Slashdot Mirror


The Pirate Bay On Track To Be Banned In the UK?

redletterdave writes with this excerpt from the International Business Times about the fate of the Pirate Bay in the UK: "Swedish filesharing website The Pirate Bay may soon be blocked in the UK after a London judge ruled that the site breaches copyright laws on a large scale, and that both the platform and its users illegally share copyrighted material like movies and music. In addition to finding legal fault with The Pirate Bay and its users, the British Phonographic Industry also wants all British ISPs to block access to The Pirate Bay in the UK."

31 of 309 comments (clear)

  1. Can we just ban it? by ka9dgx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's ban child phonography.... cut off their customer base, and drive the bastards out of business.

    1. Re:Can we just ban it? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Funny

      why shouldn't children be allowed to use Pitman shorthand?

      if you were making some irrelevant statement about child pornography, on the other hand, 1. it's already banned 2. the Pirate Bay doesn't have any

    2. Re:Can we just ban it? by cupantae · · Score: 5, Funny

      You may be interested to hear that the UK, among other places, is not in America.

      --
      --
    3. Re:Can we just ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Child pornography should be legal, just as snuff films should be legal. Free speech is free speech. If the video is evidence of a crime, persecute the offenders in the video who perpetrated the crime. Video or pictures of crimes being committed should be legal, including child pornography. You're probably thinking that there will be more videos of 60-year-old-men diddling three-year-olds. This is unlikely to be the case, as this kind of pornography is incredibly rare because there really aren't that many sick fucks who will do that (I could be wrong).

      You will, however, be able to see a 16-year-old girl willingly take video of herself masturbating. And two fourteen-year-olds having sex on video (and it was their idea). If the argument is that legalized video will spurn more coercion of children - coercion of children for sex with adults is already illegal (although the age of consent is too high, IMO).

      The only reason child pornography is illegal is the puritanical mindset of the United States (I imagine some of Europe made it illegal to appease the U.S.). Child pornography was common in the '70s and nobody batted an eye. If you have video of a thirteen year old masturbating alone from 1975, don't you think that person (who would be 51 now) has either forgotten about it or it doesn't bother them and they don't mind others watching it? Yes, in extreme cases (child rape) the victims hate the video that exists of it, but that shouldn't make it illegal. Watching a video of a child being molested by an adult may be ethically and morally questionable or wrong, but it should not be crime that warrants the current outrageously extreme punishment (20-100 years in prison, sexual offender's watchlist for life, banned from the Internet for life).

    4. Re:Can we just ban it? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that a local market (i.e., in the US) might create supply elsewhere (i.e., Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia). I'm afraid that I'd support criminalizing the market as well as the production, because the supply will just move to wherever enforcement is non-existent otherwise. It's a formula for outsourcing child-rape.

      I do distinguish between pedophilia and attraction to teens. I don't think it's appropriate to treat pictures of naked teenagers in the same way as videos of toddlers being raped. In the case of the latter, I think even viewing/possessing them should be criminalized in very strong terms.

    5. Re:Can we just ban it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, child pornography doesn't follow the same rules as other media.

      You see, if you pirate other media you harm the content creator but if you pirate child pornography you support the content creator.
      At least that is what I have been told.

    6. Re:Can we just ban it? by Blahah · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...and that we only have tens, instead of thousands of gunshot wounds in the UK every year.

    7. Re:Can we just ban it? by chrb · · Score: 4, Informative

      And yet the UK has a fraction of the murder rate of the U.S. despite having a more urbanised population. 125 murders in Metropolitan London last year - a densely populated urban region with population of around 13 million with 5000 people per square km. Compare that to U.S. cities! 620 murders in the entire UK for a population of 62 million people. The majority of British people think gun control is a great idea.

  2. It's kind of scary by cshark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that the UK is exerting this kind of power over their local internet lines and providers.

