Slashdot Mirror
BT Starts Blocking the Pirate Bay
judgecorp writes "The UK's largest ISP, BT, has obeyed a court order to block The Pirate Bay, following similar moves by five other service providers, after complaints by music trade body BPI. The Pirate Bay says it can continue regardless through workarounds. From the article: 'BT has started blocking access to The Pirate Bay, becoming the sixth major ISP to prevent access to the file-sharing service. It follows blocks enforced by Orange, Virgin, Sky, TalkTalk and O2, after they all obeyed a court order made in April. BT, which has been in ongoing discussions with trade body the BPI over how it would carry out a block, had not been hit with such an order until this week.'"
People will get around the blocks, people will pirate shit, people won't care.
Stupid ISPs.
These poor retards actually think they're fighting a successful action against "the pirates".
And what say we?
Harrrrr
These stupid fucks, will never learn.
Torrents are just the new way of doing P2P. You can not block P2P. It's impossible.
If someone wants something, All they have to do is ask their pirate buddies to get it for them and relay it back.
The only way to stop pirating is to kill the internet. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN..
The only way you are going to prevent people from downloading shit, is to upload viruses with the music/movies that will kill media programs on the computer.
Than people will start getting scared about what they download and it will happen less.
Fight fire with fire you dumb shits!
Dont throw water on a greek fire. That's just stupid
Can any BT subscriber comment on weather your average deck-hand will have any trouble getting around the block? I know it's quite easy for the black-beards and peg-legs, but what will it mean for the average user? Do TPB crew have enough experience bypassing blocks that most wont even know it's been blocked?
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
VPN provider profits skyrocket!
I noticed after the recent ipv6 thing that visiting TPB will show a little thing at the bottom of the page indicating that im accessing it using ipv6..
changing DNS servers is easy enough for most anyone.. id imagine that they are blocking IPs ...
is access via ipv6 a thing they are blocking ?
I remember when ISPs provided free unlimited newsgroup access. Then they offered free newsgroup access through a third party with a data usage cap. Then they cut off free newsgroups altogether. Now there is something completely out of their control on the general Internet that they are trying to block access to. So much for the old wild west freedom of the Internet. Business and government interests are all so ready to curtail total freedom of information. I see a dark future full of censorship and paywalls.
'Gosh, now that it's mildly inconvenient to download things for free, I'm going to have to go to HMV for all my media needs!'
'If only there was another torrent site. But the internet couldn't possibly support TWO!'
'Wow, with all this extra money coming in from ex-pirates, we should begin transferring these extra profits onto THE ARTISTS!'
Blocking -- or atleast trying to block -- Pirate Bay and similar websites is just a temporary measure, there's bound to be worse stuff coming. As I already mentioned on my Google+ - page about the recent confirmation of the Flame-malware being written by the U.S. government and the U.S. government basically saying they have the right to target, track, spy and eliminate anyone they want, anywhere in the world, at any time, and even using illegal means to do so is all right, and that no other country in the world has any say in that, it doesn't seem to me all too far-fetched that with enough lobbying from RIAA/MPAA the U.S. government will write similar malware that targets pirates -- both the ones posting copyright-infringing material and the ones downloading such.
I have started using Tor.
Activate turbo mode.
Done.
http://194.71.107.82/
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/
Am I the only one who gets confused when this company comes up in a storry related to Bit Torrent? It's gotten me a few times before, but this one really got me good. "BT starts blocking Pirate Bay" ... Da' fuck did I just read?
Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
The mirror they maintain at is yet another reason to get involved with your local pirate party. There website indicates that they can use assistance from UK residents who want to help with:
IT Team - Code
IT Team - Other
Campaigns - Design
Campaigns - Content
Campaigns - Local
Campaigns - Events
Campaigns - Candidates
Campaigns - Coordination
Campaigns - Newsletter
Treasury - Finance
Secretariat - Administration
Press - Pressteam
Leadership - Policy
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
You don't need to block EVERY user grabbing copyrighted material, you just need to block the casual ones.
I agree so far, but please finish your thought: "(...) you just need to block the casual ones..." in order to achieve what exactly?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
So why the bloody hell are you so pissed off at them?
Iran aren't breaking any iranian laws in producing nuclear power. Why the bloody hell are you so pissed off at them?
TPB isn't breaking any laws in Sweden, so why the bloody hell are you pissed off at them?
