that go to servers or at least some attempt at firewall (ie, Great Wall of China variant) filtering ?!?!?

      You are missing something. The ISP was ordered to block Pirate Bay, and is sueing so that they no longer will have to do so. Therefore, I have no doubt the effort to block it was knowingly prefunctory.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:HuH ? by RockedMan40 · · Score: 1

      Okay - sensible.

      Court says ISP must block Pirate Bay, and since only an idiot would do a 'friend of the court' testimony on how to make thier own ISP-lives miserable - they agreed to a inane proposal by someone who IS NOT tech savvy (obviously) in the least.

  17. Eh, wha? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative
    You must be an american. The number of movies produced in the rest of the world is GREATER then the number of movies produced in the US, or even if you start calling every country that has english as a main language being clubbed together (wonder how the french part of canada feels about it).

    This is only logical, while english is a very common language and a great many people speak it as their second, third language, it is not the most common language.

    In europe, most tv-stations, even the commercial ones are man-dated by law to provide a certain amount of "native" broadcasting. That is why the station RTL4 which was clearly aimed at dutch audience spend money on a luxemburg program block in the early hours to satisfy the law (they were based there using a loophole).

    Childerens tv in holland has had a strong EU only feel to it in my youth, simply because US programs did not meet EU regs against advertising to childeren.

    As for how it is affected, it is not even clear yet how copyright infringement affects hollywood, how it affects local cinema in the rest of the world is anyones guess. We certainly are not going to get the truth about it from the media, they after all have a rather direct intrest in the matter.

    So far however it seems to matter little, Remember non-hollywood movies tend not to pay quit as much to their stars. This matters a lot, to pay those idiotic salaries a Tom Hanks gets you need to make massive profits. Pay them a more modest wage and you have a lot more room.

    Also what you claim about english content being more easily accepted in the rest of the world helps. I can far more easily find a seeded torrent of a US show then say a belgium program even if said program in the country itself is more popular.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Eh, wha? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the advantage English has is that we, for the most part, don't care how badly you mangle it.

      If you want to speak with an accent, go for it.

      Messy writing? Spelling mistakes? No problem.

      Confuse you're apostrophe's? Irritating, but still readable. (It took me about a minute to write that first sentence.)

      26 characters and you're good to go. You can express any damn sentiment you want.

      Compare that to, say, Cantonese, where you have to worry about intonation, angles, way more characters, &etc. Even french speakers get upset when you put the emphasis on the wrong syllables. But English, man, any semi-coherent motherfucker with a keyboard, pencil, pen, paper, dirt path, or whatever can be understood by any motherfucker unfortunate enough to read the gibberish.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Eh, wha? by skroops · · Score: 1, Troll

      Although you are correct about English not being the most commonly spoken language (second to Chinese), it is definitely the most spoken language on the internet, which is probably the more relevant point of discussion [http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm]. Also comparing the US against the rest of the world is a ridiculous. The iMDB lists 241697 English movies, certainly a pervasive amount of cultural content. (The iMDB lists an obviously low count of ~4000 Mandarin movies) Anti-americanism has it's place, but not belligerence.

    3. Re:Eh, wha? by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      But English, man, any semi-coherent motherfucker with a keyboard, pencil, pen, paper, dirt path, or whatever can be understood by any motherfucker unfortunate enough to read the gibberish.

      Hey, you're right! I understood you perfectly!

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    4. Re:Eh, wha? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      ... are man-dated by law...

      Remind me never to get a TV job in Europe. Especially if you gotta date guys.

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:Eh, wha? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well after living abroad for a number of years, I find that most foreign films are absolute crap. Hey, I'm not defending Hollywood here, which produces tons of crap every year. But jeez, Hollywood crap really is better, on average.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  18. URL by monschein · · Score: 1

    http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ .... oh jeez, they've figured out a way to get around our bullet-proof DNS filtering scheme guys!

  19. That was a rhetorical question, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy?

    Of course they did, because married tech guys are just too hard to find.

    1. Re:That was a rhetorical question, right? by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why, I have a wife at my house. She's not mine of course but she's there... if you follow that link you will see the phrase "unfuckable nerd" more than once.

      Don't bother with the link, it isn't worth it. Really. Nothing there but whores, alcoholics, an alien and and a needle junkie. Nothing you're not dealing with every day, ya know?

      -mcgrew

      (-1 offtopic, except for the comment it is responding to. Is your head about to asplode, mr. mod?)

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    2. Re:That was a rhetorical question, right? by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the contrary, we're easy to find, because we're not allowed to go anywhere.

    3. Re:That was a rhetorical question, right? by UdoKeir · · Score: 1

      Don't knock it. I like your writing.

  20. They know very well this doesn't work by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The tele2 tech guys I know are quite competent. It is just that it is not in their, not in their employers, interest to implement an effective filter. So they do the absolutely minimal amount of work they have to do, in order to comply with this "small claims" court order.

    1. Re:They know very well this doesn't work by Splab · · Score: 1

      Have they actually implement anything?

      They have told the IFPI to go ahead and try it in a real court with backing from TDC et. al. so I think Tele2 can in fact ignore the ruling from Fogedretten (and face charges should they lose).

    2. Re:They know very well this doesn't work by barbara_oreily · · Score: 1

      Tele2 is much bigger than a single country. They have a habit of buying up local European ISPs and re-branding them as Tele2. I installed a DSLAM Element Management System for Tele2 on Solaris (Navis Access! yeah!) in Vienna and there were some really sharp people working there. It was my first real customer install having just moved from a testing group and I'd never tunneled X11 traffic over ssh (which was all new stuff then). Their guy had to help me out, very embarrassing.

      --
      "Freedom of speech won't feed my children" - Manic Street Preachers
    3. Re:They know very well this doesn't work by monsted · · Score: 1

      It seems they've added the filter as ordered by the court, but are now coming back to jam a big boot up the backsides of APG. I hope that they get the support they need from all of the other ISPs so we can stop this nonsense.

