Italian Court Rules ISPs Must Block Access To Pirate Bay

introt writes "After first being blocked in 2008, an Italian court has once again ruled that ISPs in the nation must block access to the infamous torrent tracker The Pirate Bay, leaving millions of users without access to one of the most popular sites on the planet. In the original case, after an appeal by the Pirate Bay, the Court of Bergamo ruled that foreign websites cannot be blocked over alleged copyright infringement. Fast forward until today and the Supreme Court has ruled that ISPs can indeed be forced to block torrent sites, even if they are foreign-based."

Comments

Is tecnically feasible?

[Tei]

You can pretty much use any VPN, Proxy, TOR, etc.. maybe a DNS entry to avoid blocking. Is this like ruling against the clouds stoping the sun from warming the empirer body or something?

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Opportunist]

Since when does it matter that a law is feasible or executable? You must be new to internet laws.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[chill]

If you think this sort of thing is unique to internet laws, you must be new to the law.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been trying to get laws about murder repealed since obviously it isn't stopping people from murdering each other. Stupid laws.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[noidentity]

If you think this sort of thing is unique to laws, you must be new to society.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[TubeSteak]

The ruling says any site that offers torrent links to connect to copyrighted material is "engaging in criminal activity," says TF.

http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Atorrent+pirates

We learned from Napster & Grokster.
Torrent sites & trackers are convienent, but not at all necessary.
Between DHT, Peer Exchange, and magnet links you can't really kill bittorrent.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[parodyca]

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

This is more like thinking a ban on the sale of hunting knives will prevent murder. Actually it is a little more like telling the transit company that they can't have transit routes that pass by one store that sells knives, but doing nothing about people walking there or taking a taxi, or even the other stores.

Totally lame.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Opportunist]

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

Interesting comparison. It's also approaching a similar punishment.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think these jokes are actually funny, you must be new here.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[garlicbready]

Here I'll make it easy
google proxy

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthepiratebay.org%2F&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[mcgrew]

I'm glad that comment was modded up, but I don't think it's bit funny, as it's sad but true. Take the laws against drugs, for example, which cause the problems they are said to prevent.

Insightful, but not funny in the least.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[elrous0]

You forgot the next step--ISP's will start actively blocking proxies and proxy list sites. It's only a matter of time before it happens in the U.S. too. And geeks who say that such blocks are trivial to get around have never had to deal with well-maintained blockers like Websense.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, all laws are stupid. If you going to murder someone you either don't care that you are going to be imprisoned/killed or you think that you are going to get away with it.

And if somebody have been killed it's to late to do anything about it, and doing "bad stuff" to the murderer won't help anybody.

two wrongs don't make a right

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting comparison. It's also approaching a similar punishment.

Depends on how you value your time. Time is money, you know.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think this sort of thing is unique to society, you must be new to Slashdot. .. wait, what was it we were discussing?

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[hesaigo999ca]

I was about to say, Tor makes this all useless anyways, as well, makes anyone that has half a brain
to realize they are fighting a loosing battle spending all the tax payers money doing it in the process.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

with some telco, for example Fastweb Italy, they block also at router level.

telco DNS resolvs to 127.0.0.1.

using another dns you get the real ip which is 194.71.107.15

but a traceroute to the www.piratebay.org ip is blocked by fastweb router 89.96.200.158.
they blocked only that IP, the other ips allocated to THEPIEATEBAY-NET are reacheable...

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[ultranova]

I was about to say, Tor makes this all useless anyways, as well, makes anyone that has half a brain to realize they are fighting a loosing battle spending all the tax payers money doing it in the process.

Unless, of course, they make it illegal to use encryption, except when connecting to a website in a list of licensed businesses.

The simple, awful truth is that the Internet will go away eventually. It got this far because it caught the people in power - both businesses and politicians - by surprise; it will be killed as a communication medium eventually.

Freedom is anomaly in human history, it never lasts. It's just a little spark in the ocean of tyranny, soon to be extinguished whenever it appears. The people who make the rules will always be better served by making rules that crush everyone else under their heel.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[nurb432]

You block all access to everything. Problem solved.

Seriously tho, 90% of the people wont have a clue how to get around it . the other 10% will regardless of what is done. In most schools 90% is an A.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[fredklein]

That phrase bugs me. It really should be "Two wrongs don't necessarily make a right".

As a simple example, imagine a card game. Say, blackjack. Assuming the cards are reasonably randomized, each player (assume 2 players) has the same chance of winning/losing. This is the way the game should be- this is 'Right'.

If one person does a 'wrong' and marks the cards, they have given themselves an unfair advantage.

If the other person then marks the cards (a 'wrong'), then they have given themselves the same advantage the first player has. This means both players again have the same chance of winning/losing. As as stated above, this is 'Right'.

So, two 'wrongs' can make a 'right'. QED

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't dealt with the newest version but as I remember websense was pretty easy to circumvent(about 4 months ago)

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[UnknownSoldier]

Well aren't we the optimistic one.

Fortunately there is nothing the governments can do to stop the communication and exchange of bytes, and information. Some business depends on the internet, and there is no way they would kill their golden goose, such as Microsoft, Amazon, etc.

> Freedom is anomaly ...

Government is anomaly in human history, it never lasts. It's just a little spark in the ocean of tyranny, soon to be extinguished by the masses of people demanding that their voices are heard.

FTFY.

ALL civilizations eventually collapse. They are replaced by the next one. Government is no different.

While it can be argued that each year we have less freedom then the previous year, overall the trend is going up. At least I don't have to worry about being killed if I publish a book that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims don't understand Yeshua like I would of a 1,000 years ago.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

We pretty much fucked ourselves when we started equating corporations to people. Now that depriving a corporation of its profits is seen more like depriving a human of oxygen, all it needs is some corrupt politician who will translate into law the wrong assumption that piracy is stealing. Therefore piracy is, or will become in a matter of years, like murder. We're fucked.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[steve_bryan]

Anyone with half a brain knows the word you misspelt is supposed to be LOSING. LOSE and LOOSE: they are two different words that are not interchangeable.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[h4rr4r]

or just use ssh tunnels to a machine outside italy.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[dissy]

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

Interesting comparison. It's also approaching a similar punishment.

It's sad and interesting actually, while 'murder' is a bad example specifically, the potential crime of just 'killing a person' can actually get you a much much lighter sentence than getting caught sharing 2-3 CDs.

After all, manslaughter can be zero to just a couple years in jail. After that time you can begin to rebuild your life and carry on.

When you make minimum wage or less, a multimillion dollar fine is effectively a life sentence that you will never be out from under.

A much better comparison is the crime of 'rape'. Assuming it is not committed against a child, then you are guaranteed to get a sentence much lighter than that of file sharing.
Only a couple to a few years of time, instead of all of the remaining years of your time you have left.

Sad sad day when harming and mentally scaring someone for life is barely a punishment compared to sharing songs.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Smartcowboy]

When you make minimum wage or less, a multimillion dollar fine is effectively a life sentence that you will never be out from under.

Did you ever heard about bankruptcy?

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[dissy]

Did you ever heard about bankruptcy?

Yes, and that does not absolve you of debt from a judgment against you. Neither chapter 7 OR 13 will do this.

What it will do is manage your budget for you in a form you can 'afford'.
Basically you prove your monthly living bills, they strike off all but the necessities required to survive, and let you keep exactly that from your paycheck. They keep most of the rest to pay off your debt.

Your bankruptcy lasts until that remainder pays the whole debt, during which time bill collectors and such are not allowed to call or harass you and such.

