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.'"
"The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it."
-- John Gilmore
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
...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.
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.
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
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/
Anakata from The Pirate Bay also talked on tv about commenting their a few years ago bust and working style of anti-piracy companies.
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!
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
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.
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 ?!?!?
./'ers can say they are doing something different - or I am going to spend alot of time chuckling over the brandy tonight....
I really hope some other
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.
did any of the legislators consult a single tech guy?
Of course they did, because married tech guys are just too hard to find.
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.
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.
...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)
Living With a Nerd
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.
"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
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.
-- John Gilmore "But what if censorship is in the router?"
-- Seth Finkelstein
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.
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.
Ok. So cost of duplication is gone.
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.)
Of course they are, but they need to eat too.
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 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.
The thing I learned was "If it compiles, ship it"
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
"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
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).
I don't remember CD drives like that at all.
QED?
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.
> 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.