    4. Re:They know very well this doesn't work by Ahruman · · Score: 1

      Tele2 is much bigger than a single country.
      True, but Tele2 Danmark belongs to Telenor, not Tele2. :-)
  21. Problem - Solution by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    What is one of the things you've learned as a programmer?
    There is always more than one solutions for a given problem?

    QED, I would say.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
    1. Re:Problem - Solution by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Funny

      The thing I learned was "If it compiles, ship it"

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Problem - Solution by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 1

      and me without mod points :(

      --
      This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
    3. Re:Problem - Solution by revengebomber · · Score: 1

      I knew someone on Slashdot was behind it when I got a program that consisted of:
      int main() { while(1) { malloc(1); } return 0; }

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  22. An interesting thought... by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...even if a far-fetched one. Say this trend continues...illegal downloading of music, movies, books, games, etc. There will ALWAYS be people that will buy their media, or at least some of it. What happens when the number of people stealing outnumbers those buying to the point where these corps are actually losing money? I don't just mean their sales have gone down, I mean to the point where they are in the red, no longer making any profit.

    I think what will happen is already happening. People are figuring out that hey, for only a few thousand dollars, I can BUY the equipment to make my own music or movie, and release it independently.

    Consider this. I invest $15,000 in some very respectable music equipment. I write all the songs, perform all the instruments, record it all, and master the mix. I then put up a website on a domain that costs me 10 bucks to register and only 15 bucks to host. I sell the music in multiple no-DRM formats on my website. In addition, I upload it onto various torrent sites, and include in the file a readme with a link to my website asking that people buy it. I upload a link to the site on Digg, Stumbleupon, Reddit, etc. I post the link in forums, in newsgroups. I submit my stuff to internet radio stations, post it on MySpace/Facebook...I even spend a little bit more money to get some advertising on various gaming and independent music websites. Let's assume that with all of this, my costs are now sitting right around $20,000 for total amount invested (not including time, of course.)

    Assuming that my work is good and that people like it, I have the potential to make more money than I would with a record deal. Not only that, but I would OWN the equipment that I had made the album with, which I could then either sell, or I could keep and record another album thus making more money (especially since it would be a one time investment)

    I'm not saying it would be easy, but the potential to earn far more than I invest is definitely there. By putting the album up on torrent sites and such with a link to my website, I am building an empire. I am getting free advertising. I am getting word of mouth. I am getting EXPOSURE, and it's not really costing me much of anything.

    THIS is what will eventually be the downfall of the music industry (the movie industry not so much...equipment has definitely come a long way, but it's still very expensive compared to producing an album). The music industry won't be driven out of business by people downloading their crap for free...it will be little old me with full creative and distributive control over MY creation. It will be people KNOWING they can download my album because they don't have to worry about any lawyers running after them. It will be people SUPPORTING an artist like me, because I am doing the same thing they are: looking for new musicians who are doing it all on their own.

    (Note: I am not actually doing this...I can barely play the nose whistle, much less any other instrument)

    1. Re:An interesting thought... by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Say this trend continues...illegal downloading of music, movies, books, games, etc. There will ALWAYS be people that will buy their media, or at least some of it. What happens when the number of people stealing outnumbers those buying to the point where these corps are actually losing money? I don't just mean their sales have gone down, I mean to the point where they are in the red, no longer making any profit.

      That's the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. If I steal something from you, you have to replace it somehow if you want to sell it to a paying customer. That's additional cost, and if I steal enough I can drive you into the red. If instead I copy your product, you still have the original and can sell it if you can find a buyer.

      If, say, ten thousand people buy the product and that's enough to turn a profit, it doesn't matter if ten people pirate or if ten million people pirate - it's no cost to the producer. Even if the whole remainder of the earth's population pirated, it wouldn't affect the profit-loss sheet, as long as that hard core of buyers remains.

      The remainder of your post I think is quite correct - that the middleman is going to become extinct in the future. But you seemed to imply that increasing the ratio of pirates to payers would produce losses. That's not true, as long as the absolute number of payers does not decrease. Reduce the payers to one tenth of their former number, that's a loss. Increase the pirates to ten times their former number, no difference at all.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:An interesting thought... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      While I fully agree with your entire post, perhaps I wasn't clear with the beginning of mine...I meant as people turn from payers to pirates (which I have nothing to back up or prove with...it's more of a "what if" kind of deal) That of course brings up the question "would they have bought it anyway?" That is something that only the downloader can answer...

    3. Re:An interesting thought... by Sangui · · Score: 1

      This has already started.
      On What.CD? there's quite a few independent artists who upload torrents of their own work and then it's freeleeched for everyone. A link back to their site is there, and they do get donations.

      And what a lot of people don't seem to realize, is that quite a few of the people committing internet piracy would never have bought the media in the first place, so they aren't actually losing any money.

    4. Re:An interesting thought... by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Exactly. There are certain bands who no matter what I will always buy their albums (Tool, Aphex Twin, etc.). Also, any internet radio stations that I listen to on a regular basis (destroyer.net, jungletrain.net, bluemars.org) I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS donate to them. Same goes for independent artists exactly like who you described. In this way, I know that those musicians are getting 100% of the money that they have earned (minus their own costs), instead of just fattening the wallet of some music exec while he tosses a few pence at the very people who helped make him rich.

    5. Re:An interesting thought... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      You still don't get it! If people can just download it, in full fidelity ( musically ) then why would they buy it? What is the added value in buying it? None. So this guy has spent his 20,000.00 and has all the tools. He puts SOME content on a torent, he seeds Facebook, YouTube or what have you to give people a taste. If you buy it from his site, unencumbered by ANY sort of rights management and then YOU post it on say, PirateBay or any of the other numerous sites and it just gets downloaded and no one buys it from HIS site anymore, then he will go broke, its a simple money in -v- money out equation. He STILL has to pay rent or a mortgage, Electricity, Water, Garbage, Taxes, clothes, shoes for kids ( if he has them ), Hosting Bill, bandwidth charges the whole deal.