That is extremely over simplified, but the point is that bankruptcy does NOT absolve you of debt any longer.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[517714]

Based on my experiences during my short residence in Italy, I conclude that the ISP's will meet the law by putting the prohibition in their service contract, "accesso vietato a Pirates Bay". It is cheap. requires them to do no monitoring of data or users and satisfies the court. The Italians choose their words carefully, particularly when they want to give an impression that varies from reality. Block is static not active - you may erect a road block, but a FIAT 500 can probably drive through, around or under it with little or no effort.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No. I would imagine that "blocking" TPB would amount to blocking direct access, as a token effort. Perfectly workable in implementation, completely useless in effect.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must understand the public commons have been enclosed and privatized by the rule of law. That which used to be the "public [commons]" [like thoughts written down, or inventions worth trillions, the billions of acres we could grow our food on, the franchised public utilities (power and water), or the airway broadcast rights have all been privatized and made into a private monopolies which c/b enforced by the long arm of the BIMMET cvontrolled law. The BIMMETs can snap up the commons that have been privatized and use the monopoly to make you [ the human] a slave, to earn enough, to buy back as much of the old public commons as you need to live your life. Its the production cycle: you work hard to make the product, the BIMMET give you a little paper funny money, but they own the product you make, the sell it and you use your paper funny money to buy what you made for much more than you earned while you were making it.

Do not interfere with monopoly power or you will be hurt.. The BIMMET GLOBAL FEUDAL LORDS are entitled to use the courts to extract your humanity and locak all humanity out of the public properties; after all, you are nothing, the BIMMET need the profit, and that's the law?

Who de hell do you think you are to think that the laws of the nations and the rules of judges that enforce them are on the side of quality of life and human life enjoyment? The BIMMET Global Feudal lords demand you work for them because their profit needs "far exceeds in importance" the quality, fun or enjoyment allowed to your life. Besides the governments are on the side of the BIMMET Global Feudal Lords.

Who are the BIMMET Global Feudal Lords (BGFLs): Global Bankers, Insurers, Military (purchasing), Media, Entities [that have private ownership of once public commons], and Traders (who trade agreements between others and derivatives thereof (for profits, bailouts, and massive bonuses). Why are they so powerful, because they are generally not human, they are global in reach, and they own your elected leaders no matter the nation in which you reside.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[shnull]

it does indeed, once again, show just how much these trolls understand about todays world ... let them eat cake heheh

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Splintax]

It's not reasonable to compare the minimum penalties for rape and murder to the maximum penalties for copyright infringement. In the vast majority of cases, 'sharing songs' will not result in any penalty. Regardless of how strongly you might disagree with the potential consequences of breaking copyright law, it's disingenuous to imply that society penalizes copyright infringement more severely than rape and murder.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[MaDeR]

"It's not reasonable to compare the minimum penalties for rape and murder to the maximum penalties for copyright infringement. "
It is reasonable, because they should not overlap.

"goverments/corporations penalizes copyright infringement more severely than rape and murder."
Fixed it for you.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[MaDeR]

"doing "bad stuff" to the murderer won't help anybody." It will prevent another crime (at least for time of sentence for offender) and deterrs other to some degree ("get away with it" become less likely). So yes, it will help.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[hesaigo999ca]

Really?, ...some people only see the words, but when you put them
together they actually get more meaning...you should try it sometime

ps- you are write, my typo is such an eye sore, I could not help myself
to bitchslap you either....think you'll waste your time again?

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[hesaigo999ca]

thank you for that one, I also do think we are moving towards a more
interesting time for governments as a whole....especially with the internet.
Obama is a sort of saviour if you will for the US to technologically become more aware,
I find, for the government (not military) and I think if we embrace the fact
that government is as vulnerable as anything else, and that even the US could someday
get toppled over, and a new government spring up, although I would never fathom what could
be better then this, but the next better movement will come along...and put us that
much closer to utopia...

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[steve_bryan]

It isn't just a typo. It is part of an insidious conspiracy to almost always use the wrong spelling whenever the words lose and loose appear. You may think I am exaggerating but now you will see it everywhere. What is so damn hard about the distinction between lose and loose?

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[elrous0]

They now update the proxy block list by the hour, and monitor all the proxy lists pretty closely. The only way I know of to get around it is to use a home computer as proxy or VPN. But that's obviously not going to work if the blocker is at the country level. Unless you could get a friend in another country to set up a proxy just for you (and not publicize it to anyone else), that would be tough to get around.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Anonymous Coward]

FORCEFULLY smash some sense into the politicians.
the ones who survive wil be allowed to keep policticing, because they won't be idiots anymore.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Splintax]

You're right, the penalties should not overlap. However, I was specifically referring to the GP's statement:

Sad sad day when harming and mentally scaring someone for life is barely a punishment compared to sharing songs.

This is not the case at all.

The Houdini ISPs

[SpeedyG5]

Blocking even through a proxy, this should be good. Like patching the wholes in a screen.

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[mcgrew]

Blocking even through a proxy, this should be good. Like patching the wholes in a screen.

That made no sense at all. Did you mean "Like patching the whores in a screen"?

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[Jaysyn]

Holes in a screen. Think screen door.

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[d3ac0n]

That made no sense at all. Did you mean "Like patching the whores in a screen"?

Maybe me meant: "Like patting a whore with a screen."?

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[d3ac0n]

Wow. Maybe HE meant. I really have to proofread before I post.

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[mcgrew]

I was baing facetious. Rather than being pedantic I'd rather just make fun of people who can't spell a four letter word.

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[Threni]

>I was baing facetious.

Perhaps you should stick with four letter words too?

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[mcgrew]

It happens every time, doesn't it? I need a bigger keyboard with bigger keys...

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn!

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[socsoc]

I keep all of my whores in glass boxes, it eliminates the need to use screens.

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[SpeedyG5]

Actually I ken spell for letter words, however in my excitement to post what would have been my "first" post ever I blue it with my misspelling. Its always nice to no that their are folks like you their to point it out.

Re:The Houdini ISPs

[Moonrazor]

Piers Anthony?!?! What the hell are you doing here??? Get back to Xanth!

Wow, april 1 already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, I guess today's theme of remote jurisdictions is all legit today...

I hate to tell you guys...

[Arancaytar]

But when network experts say that the tracker doesn't distribute the information, they're not just employing a legal defense; they're telling you that blocking it that way won't work.

Case in point, you can use Tor to access the tracker and still enjoy the same peer-to-peer speeds as anyone.

Re:I hate to tell you guys...

[lorenlal]

Seems to me like it's the perfect ruling then. It accomplishes nothing... Well, except being terribly *inconvenient* for the citizens of Italy.

Re:I hate to tell you guys...

[eparker05]

To become a judge, a lawyer, or a politician, you need charisma and knowledge of the legal system. Knowledge of the internet is not a prerequisite. Hence.... this futile ruling.

Re:I hate to tell you guys...

[zlogic]

The next step would be blocking Tor :-)

Re:I hate to tell you guys...

[bane2571]

Forget that, think thepiratemirror.org problem solved.

Honestly, if you're going to have a supreme court case over something, don't make it blacklisting one domain.

Re:I hate to tell you guys...

[Arancaytar]

That's a lot harder, fortunately. Even Iran was only able to slow it by throttling SSL (blocking that completely would have screwed with their international business).

Tech fail

[girlintraining]

On one hand, this will deter casual users. On the other, restricting access to the torrent sites does nothing to stop the use of torrents. .torrent files are small and with distributed tracking now coming into use... Piratebay can continue to function effectively even though its domain is blacklisted.

So this move has been anticipated, counter-measures deployed, and they are effective. Update the host file in the user's brain and you're good to go. ^_^

Re:Tech fail

[Opportunist]

Not even that. They will access a board of their choice and whine that TPB is no longer accessible, then they will be pointed at tor.eff.org (or a similar service) and the whole deal that took months to hash out (and probably a few bucks spent here or there...) is rendered obsolete within mere minutes.

Re:Tech fail

[girlintraining]

Not even that. They will access a board of their choice and whine that TPB is no longer accessible, then they will be pointed at tor.eff.org (or a similar service) and the whole deal that took months to hash out (and probably a few bucks spent here or there...) is rendered obsolete within mere minutes.

The only reason these measures are even attempted is because so many users don't even know to do that. They think the internet is broken when they can't login to facebook. They don't distinguish between servers, routers, clients, and all that... they know a black box in their house is connected to the internet. And sometimes the black box doesn't work and a geek-friend needs to poke it. They know ctrl+alt+del and unplugging and plugging it back in.