    --

    This signature has Super Cow Powers

    1. Re:It's kind of scary by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Normally I would find this sort of thing scary.
      But, let's look at it through our un-biased glasses for a second.
      A judge made a ruling that may lead to certain companies pursuing court orders to have the site blocked by telcos within Britain.
      Now, this is not even the government censoring Britain's internet. These are companies who (obviously) have a vested interest in having the site blocked as the site exists almost solely for the purpose of illegally distributing copyrighted material (let's be completely honest here).

      This is not the government trying to mute anyone's opinions.
      This is not the government trying to censor what you are allowed to see.

      I know people will probably claim "But it could be X, Y or Z". It is not. This is a judge making what is IMO a just and fair ruling that may or may not end up in private companies making an attempt to have a certain site, whose profits mostly come from distributing copyrighted material, blocked within Britain.

      This is not as big as people are making it out to be and I'm not particularly scared (for now).

    2. Re:It's kind of scary by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well it is The Register and this isn't the first time they have predicted this kind of thing. Even extremist web sites preaching hate and containing bomb making information doesn't get censored via Cleanfeed for the most part, and the authorities are probably unwilling to use it that way. Blocking such sites would make people find ways around the block and then they would have no way of monitoring them so easily.

      Blocking TBP would push encryption and privacy into the public conciousness and millions more people would start caring about it. It would be a disaster for Big Brother.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:It's kind of scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How so? I'm not [insert minority here] so it has no affect on me personally. A tiny percentage of the population deal with [thing the minority group do]. They take on an inflated representation because of [thing the minority group do] but honestly do they represent 0.01% of the actual population. Sure they affect you adversely but the average person won't notice unless they are specifically after [thing the minority group do]. Just trying to put it into perspective.

      Later...

      Oh shit! They're trying to ban [thing I do]! HOW DARE THEY!

    4. Re:It's kind of scary by QuasiSteve · · Score: 4, Informative

      Blocking TBP would push encryption and privacy into the public conciousness and millions more people would start caring about it. It would be a disaster for Big Brother.

      Being in a country (NL) where TPB is blocked by two major providers, I can tell you that no such thing has occurred on any notable scale.

      What did happen?
      1. Outrage at forums and news sites.
      2. Questions of how to get around the blockade.
      3. Answers providing many methods to get 'around' the blockade, none of which require encryption or privacy-enhancing methods, really. Sure, TOR has been suggested, but TOR is cumbersome.
      4. Further answers pointing out alternatives, including 'news' servers.
      5. Outrage? What outrage? Oh, The Pirate Beach? Yeah, I vaguely remember that irrelevant site. *goes back to watching recent episode of popular U.S. show downloaded from news server*

      Maybe it would be different in the U.K.

  3. Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Global information exchange The Internet may soon be blocked in the UK after a London judge ruled that the system breaches copyright laws on a large scale, and that the platform's routers and end users illegally share copyrighted material like movies and music. In addition to finding legal fault with The Internet and its users, the British Phonographic Industry also wants all British ISPs to block access to The Internet in the UK.

    1. Re:Up next on Copyright cat & mouse... by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure I heard a bird singing a copyrighted song. They should ban those too.

  4. Here comes Tor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Honestly, we need a "Streisand Effect" term for what happens when legislation merely prompts sites to use the encrypted areas of the internet.

  5. What's wrong with drugs? by kawabago · · Score: 4, Funny
  6. Best of luck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Whack-a-mole.

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

  7. 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1984. Thank you.

  8. Old news, Pirate Bay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tribler is the future of these things, and isn't really blockable.

    The problem with the suit of armor - invented (yes, partly) as a response to the broadsword - is that it spurred the development of the rapier and epee.

    Defense... offense... meet developers.

  9. Like a ratchet by 7-Vodka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what's funny about the prevailing systems of government in this era? They're all about writing new laws, making new things illegal, regulating more and more of their citizen's lives and centralizing more and more power in the hands of a VERY few.

    It never goes the other way. Ever.

    How often do over reaching laws get repealed? How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"?
    How often have you seen governments de-centralize things in order to make them more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve?

    How often does government shrink or even stop growing at exponential rates? How often have they become less involved when it was needed?

    In fact, most governments call decreases in projected increases as "cuts".