Julian Assange didn't break any laws in the USA, Sweden, Australia or UK. So why the hell are you pissed off at him?
No, it means that very few people actually know how to get to TPB. Those who do are, in general, not your granny-who-uses-this-internet-thing but people who know what they do to a much higher level than the average internet consumer.
Therefore you need to justify that 90% or retract it.
If you can't do either, then you're a moron.
My uploads are copyrighted material of which I am the copyright holder. I have a right to make it freely available if I wish, yet these orders are now preventing thousands, if not millions of people from getting to my material. That is censorship. And before anybody argues that I can provide it someplace else, then that same argument could be made about pirated material also, so why block Pirate Bay?
No, if they can block some, they can block many or even all. This clearly demands a response. I do not like censorship, but the only way to deal with this is to punish those that went along with the court orders, and that means a DDOS to those domains to begin with, and blocking their domains and class addresses so none of their customers have reasonable functionality.
Also, do any of those ISPs provide "Cloud" services? I'm thinking that the flaws on their cloud services need to be exposed.
I happen to be working from home today, so I'll spend a few minutes checking how they block TPB on the ISP O2, just out of curiosity.
WWW: I get a page telling me that the page has been blocked by court order
DNS: They return the correct IP address: 194.71.107.50
Traceroute: I get to thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se (194.14.56.2), but not all the way to the web server, on both a censored and a non-censored connection. This is probably because TBP filters out some ICMP packets, nothing to do with O2.
Ping: I can't ping the TPB server from any connection. (same reason as above)
So TPB have locked down their web servers pretty well. Makes things more difficult for me. I couldn't find any open ports apart from 80. So I'll do some more checking with the webserver:
No intersting headers;HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 1100
I get this page even when using the IP-address in the URL, so there is no Host: www.thepiratebay.org header.
Now let's do a traceroute on TCP port 80. First, I tried BBC, and I got some hosts outside of the O2 network, specifically:bbc-linx.pr01.thdow.bbc.co.uk . Now for TPB: The same as for an ICMP traceroute!! This is weird. It's clear that O2 are not proxying HTTP connections, at least not at the SYN packet, because the HTTP SYN packets get all the way to thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se (194.14.56.2).
OK so let's try to get the web server to leak some more information: I tried some different URLs and with "Host: 127.0.0.1", and just get the same "blocked" page. If you're on IPv6 you can have a look at the page at my local web server: http://blackhole.lan.fa2k.net/f/tpb-blocked.txt . Let's try a bogus request with telnet:[fa2k@blackhole ~]$ telnet 194.71.107.50 80 /
Trying 194.71.107.50...
Connected to 194.71.107.50.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET
HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request
Connection: close
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:57:00 GMT
Server: lighttpd
From the non-censored connection I get the same thing. Now I mistyped some HTML request into telnet, so I'm probably on some kind of list. Who cares, it's not illegal to be curious. Now let's try a valid HTTP 1.0 request with netcat:
[fa2k@blackhole ~]$ printf "GET / HTTP/1.0\n\n" > the-request.txt
[fa2k@blackhole ~]$ cat the-request.txt | nc 194.71.107.50 80
HTTP/1.0 301 Moved Permanently
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.4.4
Location: http://thepiratebay.se/
Content-type: text/html
Content-Length: 0
Connection: close
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:08:22 GMT
Server: lighttpd
Neat! This seems to come right from thepiratebay itself. Maybe the blocking software doesn't understand HTTP 1.0. And no, "http://thepiratebay.se" doesn't work in a browser. It's a different server than .org, but acts in a similar way.
A HTTP 1.1 request without a Host: part is invalid, let's see what comes up when changing "1.0" to "1.1": a 400 invalid request, it seems to still come from TPB, as it has the lighttpd header. Supplying "a" as the host, I get the 302 again.
Ok, let's send a Host: thepiratebay.se header to the thepiratebay.org server:
[fa2k@blackhole ~]$ printf "GET / HTTP/1.1\nHost: thepiratebay.se\n\n" > the-request.txt
[fa2k@blackhole ~]$ cat the-request.txt | nc 194.71.107.50 80
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
X-Powered-By: PHP/5.4.4
Set-Cookie: PHPSESSID=bbaee8ec681c1399b35cd5dba2cb7a31; path=/; domain=.thepiratebay.se
Set-Cookie: language=en_EN; expires=Fri, 21-Jun-2013 13:16:08 GMT; path=/; domain=.thepiratebay.se
Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT
Last-Modified: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:16:08 GMT
Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate
Cache-Control: post-check=0, pre-check=0
Pragma: no-cache
Content-Type: text/html;charset=UTF-8
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:16
N/T
TPB became a virus fest when it became popular.