Average people are about habits. They don't know much more than what they're shown and they don't want to learn more than they need to. That's the only reason rulings like this happen (and have an effect)... it takes months to years for the collective knowledge to reach their ears and a new habit to be established.

Re:Tech fail

[MonsterTrimble]

On one hand, this will deter casual users.

How casual would users have to be? More like clueless. Regardless, this decision means nothing. Stopping torrent sites is whack-a-mole on an infinite sized board.

Re:Tech fail

[Bobfrankly1]

They know ctrl+alt+del and unplugging and plugging it back in.

Half the techies I work with can't remember unplugging and plugging it back in. You really think the general user remembers that much?

Re:Tech fail

[Grizzley9]

They should know Ctrl-Shft-Esc instead. Takes you straight to the Windows Task Manager.

Re:Tech fail

[girlintraining]

Half the techies I work with can't remember unplugging and plugging it back in. You really think the general user remembers that much?

I've been using computers since not long after I could read and write. I've done several years of tech support, field work, net/sys admin work, and deployment. I can say with confidence, yes -- the average user remembers that much. What they don't think of is that wires can come loose, expansion cards can be jostled from their seats, and ports can fail because after several hundred plug/unplug cycles those little surface-mounted USB and firewire ports come loose. But it still looks the same. Average users don't think of things like that.

As to techies not remembering that... Well, just because you work in this industry doesn't mean you do well in it. *shrug* I consider 'techie' a title you earn like any other and I don't call someone that unless they've proven themselves. You shouldn't either -- we all benefit from a meritocratic culture.

Re:Tech fail

[twidarkling]

Are casual users really using TPB and torrents in general? After all, keep in mind, that'd require them to download a tiny file, then download a torrenting program, and set that up properly (checking ports and such). Then actually open the torrent in the program. The casual user you're talking about would probably think that tiny thing they downloaded was the movie/song/program they were looking for, and wondered why it didn't work.

Re:Tech fail

[Dishevel]

Umm. Most people just install a client like bittorrent and then they search for something and click the link and the .tor file is associated already with their client which opens the .tor and starts the download. Maybe you like to have a more complicated setup but there are a crapload of idiots out there that can search for batman movie and start downloading via tor.

Re:Tech fail

[Sulphur]

Have you seen the new coma mode?

Nothing works except unplugging and plugging it back in.

Re:Tech fail

[shutdown -p now]

If you can only remember a single combo, Ctrl+Alt+Del is actually slightly more useful, because it is trapped on kernel level very early on - even if an application is running in fullscreen mode and intercepting all input, it can't intercept that one (in general, no userspace code can do that - you need a hacked keyboard driver for it). So, there are occasional cases where Ctrl+Alt+Del can get you out of a misbehaving application, where Ctrl+Shift+Esc wouldn't work.

Re:Tech fail

[bane2571]

Agreed on both counts, if a user is casual enough to not find something on an alternate site then they are probably searching for torrents on Google anyway.

Re:Tech fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I walk non-tech savvy friends through how to use TPB. Seriously, fuck copyright law. If someone ever tries to enforce it against me, I'm going postal. The more people use TPB, the better for everyone except infonazi scum.

Re:Tech fail

[h4rr4r]

crtl-alt-backspace to kill X, crtl-alt-delete is no good at all.

Re:Tech fail

[benedictaddis]

Well I'll be darned, that IS useful. Who said that reading /. at 3am wasn't worthwhile?

Re:Tech fail

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to point out that 99% of the time you can find a torrent client that installs and "just works" after the fact, with no setup whatsoever. I know Windows and Linux clients exist like this, and I'm certain they do on Mac. There's probably not enough of a shortage for a casual user to run out of options if one of them suddenly didn't work either. That's not to say a casual user would be determined enough to solve a basic problem on their own with their computer task in the first place.

Re:Tech fail

[Anonymous Coward]

Ctrl-Alt-Backspace isn't either. A while ago the masters of the X11verse got together and decided people were so stupid they would press Ctrl-Alt-Backspace by accident, repeatedly.

Thinking about fixing the fact that all apps go down when the "server" dies or is restarted in a goddamn network protocol is too hard, it seems.

Re:Tech fail

[tehcyder]

They should know Ctrl-Shft-Esc instead. Takes you straight to the Windows Task Manager.

Whereas on my Windows XP computer at work, Ctrl-Alt-Del takes you straight to the, er, Windows Task Manager...

Re:Tech fail

[Bobfrankly1]

Me thinks you confuse "techie" with "Guru". Techies can fix alot of random problems, but "Gurus" tend to have a broad and deep understanding in their area. I myself am a half Guru. I have the broad understanding, but I still have to research for the deep things.

you know, I'm half Italian

[bmecoli]

And usually I'm proud of my heritage, but then after hearing this, I'm quite ashamed.

This is almost as bad as the Vatican. ;/

This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

Fast forward until today and the Supreme Court has ruled that ISPs can indeed be forced to block torrent sites, even if they are foreign-based.

This just in: A government agency simultaneously

a. reaffirms the power of the government
b. shows a lack of understanding of technical issues

News at 11pm

Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Find out who paid them for this ruling...

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[calmofthestorm]

I think that's obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi

How to Be a Facist Leader:

1) Use media empire to prop up election campaign and suppress opponents
2) Use government to prop up media empire and bog down competitors in silly regulation (eg YouTube broadcasting license)
3) ...
4) Allegedly molest barely legal girl, pissing off wife
5) Profit!

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[HTH NE1]

4) Allegedly molest barely legal girl, pissing off wife

"Allegedly molest".... So you originate the spreading of the rumor?

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[calmofthestorm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Prostitution_accusations_and_divorce_case

This article isn't exactly NPOV, but I do believe it suffices, given how well resourced the section is, to show that these allegations did not originate with me.

To put it another way, it's a hell of a lot more alleged then Glenn Beck's alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[Fex303]

From my understanding of Italian fascist leaders, number three should probably be 'Make the trains run on time'.

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[calmofthestorm]

Yeah, that was propaganda spread by the facist controlled media to aid their grip on power: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[frosty_tsm]

To put it another way, it's a hell of a lot more alleged then Glenn Beck's alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990.

(oblig)

What? And they let him loose on the streets!?

Re:Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Berlusconi makes George W Bush sound like an Angel!

Start your own tracker!

[chord.wav]

Here is a BT tracker comparison table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_tracker_software

Censoring communication because a corp says so

[mykos]

This is getting very frightening; corporations are now able to use anti-piracy laws to decide what people can and can't communicate. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a free fall from the edge of the mountain. What's next, banning google because you can add the word "torrent" to a search?

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[baka_toroi]

Don't give those judges more ideas...

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[mhollis]

That's not really all that scary, mykos. After the US Supreme court Decision that gives corporations the right to spend any amount of money to influence elections in the US, the corporations are now able to be the government that regulates the corporations that tell us what is OK for us to communicate and do.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[icebraining]

Actually, banning Google would be great. It would turn every internet user against those rulings. I would love to see that happen!

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[lgw]

Corporation can't buy votes - at least as long as you can't prove who you voted for. Your vote is only influenced by the media if you believe the media. People on the whole are remarkably savvy about stuff that actually affects their daily lives - media buys to influence elections works well for stuff that people only care about in the abstract, but not for stuff that affects us directly. And with the rise of blogging, traditional media buys are becoming less influential over time anyhow.

In any case, a corporation is not an evil demon summoned from the blackest depths, but a group of people, and last I checked people in the US have a right to assemble and speak out on political matters. Whether incorporated or not, you can't just just decide that a group of peope can't get together and give money to a cause they support.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[St.Creed]

Probably. This whole thing copyright crusade just turned for the worse, now that the biggest Dutch investment agency (ABP, the pension fund for civil servants) last week announced (in a very small article) that they were moving into copyrights, because that is were currently most of the money is being made. The invested a small part of their portfolio, a few billion euro (small change), and were thinking of expanding because it was so profitable.