    If next year something happens that causes the government to no longer need (by their justification) to control the internet, you think they will cede control?

    If you're not with Ron Paul and the Freedom movement, you're part of the problem.

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:Like a ratchet by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents).

      Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...

      Strangely, not every country has a system of government that is identical to the USA. In the UK, there is not the same separation between executive branch and legislative branch, because the executive (civil service etc.) is ultimately controlled by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons. The equivalent of cabinet secretaries all either have a seat in the House of Commons or (rarely) the House of Lords. Civil servants under the purview of the ministers write most laws.

      On the other hand, "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (written by someone well connected to a former Minister) suggests what little control the politicians have and how much the civil servants are able to exercise their own will.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Like a ratchet by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How often do over reaching laws get repealed? How often does government say "hey we don't need to regulate this realm anymore because circumstances have changed"? How often have you seen governments de-centralize things in order to make them more responsive to the needs of the citizens they serve?

      All of the above happens ALL THE TIME. Deregulation and privitization were big buzzwords a few years back. Deregulation of the electric utility in California led to blackouts and Enron fraud. Systematic deregulation of the banking and stock markets led to the recession we're currently in. It's funny, Alan Greenspan was a die-hard libertarian his entire life, then after several years of him writing the rules, everything crashed, and he denounced libertarianism, the philosophy he was so dedicated to, and yet people like yourself are still cheering it on, in spit of all reality.

      You have to employ magical thinking to be a libertarian. Last election, Ron Paul was refused entry into the Fox presidential candidate debate. He went to make a scene, but they did not recant. When confronted by this obvious case where Fox's freedom allowed them to exclude him, a clear example where regulation is absolutely necessary, he just mumbles something about, Oh, maybe if they had even LESS REGULATION STILL, they might have made a better decision. You have to be absolutely irrational to buy into the hand-waving false promises of libertarianism.

      Libertarianism is a cult. Don't drink the Coolaide.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Like a ratchet by c0lo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Usually, the govts don't write laws, that's the job of the Parliament and somehow judiciary (by creating precedents). Where this becomes relevant: at most (and only if smart enough), the executive section of the politics (the govts) might be interested in simplifing the laws - targeting lower cost of enforcement and (possible) higher amount of taxes resulting from a swifter/more flexible economy...

      Strangely, not every country has a system of government that is identical to the USA. In the UK, there is not the same separation between executive branch and legislative branch, because the executive (civil service etc.) is ultimately controlled by the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons.

      Strangely, even if in the Commonwealth, not every country have their laws promoted exclusively by the Prime Minister/governing party. Especially when there's a hung Parliament.

      On the other hand, "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (written by someone well connected to a former Minister) suggests what little control the politicians have and how much the civil servants are able to exercise their own will.

      The very pieces of art that made me pay attention to the interests in politics. My guess: the US of A have the lobby groups as civil servants.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:Like a ratchet by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      since they never are able to get rid of their wealthy elite..

      You evidently do not live in the UK (or maybe do not read beyond the headlines)

      We have driven the legitimate wealthy overseas by excessive taxes. Only those who have an illegal income or effective tax scam remain, so we are governed by criminals.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  10. Re:Good by cupantae · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think you understand how bittorrent works...

    --
    --
  11. Bah, typical copyright troll by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He doesn't post anything substantial because he can't. His own rant proofs copyright is not needed to ensure art survives. The post DesScorp below is also a snob, ignoring folk art, such as song and story telling which survived and thrived perfectly fine without patronage or copyright. The dutch "Smartlap" (tearjerker song) was a type of troubadour, those songs are still sung, they were not high art with patrons but simple performers making their living from live concerts.

    Ah, but good living... of course, just because you sing a song, you and 5 generations of your kids (see yesterday story about perputual copyright) should be millionaires. Forget nurses doing stuff nobody else wants to do and saving human lives day in, day out for minimum wage. The true social injustice of our time is artists not being able to afford another Ferrari.