      I agree that middlemen are a pain, they suck money out of the income stream that the artist is generating. Finding a middleman that wont rip you off is really hard, but they serve a purpose, they keep ( or should ) the cogs and gears of the machine that sells your content greased and running smoothly.

      That's the difference between copyright infringement and stealing. If I steal something from you, you have to replace it somehow if you want to sell it to a paying customer. That's additional cost, and if I steal enough I can drive you into the red. If instead I copy your product, you still have the original and can sell it if you can find a buyer. This should show you why you are wrong. You wrote the key phrase, "if you can find a buyer". If you can get something for free are you going to buy it? I think not. I mean what is your motivation to lay down your hard earned cash? Some notion of altruism or "I support the arts" or "Wow this music is so good and relevant to my world view, that I will just go and give money to the creator of the content?" Please, perhaps 1 person in 10000 is that way, but the vast majority of the people will simply point their browser, click save-as and on to their iPod, Mp3 Player, phone or what have you it goes, and not even a note of thanks, much less money.
      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    6. Re:An interesting thought... by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then we run into the situation where the average person's greed and selfishness will have eclipsed that of the large companies. So selfish they'll take and enjoy all they want without supporting the creators. You may think that by initially undermining the large RIAA affiliated corps it's a good thing but the audience pandered to by TPB is generally a sign of a growing audience: warez fiends who feel entitled to everything for free.

      A few thousand dollars (even 20k) is a non-trivial investment for most people. It gets even harder because at the value you quote you're only considering equipment and initial costs. If you start selling and transferring files, that $15/mo host will probably cut you off quickly and you'll have to move to something more expensive. I imagine that you'd be pushing to have your download income outpace your bandwidth bills, never mind costs for the rest of your equipment.

      And as you said, you didn't include your time. Or your residence, food, or anything else you need to live. So you'll probably have to be working a job and doing this in your free time, which carries its own set of pitfalls.

      I'd wager that the cost of running a business like this (since that's what you're doing) would not be high, but your income would probably not be much higher. I would be less surprised to see them operate at a consistent loss, since you aren't really selling anything. Giving your product away and hoping for handouts is a sure fire way to lose money on something.

      And that only considers costs based around the production of an album of music. Never mind other, more expensive media (animation, video games) that don't have any real-life counterparts.

    7. Re:An interesting thought... by Dupont · · Score: 1

      Right on! Only problem is the music industry is powerful and they're in a cul-de-sac here. And they know it. I bet a lot of blood will be shed before this war is over.

      One of the artists on the frontline is definitely Benn Jordan a.k.a. The Flashbulb (which I bet you're familiar with since you like Aphex Twin, Pojut). The statement that came with his newly released album was just amazing. So was the music!
      Checkit: http://www.p2p-blog.com/item-479.html

    8. Re:An interesting thought... by Slovenian6474 · · Score: 1

      I like this business model. The biggest appeal to downloading pirated music for me is that I know none of my money is going to support the RIAA and their actions. I have recently downloaded a few artists stuff on what.cd, liked their music, and made a donation. I like knowing that all my money is going to support the music I like rather than supporting business practices I don't agree with.

    9. Re:An interesting thought... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      So what? the "artist" should have another job (or find some guy with money who likes his stuff to fund him just for the hell of it) if he cant make enough money by selling his art, for whatever reason. Really think back at musicians, authors, anything in the last century and name any who's art really improved that much after their first work (presumably written when it was not a source of income). You're a musician? get a job writing jingles or at a studio or something like that. A writer? Work as a journalist or at a publishing house. Or just work and have the art be you hobby, it can be fulfilling in and of itself trust me.

      Note: I am an Amateur Musician

    10. Re:An interesting thought... by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      I think your investment cost is massivily overstated, I was involved in a podcast project (we also worked with muscians) most of us found that buy buying the appropriate microphone (around £50 for me) and learning to use audacity we had a pretty powerfull audio mixer sitting infront of us. Musical instruments do tend to cost alot but everyone I know who can play an instrument usually owns one of those instruments. The cost of producing music has plummetted to a few basic criteria:

      Owning a PC with a audigy/x-fi in it
      Installing Ubunutu Studio or installing audacity
      An exprensive microphone that covers a wide spectrum The foam thing you put infront of a Microphone to diffuse sound (really makes a different for bass and vocals) The ability to make a decent webpage to advertise The ability to make a cool looking MySpace page A quiet room to store all of this and most importantly...

      The ability to play live, get a gig and build up a fanbase

      These days your average person (assuming they can song write) could probably set themselves up for less than a £1k.

    11. Re:An interesting thought... by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      You still don't get it! If people can just download it, in full fidelity ( musically ) then why would they buy it?

      I don't know why. Perhaps you should ask Baen Books? Or any of the authors who've allowed Baen to put some of their books in the Baen Free Library in vanilla unrestricted HTML format?

      It's you who don't get it: even when Baen does that, people do buy those books. And more of them buy them after they're freely available than were buying them before. And they buy them both in electronic form (the same form they could get for free) and in hardcopy. "Why?" is an interesting philosophical question, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters to an author's pocketbook is that it happens.

      For me, I buy for two reasons. One, by buying directly from the publisher I don't have to worry about the source of the material or what's happened to it along the way. I don't have to worry that someone's edited the material, or re-encoded it and messed it up, or otherwise mucked with it. And two, if I don't buy it the authors aren't going to be able to make any money and they'll stop publishing material. And then where will I be? Sacrificing long-term interests on the altar of next quarter's profits is something Dilbert's boss would do.

    12. Re:An interesting thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's additional cost, and if I steal enough I can drive you into the red. If instead I copy your product, you still have the original and can sell it if you can find a buyer.

      What is it that you fuckers don't seem to understand? You're going to put my ass in the red if I can't find any buyers, because those potential buyers already pirated a copy of the album I am trying to sell. Does a bookstore let you photocopy an entire book and let you bring it home to read it at your leisure, so you can decide whether you want to buy it? Oh, but you're all so honest, that you go back and pay for it if you like it, right?