So if you think it can't get any worse: it will become much, much worse.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[bill_mcgonigle]

Maybe the problem is the powers given to the government fictions called 'corporations' and not free speech?

Remember, non-limited non-public-benefit corporations were effectively banned in the US until the 1860's when John D. Rockefeller lobbied to get Standard Oil a permanent charter. Then a footnote in Santa Clara gave them personhood.

None of these things were designed into the Republic - they are vestiges of later corruption. SCOTUS took the right first step, we need to demand the rest.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you too, you fascist piece of shit! Enjoying the police state are ya? Wonder how it's going to feel when they come after you instead?

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[DigitAl56K]

They aren't even deciding what you can communicate, since TPB is a tracker. They're deciding whom you can communicate with altogether.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what you're saying is, is that while a citizen can spend say... a few hundred, hell, maybe a few thousand dollars donating to their party, a corporation can spend several orders of magnitude more than that?

And what you're ALSO saying is that a corporation doing this is simply a "group of people together" supporting their cause. This however requires that EVERY INDIVIDUAL IN THIS GROUP has the exact same viewpoint. Go into ANY corporation, and I defy you to find even a SINGLE one in which every employee has the exact same political view, and each wants a portion of their money to go towards it.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, a corporation is not an evil demon summoned from the blackest depths, but a group of people, summoned from the blackest depths, completely void of any ethics or morals.

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not really all that scary, mykos. After the US Supreme court Decision that gives corporations the right to spend any amount of money to influence elections in the US, the corporations are now able to be the government that regulates the corporations that tell us what is OK for us to communicate and do.

How about this; go read the actual decision instead of just puking back the bullshit the mass media is feeding you.

Here's what really happened:

There was a rule that said that corporations were not allowed to spend money on political advertising during the 30 day period before an election. (For some elections it was a 60 day period).
The courts ruled that this was not a constitutional restriction because it amounts to censorship. The rule was only constitutional because a previous court ruling.
So the current court threw out the old ruling, which means that the corporations can once again spend money on political ads during that last month period.

The ruling specifically stated that this did not affect other restrictions on corporate spending, campaign donation limits, etc.

NOW HERE IS THE KICKER:

The ruling specifically stated that this also meant that private citizens have just as much a right to free speech as any "official" media outlet, and specifically that giving any type of extra "free speech" protection to a media corporation OVER that given to a citizen also amounts to censorship. This means that everybody is a full-fledged member of "the press" because to do otherwise is censorship.

So the media organizations are screaming bloody murder and painting this overturning of a ruling as the courts somehow trying to ruin democracy by giving corporations the ability to "buy" politicians.

Again, to clarify, other than the 30/60 day rule on advertising, and the elite status of "the press", this decision does not change anything.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, corporations can't buy votes. But they can buy the people you vote for.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, in what way is money and speech remotely equivalent?

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[Evtim]

I don't think even this is the issue. The issue IMO is that once party X is in power they will push legislation benefiting the corporation that gave them so much money. I know it is happening now as well, but the future looks even darker. Who will the politician want to please - you with the 100 dollars donation or corp. with millions?

BTW, it maybe off-topic, but (fellow Americans) go and see Food Inc. when it hits the cinemas. Then, for once, use your gun laws which you like sooooo much and arrest the bastards that have kidnapped your country! I am not American but I will lend a hand if needed for such a noble cause (shit!!, now I must register and state my intentions to help the next American revolution)!

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[lgw]

Eh, in what way is money and speech remotely equivalent?

A political advertisement on TV or radio is political speech.

This is a good thing

[countertrolling]

It will encourage us to find an alternative technologies separate from government/corporate controlled communication services... In theory anyway. Most people won't care.

Re:This is a good thing

[twidarkling]

Eh, maybe more people move to darknets or something. Basically, the more techies that move to that kind of thing, the sooner it'd hit mainstream. Things like this, even if it only pushes a half-dozen people, could help.

Re:This is a good thing

[countertrolling]

Even "darknets" have to go through the telcos/cable. You can still get shut down. It's time for something completely different.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a revolution?

Re:This is a good thing

[bhtooefr]

Free space optical. Although, that's not stealth at all.

There's always 802.11n mesh networking... go to the maximum allowed power and maximum allowed antenna gain, and then set the network up using a protocol that can handle thousands of hops.

Re:This is a good thing

[ScentCone]

go to the maximum allowed power and maximum allowed antenna gain, and then set the network up using a protocol that can handle thousands of hops

Because it's that important to be able to rip off your entertainment! A massive, slow, thousand-hop mesh network makes far more sense than $1.50 video on demand that actually helps to pay to create the entertainment you'd rather steal. Sure, I'm following you. A lot of people would be all for someone else setting them up with a giant content-stealing network, since they'd like to leech off of their engineering efforts just like they'd like to continue to leech off of film makers and musicians.

Re:This is a good thing

[amorsen]

then set the network up using a protocol that can handle thousands of hops.

Right, I wonder which one of all the myriad thousand-hop routing protocols I should pick from... Perhaps you can recommend one?

Re:This is a good thing

[countertrolling]

Not unless they shoot first... We have yet to yet to adequately explore the democratic process. So far all but about 2% of the voting public like things just as they are, even if the papers say they claim otherwise.

Re:This is a good thing

[Mr2001]

A lot of people would be all for someone else setting them up with a giant content-stealing network, since they'd like to leech off of their engineering efforts just like they'd like to continue to leech off of film makers and musicians.

A lot of people would happily help pay to set up that network, just like they'd happily help pay for the production of new content -- as long as they don't have to pay to use the network after it's set up, just like they don't want to pay for access to content after someone has voluntarily produced it.

Re:This is a good thing

[bhtooefr]

To be fair, this technology is best applied for subversive communications - it'd be too slow, or not safe+distributed enough for piracy. (It can be safe and not distributed, or distributed and not safe, but not both.)

FSO is harder to set up, harder to apply to more than a point to point link, is more vulnerable to weather, and the transceivers are much more visible, but it has longer range, is significantly harder to intercept (especially without detection,) and can't be triangulated on. Denial of service attacks require knowledge of the location of both transceivers.

802.11 is easier to set up, easier to make omnidirectional, but can be intercepted and triangulated on very, very easily. And, denial of service attacks... hell, too densely crowded routers can be their own DoS attack.

blocking piratebay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they going to block google too?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=avatar+torrent

Hooray

Meanwhile...

[JackSpratts]

...Norway says s'ok! http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLc2Sd0IGZ0-56w-d7FAPNImTzZw

Not to be a dick, but . . .

[SlappyBastard]

"leaving millions of users without access to one of the most popular sites on the planet" is a bullshit plea. Don't give me this "would somebody think of the children!" argument. It's bullshit.

It isn't that hard to understand why a court might not be fans of a website whose content is at least 95% links to stuff that is illegal!

Nothing is going to make illegal downloading go away. I think it's fair to say some folks have spent a good portion of the last two decades trying. But, let's not act like it's a travesty that a court didn't side with the downloaders.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[camperdave]

I was under the impression that torrent sites do not hold anything illegal, but merely pointers to it. Or does TPB seed as well?

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Entropius]

The court can not be fans all they like, doesn't mean they should try to block it.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Or does TPB seed as well?

Maybe, maybe not. It's a pretty thin distinction (and a weak argument). The only reason someone would go to TPB would be to obtain copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material. The amount of legal material (public domain, GPL software, etc) is significantly overshadowed by the amount of infringing material.

That being said, TPB is a forum for exchanging infringing copyright material. Couple this with banner ads and other advertising, it really isn't a stretch to think of TPB as a copyright infringing website, regardless whether they actively seed or not.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But, let's not act like it's a travesty that a court didn't side with the downloaders.

What is the Law? An arbitrary sequence of rules which must be followed come what may? A code which it is always and everywhere immoral to to disobey, even in spirit? An elaborate ritual which those skilled in the art can obtain whatever outcome they please?