That claim is complete and utter baseless baloney (note the complete lack of proof he provided, folks).
Either you have no idea what you're talking about, you're spreading FUD or behalf of the dying legacy industries, or you're incompetent. My guess is that it's all three.
I have visited TPB almost daily and torrented from them regularly (hundreds of times) for the last 10 years or so and NEVER even seen a virus.
Don't blame someone else for your own failings.
I read the headline was like bittorrent is blocking the pirate bay? Now that is a dumb move.
Rubbish
Pirate Bay has already issued 2 new IP addresses for direct connection that BT hasn't blocked.
plus there are thousands of proxies that still will give you access.
Here is how to get around the block, no matter what ISP you are on that has blocked it: http://www.dude-suit.net/2012/05/the-pirate-bay-blocked-by-uk-isps-and-how-to-get-around-it/
Re-read this thread and try to comprehend my post properly. I'm not the OP and I'm agreeing with you. Oh dear indeed.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
I would like to point you to a very tl/dr discussion on finding a fair way to compensate artists for their work. Set aside abut 30 minutes to read the article, which will probably anger you, and all of the comments which follow.
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/
In short, your support at live shows is not enough for the artist to make a living. Even if they live in a van and eat just the free food. There is gas, travel time, and most venues (small bars, coffeehouses) just do not pay enough for multiple members of a band to split. Flogging T-shirts and CDs for a 20% markup might make enough for a beer run, but then you have to tote that merchandise with you from gig to gig.
For most popular music, the artist sold the rights to the recordings to the label for an upfront loan to make the recording. The artists are not going to see any additional revenue until that upfront loan is paid off according to the contract -- which in most cases means never. Any new artists should carefully read any recording contracts before they sign, walking in with their eyes wide open. The artists may be able to make new recordings of the same songs ("live" albums) where they get a better cut, but most people want the version they heard on the radio, so the studio is enriched instead of the artist.
Even worse, the companies like Apple and Amazon are taking 30% of a 0.99 song and adding that straight to their bottom line. None of that money flows back into the artist talent pool; it is absorbed into the technology company profits. Does it really cost 0.30 to ship 3MB of data to an end user? Hardly. The tech companies are hiring H1B visa lackeys to do all the hardware and software to support that, while the upper management throws another chunk of cash at the Washington lobbyists to keep extending copyrights.
The bad news is lots of mediocre artists are recording in their (parent's) basements and making music that is "good enough" but is not ever going to be "mass culture" popular. If you have a devoted following who will support you, that is not so bad. Playing gigs within driving distance of home, interaction with your fans on your personal website to share (some) recordings or signed merchandise; and with a partner who can keep a regular job and insurance, you can live the dream of making music for a living.
Before there was mechanically recorded music, you had to hire the musicians to play for you, or go to a venue to hear music. You paid a composer to write a love sonnet for you to use, or sponsored a set of music. We may have to move back to this patronage model (well, web-enabled with Kickstarter or other similar services) to get good music.
You want the artists to hire PR firms and managers. What PR firm or manager is going to work for the peanuts that the artists currently receive? None that I know of. Unless the artists fully controls the recordings, they do not set the price. When there are so many people willing to give away mediocre music at a pittance, the quality artists who ask for more money make no sales. Especially when the audience does not perceive a difference in quality (MP3 vs FLAC, the loudness wars, etc.)
Artists (and the related artists jobs -- sound engineer, gaffer, studio musicians) will find other, better paying jobs instead of following their muse, and I think our society is the poorer for it.
I do not have answers for many of these problems. An artist who today would like to create music, or video, or paintings, or software, has to accept that as soon as the first copy is given or sold, it will be digitized and shared with the world for free. Because the sharers are "sticking it to the man" without asking who "the man" is. The artist has to accept not getting fair recompense for the effort put into the art. If the person for whom you work told you to continue to work as hard as you have in the past, but they would just leave something for you in a tip jar at the end of the day based on whether they felt like paying, would you continue to work there?