      Keep telling yourselves just that, cuz I heard the more you repeat it, the more you believe it's true.

      Geez, everyone around here is so fucking honest . . . just who are these so-called pirates, anyway?
    13. Re:An interesting thought... by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      If you can get something for free are you going to buy it?


      Street musicians still make money.
      A "professional" musician I know claims he makes more money on the street than his does from his label.

      -- Should you believe authority without question?
    14. Re:An interesting thought... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      That is a valid point of view. I don't agree with it, but it at least proposes a workable alternative to the current system.

      However the alternative point of view is also legitimate: that copyrights should be granted on creative works, and that licences should be sellable by the rights holder. Thus creating an incentive for more, and bigger, works to be created.

      You have to admit that your method will mean then end of big-budget movies, computer games etc. - anything that requires a large investment which is traditionally recouped by selling individual licences to consumers. The arts would become the preserve of amateurs and those working under the patronage of the rich.

      The current system has worked very well prior to the internet. The problem is not that this model is evil, nor is the problem the internet. The problem is that the old model and the new technology are fundamentally incompatible, since copyrights are simply not enforceable in a world of filesharing without taking draconian measures.

      A new model is needed, I doubt there have been many times in history when it has been more obvious that something has to change. But I don't think that either draconian enforcement or complete abandonment of copyright is likely to be the best solution. There are plenty of artists who want to get paid. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for art. The basics are there, all that is needed is to figure out how to put them together.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    15. Re:An interesting thought... by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Libraries frequently allow people to check out a book and take it home to read. While that doesn't imply a copy is made, it does negate money the publisher would have received if you had purchased the book. Also, go into most of the big bookstores (Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc) and look around. While I'm sure they'd prefer you not stay there all day reading a book, they provide places for you to sit and read. If their entire goal was to get you to buy, they would not provide such places to linger and patrol the store to ensure you were not reading the book before buying it. Again, this fails the 'make a copy' test, but it goes against your notion that a bookstore would not let you read an entire book and pay for it later.

      That said, yes, the danger of copyright infringement is not that you are stealing and denying the rightful seller their ability to reproduce their product, but rather cutting down the seller's prospective sales base. It's a bizarre kind of situation, though, as some people infringing on the work consider the value to them as $0, meaning they would not pay for it if that were their only option. Is that a lost sale?

    16. Re:An interesting thought... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You have to admit that your method will mean then end of big-budget movies, computer games etc. - anything that requires a large investment which is traditionally recouped by selling individual licences to consumers. The arts would become the preserve of amateurs and those working under the patronage of the rich. No, there's no inherent reason why those works have to be produced by investing one's own money up front and then hoping to recoup it by selling individual licenses. You can collect the money up front instead, from the very same people who would be buying those individual licenses, and work under the "patronage" of your fans. And once the work is finished, there's no need for any exclusive distribution rights, since you've already been paid.

      It might take a little more work up front to coordinate the payments, but (1) middlemen can make it easier, sort of like what Sellaband does now, and (2) the benefits speak for themselves: financial security for artists, who don't have to gamble on the number of copies they might sell, and the freedom to share, enjoy, sample, and remix for the rest of us.

      But I don't think that either draconian enforcement or complete abandonment of copyright is likely to be the best solution. There are plenty of artists who want to get paid. There are plenty of people who are willing to pay for art. The basics are there, all that is needed is to figure out how to put them together. I think complete abandonment of copyright will work just fine. As you said, the demand and the supply are both out there. If you have one group of people who are hungry for new songs to listen to, and another group of people who are willing to write songs in exchange for money, all you need to do is step back and let the market work.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    17. Re:An interesting thought... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      If you have one group of people who are hungry for new songs to listen to, and another group of people who are willing to write songs in exchange for money, all you need to do is step back and let the market work.

      Songs, yeah I can see that. However I challenge you to provide a business model which would allow big-budget movies to be made in a world without copyright. Can you imagine Peter Jackson pitching the Lord of the Rings? "I want enough money to hire New Zealand for a few years, please don't ask me about the revenue stream."

      Now worse things could happen than it becoming impossible to make big-budget movies - allowing the content industry to regulate the computer industry being one of them - but I think we need to find some middle ground here.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    18. Re:An interesting thought... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      You still don't get it! If people can just download it, in full fidelity ( musically ) then why would they buy it?

      I haven't a fucking clue, to be quite honest. I suppose they must like having a pretty physical artefact rather than just abstract data - or perhaps they have some kind of personal honour code which includes respect for government-enforced monopolies on information. But the point of the original post seemed to be that there always would be a core of people who would always pay, so given that assumption, it doesn't matter how many pirate as long as those who pay are enough to turn a profit.

      I doubt the original poster is correct in this, mind; I think that most people will freeload given the chance, even those who otherwise would have paid, and that the new music economy won't support the bazillionaire rock star lifestyles we've seen in the past - the Heather Mills of the future must look elsewhere.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    19. Re:An interesting thought... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      See I'm not even sure about that one (big budget movies). Originally I was trying to find a breakdown of where the money went in making Lord of the rings, the closest I came was here, where it says about a third of the budget went into marketing. The second thing I noticed though is that the lifetime gross is four times that of its production cost. Now I'm not sure if lifetime gross for movies includes dvd, merchandise sales or not, or if production budget really includes everything spent on the making of the movie, but I'd guess it adds up to a pretty nice profit at the end of the day despite downloading.

      So maybe big budget movies still have their place in the theaters, and its only dvd sales that would suffer if anything. The original thing I was trying to get evidence for is that the big budget isn't even necessary for a good movie, or even the big budget look. Computer games however are more interesting since it's almost completely a software industry, but in my opinion there are far too many games these days repeating the same old thing anyway and it could use some trimming down. In fact I would probably be more likely to pay a developing team I like upfront for a good game with a high level of replay value than to simply go out there today and pick up a game(still playing Age of Empires II). My little brother, on the other hand, buys half the new 360 games that come out and plays them for a month then moves on to the next one, so that seems to be the new strategy for big budget videogames which isn't really good for gamers anyway.