The function of the court system is to interpret the law in such a way that justice is served. When billions across the world withdraw their moral support fro copyrighted works and see nothing wrong with filesharing, are they wrong simply because the law says they are wrong? Or is it rather the law that is wrong, for unjustly imposing outdated or undemocratic views upon the population?

The law and the legal system gets too much of a free pass by too many people. It is as fallible and flawed a system as any other designed by human beings and its decisions are not always morally right, or even ethically so. You'll understand the fantasy when you finally have your day in court.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[pdxp]

It's not a matter of what is on the website as much as it is this: many of us see a bleak future when law dictates what sites we can and cannot visit on the internet.

This ruling means that rather than only taking down websites that cause direct harm to a person or a group of people, access to sites can be removed even if they fall within copyright gray areas, where laws and ideas are different all over the world, or where they possibly threaten financial harm (no matter how [un]justified) to large organizations.

It's like taking a magazine off the stands in just one country because it says anti-patriotic things about its leader. or, if you want to go into the realm of content legality, a magazine that tells you how to exploit DNS vulnerabilites (3 cheers for the 2600 periodical).

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[kindbud]

It isn't that hard to understand why a court might not be fans of a website whose content is at least 95% links to stuff that is illegal!

The only things found on torrent servers that is illegal are things like child pornography. Movies aren't illegal. Songs aren't illegal. I doubt PirateBay links to anything actually illegal to watch or listen to.

With or without PirateBay the torrents themselves are still legal to access.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[twidarkling]

Lemme know of another way to test a game to see if it's shit before buying it (no refunds, after all), or locate a stupidly-hard-to-find-movie that Amazon, your local retailers, and your local rental places don't carry.

I don't see why PC gamers should be fucked when it comes to seeing if a game's shitty just because of piracy concerns. I don't want to give my money to someone who doesn't deserve it, and there's a number of games that getting to rent it for a couple days, or even getting a *proper* demo (none of this 15 minute bullshit) would let me know to either spend the $50-$60, or move on.

As for my other scenario, I wanna watch a movie. The entire point of making a movie is to have people watch it. I did my dues, checking all the channels that would result in revenue for the creator, but they didn't see fit to exercise those options, or keep those options open, for some reason. If I've done my part in attempting to pay, why should I then not be able to watch it freely? It's not like they're losing a sale, and if I find it ever, I'll buy it (done that more than once).

So no, it isn't true that "The only reason someone would go to TPB would be to obtain copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material."

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[srussia]

Nothing is going to make illegal downloading go away.

Yes there is, repealing copyright.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[starfliz]

It doesn't matter what the court 'thinks'. The issue is (no matter how it is stated) that this is an attack on 3rd parties instead of the people 'responsible'. Either:
Go after distributors (insanely difficult = costly) which do something 'bad'
Go after the thieves (people at home = costly) which do something 'bad'
Go after the ISPs (easy to shut off the 'valve') which do absolutely nothing wrong.

I don't want to know what the court is a 'fan' of. This is in italy so they can set up whatever asinine freedom destroying laws they want, but its obviously idiotic to go after people and cost them money that have nothing to do with the problem.

I wish the commercial organization would realize people love to buy their products.... if only they would make it more easy to access.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh so what you're saying is that Pirate Bay does engage in some screening of the material?

Thanks for sharing that.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[srussia]

The only things found on torrent servers that is illegal are things like child pornography. Movies aren't illegal. Songs aren't illegal. I doubt PirateBay links to anything actually illegal to watch or listen to.

None of those series of bits are illegal per se. Perhaps, possessing them, creating them, copying them, or distributing them... But no thing is illegal, only actions are.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[mx_mx_mx]

Mod parent up

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[corbettw]

The function of the court system is to interpret the law in such a way that justice is served.

You can make that argument about a common law system, but Italy has a civil law system. In which case you are 100% wrong, the function of the court system there is merely to apply the law as written. Questions of justice don't enter into it.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing rights/needs with petty desires. Just because you want to see a 30 year old movie doesn't obligate the universe to provide you with access to it. Patience.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[lgw]

Don't buy a game unless you know it's good. Simple as that. You don't have a fundamental right to try before you buy - if the demo isn't enough to know, just don't buy it. It's a feeble excuse.

There's certainly an argument to be made in the case of a movie that simply cannot be obtained otherwise, but the catalog of places like NetFlix is pretty huge. What you really seem to be saying (and the reason I think most people torrent movies) is that you're willing to pay, but you're not willing for it to be inconvenient, so the owners had better make it convenient or they get nothing. Again, that's a right you don't have (but if I were a movie studio, I'd know that was my new business model!).

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, you don't have the right to test a game to see if it's shit before buying it.

You. Don't. Have. That. Right.

You can buy it, or not, or the game company can provide a reasonable demo. Or you can break the law. Which isn't an enormous ethical violation in my book, but at the same time, don't be surprised when the court doesn't side with you for willfully disregarding the law because you want to try out a video game.

I'm a lot more favourable to the stupidly-hard-to-find content where you can't figure out how to give people your money for their stuff, particularly if you already DO have the right to it.

So no, it isn't true that "The only reason someone would go to TPB would be to obtain copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material."

Both examples you gave were examples of you obtaining copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material. Particularly the try-before-you-buy video game one, that was the entire point of you doing that. At least with the hard-to-find one, it wasn't the point, just how it works out. You can justify it, and we may or may not agree that your justifications are reasonable, but just because it's justified doesn't mean he's factually incorrect.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the commercial organization would realize people love to buy their products.... if only they would make it more easy to access.

Well, I don't know about you, but the products are perfectly easy to access today. Except something gets in the way - money. I don't have an infinite supply of it, but I want nearly an infinite supply of content. Therefore, if I have to choose between downloading a movie or buying a DVD in a store, I'm going to download for free. Every time. No matter what.

So are all the people that I know under 30. The ones in their 40s don't know how to download, don't know where to go and have slow Internet connections. Too bad for them, I guess.

In 30 years there will be some old people buying stuff and the rest will be downloading for free, fighting over whatever is out there because there sure won't be any big name bands or big studios anymore. Big and free just don't seem to go together well. Small and free, yes.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Merls the Sneaky]

Or how about when you buy the game and it's fucked out of the box due to DRM. But it's ok that those fuckers steal our money. And it is stealing if the "product" doesn't work.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[chickenarise]

It's...it's...sigh...it's poetry.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[HTH NE1]

TPB is a forum for exchanging infringing copyright material.

You say it largely contains information about where copyright infringement is occurring. It reveals this information equally to everyone who wants to look, including the people whose copyright is being infringed and their agents in law enforcement. Nowhere would you find such an organized and open collection of information about ongoing criminal activity. And it's freely volunteered by the infringers!

And you want to shut it down?!

It can only because it is so embarrassing, like a website identifying streets where prostitution occurs in cities around the world. So much crime committed out in the open and not enough resources to directly combat it? Easier to kill the messenger. Out of sight, out of mind.

Keep going down this slope and you'll make people not want to report any crime lest they be arrested for having criminal knowledge.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Changa_MC]

You can claim that there's no justice in Italy, but Guido here would like to assure you otherwise. He thinks it would be a shame if something happened to your website...

Seriously, your claim that Italy is some sort of totalitarian state where laws can never be questioned does not harm the argument that this is an unreasonable law.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to bite and respond to the obvious flamebait:

And you want to shut it down?!

I was with you until you said this. That was never implied, nor even insinuated.

It can only because it is so embarrassing, like a website identifying streets where prostitution occurs in cities around the world. So much crime committed out in the open and not enough resources to directly combat it? Easier to kill the messenger. Out of sight, out of mind.

Nice strawman. Going from copyright infringement to an actual crime is just a bit of a stretch.

I'm not actually against TPB, or even what it entails. I've used it to obtain difficult-to-find material (the 1981 HBO PeeWee Herman show comes to mind) that is still under copyright. No where would I ever think that what I was doing was not copyright infringement (I apologize for the convoluted sentence structure). Presenting a simple fact of, "People who go to TPB do so for the sole purpose of copyright infringement" is very different from campaigning to bring the website down.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy a game unless you know it's good. Simple as that. You don't have a fundamental right to try before you buy - if the demo isn't enough to know, just don't buy it.