    Technology has changed art and will continue to do so regardless of what some dinosaurs might desire. It isn't just recent stuff like the cassette tape but far older stuff like cheap musical instruments, printed sheet music, mechanical instruments. Even things like the movies going from silent to talkies. Once each movie theather had a pit for the band to play music to accompany the silent movie. Then, long before talkies were introduced, record players took over to save costs and put an artist out of work. Movies themselves killed Vaudeville.

    Tech changed and the world adapted. Copyright was a result of tech changes so why shouldn't new tech changes not change copyright?

    Trolls like brit74 are living under a bridge trying to pretend the world is unchanging and that laws which were once valid should remain valid indefinitely. He can't cope with a changing world, his kind would have kept slavery going just because that is the way things are.

    Copyright is doomed in a world where digital media can be perfectly reproduced by anyone at trivial costs. It isn't even a case anymore about whether copyright is just or not. It ain't just either that 1% of the world lives with more money then they could ever possibly spent while millions starve.

    The invention of the gun forever changed murder. Shooting someone is easy, far easier then choking them to death, feeling them struggle as you choke the life out of them. Shoot them and they just fall over and that is it. We haven't been able to outlaw the idea of the gun and even gun control has been impossible.

    So what change do we have of putting digital copying back in the bag?

    I have a proposal, every piece of recorded music must be taxed and the tax sent to live performers and instrument makers. And every printed music sheet needs a tax to compensate the monks who used to copy these works by hand. And the monks need to pay those who passed music on through teach and oral tradition. All the way back so the first caveman can live comfortable on his original art.

    The content industry needs to adapt or it will go the way of other industries before that have been made obsolete or un-economical by the march of progress. If this means that commercial art dies... then so be it. Humanity will survive without and whatever comes in its place might even be greater. Or not but trying to stop the future is futile.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

  12. Really? by xenobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Swedish authorities already raided The Pirate Bay and found nothing, zip, zitch, zero infringing files on their servers. So how can it breach any copyright laws?

    Sure, it facilitates file sharing and those files shared may be copyrighted... but it plays no larger role than for instance roads do in various other crimes. I mean, a road is used to facilitate almost all crimes, either as the crime scene itself or as a means of getting there or escaping afterwards. Sure, roads have legitimate uses but given that almost all crimes involve them, they do play an instrumental role.

    So... if roads are not put on trial for their involvement in all those other crimes (they're just passive means, but they're there), why persecute The Pirate Bay for copyright infringement as they're also just passive means. The Pirate Bay is simply a portal, nothing more. There's no content, no hashes, no trackers. All content resides elsewhere. They have no access to hashes of the complete files shared and also have no reference hashes to verify against in order to eliminate copyrighted content, so in essence they want to ban the principle of file sharing just because you may be sharing something copyrighted.

    The conclusion for the courts: Censorship for no other purpose than to quench the concept of file sharing. Possibly infringing files are not transferred through The Pirate Bay in any way and yet it must be banned?

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  13. One big file-sharing ISP that won't be turned... by acey72 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Janet, the Joint Academic Network, that connects all the UK universities, colleges, schools etc. has a strict policy against content-filtering - partly because it's against the ethos of an academic network and partly because they're bright enough to realise that it wouldn't work:

    there is no centrally imposed filtering of web, e-mail or other content provided by the network; indeed, such filtering would be ineffective as the network provides many possible routes to bypass any solution implemented at a single point.

    http://www.ja.net/documents/publications/factsheets/072-janet-and-internet-filtering.pdf

    Bearing in-mind that most academic institutions use Janet for their student's Internet access, and most file-sharers are in the 18-25 age group, and something like 45% of 18-25 year olds go to university...

  14. I'll never understand it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why the hell do authorities have such a boner for the Pirate Bay?

    The pirate bay is on the news every other day, while all the other trackers get completely ignored.

    Better trackers, which are way, way better than TPB in most cases.

    What's the story?

  15. The Pirate Swarm by Thnurg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At 90MB for the whole site what are the authorities going to do when thousands of us are mirroring TPB on a dedicated Raspberry Pi each?

    --
    The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.