      The bottom line is that at least 90 percent of entertainment is only out to get your money for something you don't really need anyway. And by the way I've been using two "br" tags in between my paragraphs to get them separated, whats the proper thing to do.

    20. Re:An interesting thought... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      See I'm not even sure about that one (big budget movies). Originally I was trying to find a breakdown of where the money went in making Lord of the rings, the closest I came was here, where it says about a third of the budget went into marketing. The second thing I noticed though is that the lifetime gross is four times that of its production cost. Now I'm not sure if lifetime gross for movies includes dvd, merchandise sales or not, or if production budget really includes everything spent on the making of the movie, but I'd guess it adds up to a pretty nice profit at the end of the day despite downloading.

      Yup a 400% return is pretty damn good, but the risk level of that kind of investment is worse then buying junk bonds! You are promised a fat return on your investment, but the risk of a flop is very very high. That was 94 Million to make it plus another 50 million to market it and that equals 144 million invested. 377 million Gross so about 233 million net, well maybe net, or it might be the Net Net.. :). So really it is only about a 260% ROI.

      And those poor bastards who invested millions to make 'Ishtar"... I think they know the meaning of "Junk Bonds" because the ROI on that little gem was -50%... Yup it cost 30 million to make and GROSSED 14 million and that is in 1987 money!. Can you say, OUCH!

      Ohhhh and what you are looking for instead of <br> is <p>...
      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    21. Re:An interesting thought... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Songs, yeah I can see that. However I challenge you to provide a business model which would allow big-budget movies to be made in a world without copyright. Can you imagine Peter Jackson pitching the Lord of the Rings? "I want enough money to hire New Zealand for a few years, please don't ask me about the revenue stream." That's that kind of thing you'd say to an investor, but remember, in this model the funding primarily comes from customers. Customers don't care about revenue streams. They're not paying for something that's going to come back and make them money in a few years; they're paying for something that they're going to benefit from directly.

      So, here's one way the model I've described could apply to big-budget movies: you, the producer, identify the people who will benefit from the release of your movie, and then you convince them that the benefit they'll receive is worth paying for. The most obvious group is movie fans, the people who will benefit directly by watching the movie when it's finished. If you could collect $9.40 each from ten million people, you'd have enough to make Return of the King (which sold over a million tickets during opening weekend alone, and around 160 million overall). It might take a few months or years to collect the money, but once you have it, you're home free - you can start shooting without worrying about whether your movie will sell enough tickets or dolls or plastic discs or whatever else to cover the cost of production, because you've already covered the cost of production.

      But there are often other groups who benefit as well. For example, home electronics manufacturers benefit from the existence of new movies, since no one is going to buy a Blu-Ray player or a 52" TV if there's nothing to watch on it. These companies, therefore, can also contribute to movie production and treat it as just another marketing expense.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    22. Re:An interesting thought... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Ohhh this is just to easy to supremely tromp all over, but I just have to do it to point the utter and complete folly of your proposal.

      You have never been involved in a large project or you would have never committed these words to the net. This can never work because the present value of money collected will never keep pace with inflation or the ever rising cost of materials and labor. Ask anyone who has ever budgeted for something in present value dollars only to see that estimate fall completely to shit as the price of everything keeps going up. Who could have predicted the demand for steel and concrete would be taken to the insane heights that China has driven it up to.

      Movies are not immune to the rising cost of labor, especially very skilled labor, nor are they immune to the costs of shooting on location ( the logistics rival that of keeping an army supplied in complexity ) nor are they immune to the cost of building sets which keeps going up and up as wood becomes more expensive.

      You can try and budget in the future but let me tell you, no one and I mean from either the government or the private sector has ever been successful, because no one has figured out how to see the future. 30 million for a major movie production is a tight budget. So break it out, even at 10 bucks a ticket you would have to sell 3 million tickets, in advance. And if it took 3 years to do it, by the time you got there it would cost 35 million to shot the movie. Then what back to the drawing board for another round of ticket sales? Or do you charge 15 dollars a ticket now, in the hope that 233,000 people pre-purchased tickets, based on what, story boards? A book, a Screen play?

      Would you plunk down 15 bucks as an "investment" so that you might see a movie 4 years from now ( 3 years raising the money and say 1 year of production to final print) for a subject you might not even give a shit about? Get real. This entire notion has no basis in reality in any way shape or form.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    23. Re:An interesting thought... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      You have never been involved in a large project or you would have never committed these words to the net. This can never work because the present value of money collected will never keep pace with inflation or the ever rising cost of materials and labor. Gosh, if only there were a way to put that money someplace where it would be immune from this effect. I don't know, maybe some kind of building where you could give them your money and they'd hang onto it, and then later you could take out the money you put in plus a little more. Perhaps they could get that "little more" by letting other people borrow the money while you weren't using it, charging a few percent for the service. Wouldn't that be interesting?

      But you're right, such a thing could never exist.

      Hmm. Maybe you could use the money to buy something else that would hold its value, and then sell it later? For example, maybe we could come up with a way to divide up ownership of a company, and then people could buy and sell "slices" of it. Of course, there might be some risk, but maybe we could also have other people who aggregate slices of all different companies together to reduce the risk... no, you're right, it's just too crazy. It could never work. It's completely impossible to collect money this year that will be spent next year.

      30 million for a major movie production is a tight budget. So break it out, even at 10 bucks a ticket you would have to sell 3 million tickets, in advance. Return of the King sold 160 million tickets. You'd only have to convince one sixteenth of those people to pay $9.40 each (on average) to fund that movie's production - even less if you have other sources of funding like I mentioned. And of course since we're really talking about money, not tickets, the people who value movies more or have more to spend can contribute as much as they want.