If I followed this advice I probably wouldn't buy any games at all. Lose for me. Lose for the publishers.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[starfliz]

That is a thieves mentality. I am not arguing that thieves don't steal. I am arguing for them to stop hindering people that are perfectly willing to pay. I like purchasing movies and supporting stuff I like with my money. My money is a vote for the world I want. When I purchase movies and music then it is a vote for what I want to exist. So I pay and get what I want and you don't pay and have to deal with what I like.

Don't use DRM and and other mechanisms (outdated CD sales) to make stuff I want to purchase not easily to get. I buy my movies and mp3s as long as they are easy to buy. I watch most of my movies by 'renting' them on netflix. This is all legal and easy to get for me and doesn't cost much.

If you want to steal then go ahead. You will rationalize it no matter what happens. But, don't put a bunch of laws up that get in my way and don't affect you at all. Thieves steal and they always will. it is what they do. A reasonable education program (that doesn't treat people like pieces of crap) would do more than all the lawsuits that companies use.

I think 30 years from now there will still be 'big name' bands because that is how society works. The easy path is supporting a structure that feeds people stuff to consume. There are already 'small and free' bands out there for people that want to look for them. Infinite diversity with infinite combination. There is no 'one way'.

On a personal note, I do not make a lot of money. My media consumption is not very costly. I would suggest you stop consuming and focus on education if you are so poor that you have to steal stuff that is pretty cheap.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Lord_Dweomer]

"You don't have a fundamental right to try before you buy"

Well, you used to actually--it was called "returning it if it sucks." Unfortunately publishers did everything they could to tie each purchase to a one-time online account and put pressure on retailers to no longer accept opened game returns, so if a game sucks, you are stuck with it. Thus, I have no pity these companies when they whine about piracy--I have downloaded many games that have sucked and am glad I didn't waste my money. I have also downloaded many games that rocked and then proceeded to pay full price for it and recommend it to my friends.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[alexo]

Nothing is going to make illegal downloading go away.

Yes there is, repealing copyright.

So, basically, you agree with SlappyBastard.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[mdwh2]

If TPB is one of the most popular sites on the planet, I don't see how it's a "bullshit plea" - it's perfectly correct, and it's relevant to point out the wide scope that such action will take.

(If it isn't the one of the most popular planet, then sure - but then it's a case of simply being factually wrong, and the issue of legality is irrelevant to the point.)

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[couchslug]

Easy solution:

Don't buy games with any DRM and if you aren't sure let the early adopters find out for you.

Games, like music, are a "want", not a "need".

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[NeutronCowboy]

Tell that to the literal constitutionalists, or those bitching about activist judges. Face it, all legal systems are designed to provide justice. Whether you agree with the definition of justice behind the legal system or not goes a long way in whether you think it is being just.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[tehcyder]

Lemme know of another way to test a game to see if it's shit before buying it (no refunds, after all), or locate a stupidly-hard-to-find-movie that Amazon, your local retailers, and your local rental places don't carry.

Why do you make it sound as though you have a god-given right to play that game or watch that movie? If you can't get it, so what? You're not being denied access to clean drinking water or something.
And don't make me laugh by pretending you always pay for every game or movie you download that turns out to be good. As Dr Johnson said, free your mind of cant.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[HTH NE1]

And you want to shut it down?!

I was with you until you said this. That was never implied, nor even insinuated.

Have you not been following the stories regarding TPB? Or even this fine article?

I'm not actually against TPB, or even what it entails.

Neither am I. Those seeking to bar access to it though aren't interested in prosecuting crime (TPB should be treated as a honeypot by law enforcement) but rather taking a stance of preventing temptation. Thinking for the children.

Nice strawman. Going from copyright infringement to an actual crime is just a bit of a stretch.

Should I have gone with a website that documents all the intersections without red-light cameras so as to compare copyright infringement to a moving violation? That smacks of another dreaded car analogy. I went with prostitution due to it being a private transaction for services between consenting adults, where what is tangibly lost at least was willingly parted with.

"Selling is legal; fucking is legal. Why isn't `selling fucking' legal?" -- George Carlin, RIP

Maybe you can come up with a comparable civil action (that an industry wants to elevate to being criminal) that I can use for future analogies?

I've used it to obtain difficult-to-find material (the 1981 HBO PeeWee Herman show comes to mind) that is still under copyright.

That is available on DVD, $8.49 at Amazon.com, $5.95 + $2.98 s&h for previously owned. (I paid $7.98 for it in 2006.) I'm all for getting unobtainium by whatever non-invasive, non-destructive electronic means that doesn't deprive anything from others, but you should be willing to pay for it when it does finally come to market. I've had that special on VHS recorded off HBO for years until finally getting it on DVD.

I'd consider downloading the movie Moontrap if it were available since it doesn't appear it will ever be shown on cable again or released on DVD (even having its title altered to "Moonwarp" in all but one mention in My Name Is Bruce), but I'd still buy it if they surprised me by releasing it.

The desire for unobtainable works got me to buy Prime Risk as a PAL release of Alarmstufe 1 in 5.1 Mono German(*), convert it to NTSC, and restore the English audio from an HBO EP VHS tape (and the original title). The resync of the audio was a bitch, especially accommodating differing splices at the original reel changes and the occasional splice of broken film. But I have no plans to upload it anywhere nor to allow others to download it from me.

Some works appear to be destined to become pocket-copyright. Defining the term, it's when it is withheld from the market such that all released copies cease to be usable (obsolescence, expiry of media to inaccessibility, DRM, whatever) as a public domain work and the only copies that exist are held by a private party seeking either to maintain monopoly control beyond the duration of copyright or the destruction of the work so that the public never receives their end of the copyright bargain that granted their limited-time monopoly in exchange for a delayed but eventual entrance into the public domain.

"I am altering the deal; pray I don't alter it any further."

What, am I now engaging in hyperbole in comparing those behind eternal copyright extension with Darth Vader?

(*) Every channel of the 5.1 audio in that release is the same mono track repeated, so I couldn't even just replace the center channel with the English dialog and keep the digital quality effects tracks in the others.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch:

"The Occult World of Commerce", "Choosing Freedom", "Security of the Person", etc.

Read:

HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN... a Spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and
Remembering Who You Are by: Mary Elizabeth: Croft

http://freedomfiles.org/mary-book.pdf

It's all about Admiralty Law vs Common Law... and how you will always be judged under Admiralty Law instead of Common Law unless you do know how to navigate between those two world.

Guess what? As soon as you're registered via a birth certificate, you, the human being named 'john doe', will receive an artificial person/strawman figure named 'JOHN DOE' which is connected to you.. and the latter is an employee of the company called the USofA... and it's the latter who can only be brought to justice under Admiralty Law, which is the law of commerce.

Check all your ID's, drive licenses, birth certificates, etc.. always the name in caps...so you can be CAPITALIZED upon.

http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/76yhn/wiki_sovereign_citizen_movement_courts_have/

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, the function of the court system is to BALANCE THE BOOKS.

http://supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman5.htm

What about Google?

[killmenow]

Are they planning to block Google too? You can find a crap load of torrents through simple google searches. Not to mention (as the article does) all the other specific .torrent search sites. Or proxies. Or tor. Or rapidshit. Or FTP. Or Usenet. Or other P2P networks/apps. (AD INFINITUM)

Obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

What we need is a freenet-like system dedicated only to the distribution of .torrent files. Just embed it in a BT client and use DHT. Figure out how to fight that one, money gluttons!

Re:Obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they'll just ban THAT system/software.
Next Idea.

Re:Obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly would they do that, since it lacks any centralized target and can obfuscate/encrypt its traffic?

Re:Obvious solution

[lgw]

What we need is a freenet-like system dedicated only to the distribution of .torrent files. Just embed it in a BT client and use DHT. Figure out how to fight that one, money gluttons!