      Would you plunk down 15 bucks as an "investment" so that you might see a movie 4 years from now ( 3 years raising the money and say 1 year of production to final print) for a subject you might not even give a shit about? If I didn't give a shit about it, then no. As a general rule, I try not to spend money on things I don't give a shit about.

      But if I did give a shit about it, then yes, I would.

      Get real. This entire notion has no basis in reality in any way shape or form. I can see how you might think that, if you live in a "reality" where there are no banks or investments, and where it's considered a serious question to ask someone if he spends money on things he doesn't give a shit about.

      I can only hope that you visit the rest of us here in the real world someday. It's a nice place, and we manage to pay for every other service using a very similar business model to the one I've described here - one where we find people to pay us before we start working, not after.
      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    24. Re:An interesting thought... by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

      I have two things to say to you: http://peach.blender.org/ and http://apricot.blender.org/.

      Make of them what you will.

    25. Re:An interesting thought... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      What happens when the number of people stealing outnumbers those buying to the point where these corps are actually losing money?


      This sentence confused me. I honestly thought you were talking about shoplifters for a second.

      Also, if you think about the financials for a second, the number of people not buying (for whatever reason) is really immatierial. Its the number of people who do buy that is the issue.

      I think what you are shooting for is more along the lines of "What happens when the number of people buying gets so low that the corps are actually losing money?"

      That's really not a horribly theoretical question. The various "media" companies have all had bad patches in the past where they lost money. So you just have to look at those to see what will happen. Basicly, they tend to become risk averse. For record companies, they'll only support artists that sold a zillion of their last album, and cookie-cutter manufactured bands that they know how to promote and sell already. For movies, you'll get nothing but sequels to movies that did well. For TV, you'll get a lot of cheap reality shows and formulaic sitcoms.

      But one could also ask if the number of people "buying" through the old models will actually approach zero as you seem to be suggesting. I don't think it would, as long as there is still added value. For music, I personally like having a physical CD for my collection, with the official cover artwork and lyrics and all that (if its music I like enough, of course). For movies, you really can't beat the experience of watching in a theater on that humongous screen, at least for certian types of movies. For TV, the shows usually don't leak in advance, so if its something I'm excited about watching, I still want to see it live. I don't buy many DVD's, but the ones I do get I'd much rather spend the money and get the nice copy with the official artwork and added features. If its just something I want to see once maybe, I might download, but I wouldn't buy it either way.

    26. Re:An interesting thought... by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      I applaud them, whole heartedly! I think what they are doing is fantastic. But they don't talk much about the details, so its hard to determine how they are doing, are each of them surviing solely on the donations? do they have day jobs? What kind of budget do they have?

      I wish them the best of luck and hope they do well.>/p>

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  23. Sounds like it is time for classic quotes 101 by sckeener · · Score: 1

    "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

    What kind of Techs run that ISP? Have they never watched Star Wars?

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    1. Re:Sounds like it is time for classic quotes 101 by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      That one is soooooo overated. This one applies much better:

      At the prospect of being cutoff from the Pirate Bay, "A million voices suddenly cry out in terror and were suddenly silenced" as they made a simple DNS change and went about their business.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  24. It's going to court by MortenLJ · · Score: 5, Informative

    An article in a mainstream Danish newspaper says that the case is going to court, other ISP's are actually chipping in to fund Tele2's suit against the imposed restriction.

  25. you're rather odd by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "You must be an american. The number of movies produced in the rest of the world is GREATER then the number of movies produced in the US, or even if you start calling every country that has english as a main language being clubbed together (wonder how the french part of canada feels about it)."

    well duh. bollywood makes far more movies than hollywood. but bollywood movies don't spread out from india very much, except in indian expat communities, because outside of india, hindi or other indian languages are used very rarely. but outside of anglophone countries, you still find a lot of people who understand some english

    you mention how french canada feels about this. what do you mean how they feel about it? i'm talking how much the movie's cultural influence is. what, french canadians go see a jason bourne movie and then go home and take a shower and vomit in disgust because they saw an english language movie? your attitude is bizarre. either they watch it, or they don't. that's all that matters. they vote with their feet, not with the attitude in their mouths. if they are in the theatre, watching the movie, they are influenced. done deal. if they watch the movie, the deed of cultural influence is done. if they dislike warmongering american neoconservative imperialism, or whatever, who cares? it doesn't change the outcome of going to the movies and being influenced

    "This is only logical, while english is a very common language and a great many people speak it as their second, third language, it is not the most common language."

    you don't seem to grasp logic. if everyone has language X as a second language, movies on language X will penetrate more people's consciousness than movies in language y. therefore, cultural output in language X will come to dominate. your observation about english supports my opinion, and destroys your conclusion, which isn't logical at all

    "In europe, most tv-stations, even the commercial ones are man-dated by law to provide a certain amount of "native" broadcasting. That is why the station RTL4 which was clearly aimed at dutch audience spend money on a luxemburg program block in the early hours to satisfy the law (they were based there using a loophole)."

    yes, this is called cultural protectionism. cultural protectionism is unnecessary in a healthy culture that isn't being eroded or feels threatened by another culture. a law requiring a certain amount of cultural output is enacted and enforced because one culture is afraid of being dominated and flooded out by another culture. which gets back to my original question about piracy threatening german, or czech, or danish culture: destroying the financial means to create a culture which feels threatened, would seem to be more damaging to a culture already feeling vulnerable. that's my original question. do you have an answer for it? the rest of your words seem to dance around unrelated subject matter. i think you think you are informing me about very obvious things, things which i already know. it's patronizing and strange ...