I think that freenet-like system is called Freenet. I don't do the torrenting thing, but I'd be amazed if .torrent files weren't being traded on Freenet itself, via Frost or Freenet web sites. Of course, the more people who use freenet, the less you'll need a seperate torrenting system. If you're even a little paranoid, you'll realize that you want to encypt all your p2p traffic, at which point you'll do eveything on Freenet directly.

Eventually, of course, the government will just outlaw all encrypted traffic except HTTPS to a bank - I'm actually kind of surprised that's not already the case in China (but then maybe they just arrest you on other charges if you have to much encrypted traffic there).

Re:Obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a stream-lined solution to get a significant user-base. Integrating something like freenet, except optimized toward only .torrent files, into a BT client so all the user sees is a search bar and a list of results, each of which can be turned into a torrent download in that same client with a simple click, would be a significant step toward eliminating the current largest "weakness" in BT while actually increasing its ease of use.

It's true that all people seeding/downloading the actual torrent will still have their IPs publicly broadcasted, but this system will force targeting all of the individual users, which in all attempts so far has proved to be quite inefficient and pretty bad PR.

Leaves the question what was decided

[Anonymous Coward]

Why and more importantly how as in on what reasoning did the court decide the obvious? Yes, ISPs can easily block. But should they? Should telephone companies scrub ``bad'' words, like mention who sells ``illegal'' copies of copyrighted material, from conversation? Why not telephone companies but ISPs? Just because it is relatively easily possible?

Personally I think the ``common carrier'' doctrine is a much better idea than censorship, but apparently this Italian high court disagrees. But even after RingTFA, I have no idea why.

King Canute had something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

They might as well stand in the surf and command the tide to stop.

"Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey".

Re:King Canute had something to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Venice is in Italy, they've had a lot of work done on tide management there.

Good luck!

[jtownatpunk.net]

I'm behind seven proxies!!!

Oh, and I'm not in Italy.

Or am I?

Re:Good luck!

[MentlFlos]

I'm behind seven proxies!!!

Wow your e-penis is huge!

Or am I?

And mysterious?

one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

So what if it is popular!? We block Nazi sites and other sites we deem are culturally or economically hazardous. Bottom line is that - today - distributing files your don't have permission to access or share is illegal. This is not an argument whether or not copyright laws are just or unjust. Simply, this is blocking illegal content. It is not the same as China censoring sites the government approve of. (I am sure the US gov is blocking sites, too.)

I think the bigger argument against blocking Pirate Bay is that they are an index, not a a distributor.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

This is not an argument whether or not copyright laws are just or unjust. Simply, this is blocking illegal content. It is not the same as China censoring sites the government approve of

Since it's illegal for the Chinese to see the sites China blocks, what's the difference? In either case, the government is blocking sites it doesn't want you to see. To Quote Mr. Blues, "I hate Illinois Nazis" but I will defend their right to spew their obnoxious garbage in Germany as vehemently as I will defend the Chinese people's right to see crap their government doesn't want them to see.

We block Nazi sites

WE don't. My government doesn't. Your "we" is a bit too inclusive, and your post is a bit to parochial. For someone who agrees that it's OK to block Nazi sites while denying China's right to block certain cults' sites is a bit hypocritical.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[H0p313ss]

Your "we" is a bit too inclusive, and your post is a bit to parochial. For someone who agrees that it's OK to block Nazi sites while denying China's right to block certain cults' sites is a bit hypocritical.

Well, censorship is censorship, and censorship is bad but... and this is a big but... there is a fundamental difference between the Chinese government using censorship to suppress the fundamental human rights of its people and the German government using censorship to suppress an ideology that was responsible for the greatest human rights abuses and the worst mass murder in human history.

Personally I don't agree with the German governments approach, but I do understand the problem that they face. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. The average German appears to be perfectly willing to give up a very small part of their freedom of speech in order to differentiate themselves from the horrors that were committed in the past in their name.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

there is a fundamental difference between the Chinese government using censorship to suppress the fundamental human rights of its people

I don't agreee; freedom of speech IS a fundamental right. One of the US founding fathers pointed out that unpopular speech is the speech that most needs to be protected.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

Whats the difference? Whats the difference between your hat and a bucket!? You can put them both over your head - except one blinds you.

Chinese are blocking rights of free speech, the right to organize, and and the right collaborate. Obtaining and using entertainment media that someone else created and owns - without their permission - is theft.

Stay away from buckets.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[H0p313ss]

One of the US founding fathers pointed out that unpopular speech is the speech that most needs to be protected.

Which is why I disagree with the German approach. What I'm pointing out is that it is completely unfair to equate the German censorship with the Chinese.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an argument whether or not copyright laws are just or unjust. Simply, this is blocking illegal content.

The CONTENT is NOT illegal, stop confusing the difference between illegal CONTENT and illegally obtaining it.

And since neither you, nor the government, knows who is actually downloading those materials, and is not checking the distribution license on the material, you cannot say that the downloaders are breaking the law either.

We block Nazi sites and other sites we deem are culturally or economically hazardous. [...] It is not the same as China censoring sites the government approve of. (I am sure the US gov is blocking sites, too.)

Yes, it is exactly the same. Your government does not approve of "Nazi" sites so you block them. Iran does not approve of "Christian" or "Western fashion" sites because they don't approve of them. etc.

No, the US government does not block sites. Some ISP's might DNS block or IP block certain sites on their own, but they are not required to, and the US government does not have the ability to dictate to the ISP's which sites they can or cannot block- that would be what we call censorship.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

I'm not comparing the great firewall of China to copyrigt infringement, I'm comparing it to Germany's blocking Nazi sites. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech, not just speech you approve of. Quashing political speech (and the Nazis ARE political) is the worst sort of censorship, and in Germany's case I think is really dumb; the best way to fight speech is with more speech. Truth always trumps hatred and lies, and the Nazis are about as disgustingly hateful as one can get.

And, copyright infringement is no more theft than rape is murder. If I walk into Best Buy and take a CD without paying, I have stolen. Best Buy has paid for that CD and no longer has it. They have been deprived of property thay can no longer use, whether or not I would have paid for it if I couldn't have stolen it.

If I download a CD's worth of songs, those songs are still in the record company's catalog. They have been deprived of nothing, particularly if there would be no way I'd pay for that album.

I'm no pirate, but a quick googling will show you that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates. Piracy does not eat into the RIAA's revenues; the copyright infringement is not depriving them of anything. Now, if I download a CD's worth of music and burn it to Cds and sell them, then that copyright infringement IS depriving them of their property. In that case, with every CD I sell, they have indeed lost a sale and have indeed been stolen from.

But again, that bears no relation to China; germany blocking Nazi sites does.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

Freedom of speech is not absolute. In the US, SCOTUS has ruled that there are times when you don't get to say what you want...

I am not sure how comparing China to Germany pertains to the blocking of Pirate Bay, an entertainment index site (mostly).

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

"And, copyright infringement is no more theft than rape is murder."

Yes, but all three are a crime.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

Freedom of speech is not absolute

True; when I exercize my rights, I cannot encroach on yours. Slander is speech, but if I slander you I have encroached on your rights. If I incite a mob I have encroached on your rights. If I shout "fire" in a crowded theater I have encroached on everyone there's rights. But aside from this, when has SCOTUS ever placed limits on speech?

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

Nice job completely missing the point.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

LOL - you post of list of examples when another's rights are infringed on *and then you accuse _me_ of missing the point!

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

When I say you miss the point, I'm referring to my point, which you are not only missing but actively avoiding. Since this is the case, just never mind.

Obligatory, but relevant

[Kirin Fenrir]

First they came for the torrents, and I did not speak, for I did not use torrents...

Re:Obligatory, but relevant

[oh-dark-thirty]

We can also say that if you outlaw torrents, only outlaws will...er, on second thought I guess that's redundant.

Blocking the Tracker or the Website?

[The Yuckinator]

TFA and TFS both say that ISP's are required to block access to TPB's "Tracker". TFA goes on to mention "sites offering torrent links" but doesn't seem to make a distinction between .torrent files and the notorious "tracker".