    "As for how it is affected, it is not even clear yet how copyright infringement affects hollywood, how it affects local cinema in the rest of the world is anyones guess."

    ah! an answer: you don't know

    "We certainly are not going to get the truth about it from the media, they after all have a rather direct intrest in the matter."

    huh? i asked you. i'm not the media, you're not the media

    "So far however it seems to matter little, Remember non-hollywood movies tend not to pay quit as much to their stars. This matters a lot, to pay those idiotic salaries a Tom Hanks gets you need to make massive profits. Pay them a more modest wage and you have a lot more room."

    ah! good answer, great answer, and one i agree with: people will always make movies in danish, or german, or czech, because they are proud of being danish, or german, or czech. well done

    "Also what you claim about english content being more easily accepted in the res

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're rather odd by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      One point...

      Cultural enforcement doesn't take place on the torrent movie/tv show networks.

      On Demonoid (RIP), I saw a lot of polish stuff- never downloaded it since I do not speak polish but it was there.

      But, for folks downloading, LOST, Battlestar Galactica, and other first run shows- they see them in english. And it doesn't matter if some low budget local culture show is the only thing on TV while they watch their downloaded shows.

      The sad thing is that american shows present a REALLY FALSE image of america.

      "Middle Class" and "Ugly" on american tv means you "only live in a $580k house" and "you have braces and glasses".

      The reality is a lot of americans are much less attractive than even "ugly" television characters and most live in $80k to $200k houses-- $580k is reserved for fools, lawyers, and doctors and such.

      but showing that kind of reality messes with EVERYONE'S mind so they are not happy with perfectly wonderful middle class existences and so they get into drugs or get so obsessed with "hitting it rich" that they end up in poverty.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:you're rather odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" - here are your missing capital letters, feel free to copy & paste for convenience.

  26. Subsidized by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Informative

    and since piracy is hugely prevalent in europe, i wonder what the epxerience has been for danish movie, czech music, etc. Culture in most European countries is heavily subsidized. Since you ask specifically for Danish movies, I can tell that for commercial movies the state pay two thirds of the production costs, and for "artsy" movies more than that. Danish language books and TV is also heavily subsidized, so any negative effect of unauthorized copying is marginal.

    Music is also heavily subsidized, although indirectly, through a "blank media tax". The media tax is distributed to commercial artists based on how much they sell, so that is affected by unauthorized copying. It is also totally unfair, as people creating free music (or Linux distributions) get no part of the media tax. Unlike books, movie, and TV, this tax does not seem intended to preserve Danish language and culture, rather to enrich (mostly foreign) distribution companies. It is insane, I have no idea how they got that system established.

    I wish they would replace it with something similar to the system they use for books: only Danish language books are subsidized, the money goes directly to the authors (not the publishers), and the amount is propertional how popular the book is on the public libraries, not to its price.

    I suspect the situation is different for Czech music, but their situation is also different in general. They were part of a communist country not that long ago, the country is relatively poor (but rich compared with other post-communist areas), and their president (Vaclav Klaus) is a Libertarian, or as close as you get in Europe, and thus likely opposed to any kind of subsidizes.
    1. Re:Subsidized by azgard · · Score: 1

      I am Czech and in fact, in the Czech republic, the situation is quite similar to Denmark (and the rest of EU). Many films are sponsored by government or public Czech TV (even the very commercially successful ones), and we also have blank media tax.

  27. ObResponse: by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."

    -- John Gilmore "But what if censorship is in the router?"

      -- Seth Finkelstein
    1. Re:ObResponse: by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      That one has been solved since 30,000BC. That a big pointy rock and drop it on the piece of plastic. Remember CD drives that didn't let you rip CDs?

  28. OT - your sig by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    Don't insult Stallman like that. A whore I know jumped my shit when I referred to myself as a "computer nerd". Are you by chance a five foot seven inch tall seventy five pound woman with a big head and a flatter chest than most men?

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:OT - your sig by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      HAHAHA, umm nope. I got into an arguement one night with a "Nerd on site". He wanted me to go work for him. I told him that I thought that nerd was derogatory and there was no way in hell I was selling my PT Cruiser to buy a Volkwagen beetle and to be called a nerd.

      Off to wikipedia we went. When I searched nerd... it showed a photo of Urkel and when I searched geek, it showed Stallman. He was not happy. hehe

      I just went back and the page has been considerably changed now.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    2. Re:OT - your sig by sm62704 · · Score: 1
      no way in hell I was selling my PT Cruiser to buy a Volkwagen beetle and to be called a nerd

      Er, the Best Buy "Geek Squad" drives VWs.

      I just went back and the page has been considerably changed now

      Yeah, Uncyclopedia does that too. But it says (just a start)

      "Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, All my base are belong to you!"
      ~ Some Male Nerd on How to pick up female nerds

      "Lemme in through ur tunnel frm de undrgrond, aka ur C drive :P, alrite, l8r."
      ~ An Average Male Nerd on How to pick up your nerdy friends computers

      "In Soviet Russia, nerds hate YOU!!"
      ~ Russian reversal on nerds

      A nerd (homo intelligencia, floro sapiens, virginus nerdius, or "homo supa smarcia") is a member of an odd species known for its love of computers, bad fashion sense, and inability to communicate with members of the opposite sex. While some lucky individuals are born nerds, the rest of us have to make an effort to evolve into nerds.
      It says about Geeks:

      Geek is the nickname given by nerds to themselves if they want to look slightly higher up the social ladder. Geeks, contrary to Popular Belief, did not evolve from nerds through ingesting a catalyst known as alky-hol which suppresses nerds' innate phobia of non-nerds, allowing the two groups to exchange information - most often verbal, but in rare cases can also be genetic. Some nerds retained this inhibition of non-nerd phobia even when the effects of alcohol have worn off.

      Geeks can be found living independently, often with other geeks, but also with nerds. Geeks can be found lying in filth in dark, dark rooms, hacking into chat sites pretending to be cool. Geek clothing is generally wrinkled, but acceptable in current society. Some geeks may even occasionally wear fashionable clothing or matching socks, but it can be rare. Another legend portrays the long lost geekdom as nerds with long hair, lots of earrings and heavy metal t-shirts (only prior to their metamorphosis into yuppies and migration into large financial institutions). The geeks have greasy hair and sweat all over the face; they call it "perfume". They spend hours trying to get onto porn websites that their mommies banned them from. Young geeks will often mutate into emos at 16, realizing they are misunderstood because they aren't allowed to drive cars.


      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    3. Re:OT - your sig by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  29. thank you for your answer ;-) by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i take it to mean that cultural protectionism is cultural protectionism is cultural protectionism. it exists, and the current changing of economic models of media distribution due to the internet doesn't change the concept or threaten the need or desire for cultural protectionism. because a nation's governmental cultural support and incentives lie outside of normal free markets anyways, and so feels no negative effects due to piracy

    although it may change its implementation someday

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:thank you for your answer ;-) by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, most "small" language culture (and thus, small languages) is not able to survive in a free (global) market *anyway*, the unauthorized copying is not that much of an issue.

      Most "small language" populations are not willing to pay for the true cost of local language culture directly, but are willing to pay indirectly for it through taxes.

      The interesting corollary is that since the culture has already been financed indirectly through taxes, there is no reason to attempt to extract direct payment through distribution restrictions (copyright law). By removing the distribution restrictions one would also increase the added value of the culture, as per standard economic theory (the added value is the difference between the price of the product, and the value of the product to the buyer).

  30. MOD PARENT UP! by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

    This is the crux of it. Someone who actually gets it.

    --
    Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
  31. Monkey See, Monkey Do by PirateBlis · · Score: 0

    TechDirt is reporting that the recent block placed on The Pirate Bay torrent site is not only relatively ineffective, but actually driving more traffic to the site because of the attention. Apparently they didn't even see the trailer for Untracable, a movie where the news media does a report about a serial killer with a website where the more people that log on, the faster the guy dies. Then, low an behold, right after the news report airs, the guy dies in 4 minutes. Is it really hard to fathom the "Don't push the red button" theory? Hell, I'm off to download some of the new Future Weapons episodes off of ThePirateBay right now. Count me in as a statistic.
  32. something is NOT rotten by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    in the state of denmark ;-)

    and please be exporting more connie nielsens and more viggo mortensens, thanks ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  33. No by Canar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't remember CD drives like that at all.

    QED?

  34. Here's one solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sell SACD quality tracks, whether it's via download or a physical format. For your average Joe Downloader, it's VERY inconvenient to file-share something of that size. You can always allow the cheapskates to have their mp3s for free (or even sell at a nominal rate), but the real fans will buy the full quality stuff.

  35. Its not technical ignorance, its cultural by deft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vast majority of people on the net probably have little knowledge of how to bypass the block, and would be helpless to do anything. It may be correct.

    The component they seem to miss is the resolve of those people that know how to do it to not only adapt their system to access anything they want, but to then make the fix for it easily accessible to the masses. They are willing to write scripts, make interfaces, patches, websites, directions, etc so that anyone can do it.

    Thats the component they miss, and it is not a technical lack of understanding, but a cultural one.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:Its not technical ignorance, its cultural by monsted · · Score: 1

      ... except this wouldn't work with any virtual hosts out there, which probably account for quite a few of the places people want to go.

  36. He has a point by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    Looking at the TPB top 100 movies / TV shows, it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of pirated content is European. Certainly, there is non-US content, but it's a small share.

  37. Correction by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    Ooops! "that the vast majority of pirated content is American".

    PS.
    GET AN EDIT FEATURE SLASHDOT! THIS IS 2008!
    That is all.
    DS.

  38. Question about the Dutch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think most freedom loving people love and appreciate all the Dutch have done to promote freedom of expression that is common and encouraged in the Netherlands, but we're all at a loss as to why the Dutch have mandated that young people going on dates each have to pay for their own meal.

    What's more outrageous is that the legislators seem to think this is some sort of "treat".

    Talk about your GW Bush double speak!

  39. IFPI is to Stopping Piracy... by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    As the Patriot Act making me jump through hoops to buy Claritin-D is going to stop meth cookers.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  40. "American Idol type trash." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe is to blame for these types of shows, buddy. The first "Idol" show started in the UK. Unfortunately, the US advertisors/stations saw how much money the show was making and, BAM! faster than Paula Abdul can go back into rehab, American Idol was born. I want to waterboard everyone involved with "Reality" tv. I bet they don't let their own kids watch that crap.

    Love,
    eviljonny

  41. Only drawing attention by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    This is what the end result of the entire napster debacle. If the RIAA had just ignored napster it would have remained in the 'shadows' and the entire music scene ( and the whole idea of IP rights for media ) would be different today.

    But nooo they had to call attention to things. You would think people would learn from others mistakes.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  42. Block not up (yet) by Jens+Egon · · Score: 1

    Tele2 is my isp, and I have no problems connecting to http://thepiratebay.org/ using their dns.

    Not yet, anyway

  43. OpenDNS by Taelron · · Score: 1

    I have Comcast cable internet at home thanks to my work... For years I have had issues connecting to sites that are related to my work... Unable to find or very slow response time. When the Pirate Bay went down i switched to OpenDNS... Suddenly I found many sites, not just the Pirate Bay, that I had trouble connecting to before suddenly opening up without any problems and 10 times faster... Censorship by ISP's it the wrong way to go about it. Censoring DNS servers should be outright criminal...

  44. There be no smugglers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no text

  45. Lame way to block traffic by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Why did they go with DNS filtering ? Of all the ineffective ways to censor stuff on the net, that has to be the weakest! Even nullrouting TPB's ip range would have been at least slightly more potent.

    I run my own caching DNS server at home, so I wouldn't even notice a thing. At least a nullroute would require me to add a few hostnames to my proxy ;)

    Much like everything else in life, if someone wants it badly enough, they will find a way to defeat whatever security is in place, whether it's a bike lock or a bank vault. On the net, the locks are a million times easier to pick and the risks of getting caught are a million times less. It's just plain wasteful to even try to censor content unless you control the whole enchilada, like China, and even they can't keep it completely sealed.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com