Which is it? Because TPB shut down their tracker a couple of months ago

Hmmm.

[IonOtter]

Italian Government: You will BAN the web address for the Pirate Bay!

ISP: Okay. *adds thepiratebay.com and thepiratebay.org to the "ban" list.*

Italian Government: ...You did that awful fast. Are you sure it's blocked?

ISP: Try it.

Italian Government: *types in both URLs with no joy* Right. Good riddance.

ISP: Yup. Bye.

Home user: *types 194.71.107.15 into their browser*

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your users have to type in an ip address to get access to your website, you can basically kiss your audience good bye.

Take off the shades and face the reality, if nobody is visiting the site and no new uploaders are coming you are on your way to a dead end of crappy served torrents and untrusted torrents that are infected with viruses. Lets face it, the world loves to suck off the tit of Hollywood and they need their material because basically the rest of the media out there is crap.

But hey go ahead and try to spin it, at the end of the day Hollywood makes the good stuff and you go home at night to turn on your stuff on the Comedy Central Network or ScyFy channel.

Sucking on to the tit of Hollywood, admit it you guys are shills and go back to the abusive boyfriend no matter how many time they beat you....

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

From Italy it does not work.
Not so funny indeed.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Home user: get a 301 redirect and stuck.

Home user change DNS to 8.8.8.8

Home user: go to thepiratebay.org and works.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just funny, because my ISP is actively filtering TPB's IP addresses, not just DNS. Proxy browsing still works.

Only under Berlusconi's government such an idiotic measure could be passed.

But since Italy is becoming a population of idiots spoonfed by a monopoly on tv misinformation that makes Fox News pale in comparison, that is not a big surprise.

Well, idiots will get stuck with this. Smart people will not.

Berlusconi will eventually go away of old age, and then state ignorance will not be necessary to save a sociopathic corrupt liar anymore.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

They blocked the Ip now, not just the name resolution. Unless you use a proxy abroad you can't connect to TPB from within Italy.

News + BitTorrent

[il1019]

I would like to see how it would play out (legally) if a BitTorrent site started hosting some (or any) sort of local news.

Re:News + BitTorrent

[Philip_the_physicist]

Given where Burlosconi's money comes from, that isn't likely to help.

Itralian Internet Censorship Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Italian courts have decided that accessing piratebay's website is verboten.

It isn't a big leap to see the Italian government supporting that with legislation to require ISPs to block access to them. This decision doesn't say that this will happen, it just says that it is allowed.

Thus Italy could easily end up with something like what is being builtin Australia, except for a different purpose. Instead of blocking access to web sites that carry material that would be refused classification (in Australia), it will be blocking of access to web sites that exist to support bit torrent and the illegal exchange of copyright material.

Obligatory

[Midnight Thunder]

Obligatory: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." or to adjust the wording to the context: "The more you tighten your grip, Copyright holders, the more trackers will slip through your fingers."

Another child left behind

[Voyager529]

Time isn't money. Time is the non-spatial continuum in which events occur linearly, typically in order of increasing entropy.

Re:Another child left behind

[Nefarious Wheel]

Time is what keeps everything from happening at once. Space is what keeps it all from happening to you.

The definition of time

[Antiocheian]

And what is "events" ?

Re:Is about political process, not law

[mnemotronic]

The law is irrelevant. This is about appointed politicians having something to brag about in front of TV cameras. "I voted to stop Internet Copyright Infringement". Italian SC judges are appointed by the Minister of Justice, not elected by the populace.

Re:Is about political process, not law

[Atlantis-Rising]

Er... why would appointed politicians brag? They're not responsible to the population. They have no reason to brag, because there's nothing to gain.

Which is really the reason why appointed judges makes sense. Judges should not follow the popular opinion, they should follow the law.

Why not?

[SlappyBastard]

That's not exactly an argument.

I'm pretty certain it is the role of the courts to curtail illegal activities when brought to their attention.

If you don't like the law

[SlappyBastard]

Change it.

Man up. Don't pussy out and just say, "Well, the law irredeemably sucks." If that's your view, exercise your Second Amendment rights and overthrow the government already.

I've been in court on both sides. It's as fair as you can hope for under any circumstances. The American legal system is one of the things that clearly defines America as different and better than other places.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just whining.

Re:If you don't like the law

[SlappyBastard]

I realized after the fact we are talking about Italy, whose legal system is never 100%. It doesn't change my argument, but I thought it was worth noting in the aftermath of my "USA! USA!" chant.

Re:If you don't like the law

[Per Wigren]

For me as an outsider (a Swede) I think that jury based courts seem crazy because then it's not about the law anymore. Members of the jury will always consult their religion and morals instead of the law, making it effectively a religion based court. Just like in Iran, but with other values and references. This is something we should had left behind us already after the witchcraft trials in the 1600s. Also, the concepts of bail, settling out of court and suing for more than one can possible pay in a whole life seem totally alien to me because to me it looks like it's not about equal justice but about money, power and bloodthirsty revenge.

But maybe I'm just whining... :P

Re:If you don't like the law

[Anonymous Coward]

The American legal system is one of the things that clearly defines America as different and better than other places.

Strike "better" from your statement above and it will be a correct statement. As it stands now, it's just your opinion, and your opinion is simply not important enough to replace fact.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is just whining.

No. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just disagreeing with you.

There is a big difference, as I am pretty sure you are aware.

Riiiiiiight

[SlappyBastard]

Copyright's going away tomorrow. Thank goodness you mentioned it, because we were worried there was no way out.

We will immediately begin legalizing screwing people out of their fundamental right to enjoy the fruits of their labors.

Oh, come on!

[SlappyBastard]

If you have a nerve center that exists purely to route people to illegal content -- and that is what TPB is -- it is irrational to say the government has no right to tell ISPs to not intervene.

Think of it in the context of a Good Samaritan law. If you can do something to interdict a crime, you should.

And

[mahadiga]

"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde

Torrent Relays

[cyclomedia]

I have an idea that would work as an extension to torrent clients without requiring extra darknet software and that would be backwards compatible with existing torrent software.

All you'd need to do is have the ability to route your torrent's traffic through a relay. A relay would be someone else running a torrent client with this "Relay" extension enabled. They'd pick up your torrent hash table and pretend to be you on the tracker, relaying the traffic to you. So long as their client only cached things in RAM and did not save anything then a scan of their hard disk would show no trace whatsoever of their ever visiting a link to, or having a local copy of, the files in question. It could probably even relay encrypted torrents because it wouldnt need to know what was in the packets, only where to send them.

To connect to a relay you could enter its address directly if you know it, or enter multiple relays. You could also extend the abilities of trackers so you could register yourself with the IAmARelay list on the tracker, and pick out relays at random to connect through. Sure it'd be a bit slower to complete a transfer, but someone snooping would be clueless, you'd have to connect to each node and try to work out who was an actual peer and who was a relay by their response times. Clever clients would use geolocations of IPs to relay through someone in another jurisdiction, that way when the People's Party connect to the tracker for Tibet-Riot-Photos.zip.torrent they only "see" peers on other continents.

more fucking horseshit

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a corporation is NOT just a "group of people", it is a separate legal entity in it's own right. It is commonly instituted with a LIMITED liability, meaning you can only clean out its owners to the extent of their individual and combined participation of the shares subscribed to that corporation. A group of people, my dear friend, is more like a partnership, where each and every one of them can get cleaned out to the FULL extent of their personal wealth.

In addition, a corp has the inhuman ability to rise phoenix-like from "death" imposed on it temporarily as a bankruptcy (see Chapter 11).

This is the screaming aberration of the beast - it has nothing to do with PEOPLE assembling together - it is essentially packets of MONEY assembling together, that is what makes it an "evil demon", as it has no soul, no morals and no purpose other than to shield the moneyed interests from responsibility should things go tits up.

I find it hard to believe that a pro-corporation troll gets marked up as "interesting" in /. Sad fucking day....

Ctrl-Alt-Backspace

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you mean it's not supposed to be a FAST log-out command for Linux? And why would they remove that feature?