Slashdot Mirror


UK ISPs Quietly Block Sites That List Pirate Bay Proxies

An anonymous reader tips news that six ISPs in the UK are now blocking sites that simply link to proxies for The Pirate Bay. This follows efforts from copyright holders to block access to the proxy sites themselves — which they've done to limited success through orders from the UK's High Court. [R]estricting access to proxies did not provide a silver bullet either as new ones continue to appear. This week the blocking efforts were stepped up a notch and are now targeting sites that merely provide an overview of various Pirate Bay proxies. ... One of the other blocked sites, piratebayproxy.co.uk, doesn’t have any direct links to infringing material. Instead, it provides an overview of short Pirate Bay news articles while listing the URLs of various proxies on the side. Apparently, providing information about Pirate Bay proxies already warrants a spot on the UK blocklist. ... It is not a secret that the High Court orders give copyright holders the option to continually update the list of infringing domains. However, it’s questionable whether this should also include sites that do not link to any infringing material.

113 comments

  1. What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if I link to sites that link to sites that link to proxies?

    1. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      It's sites that link to sites that link to proxies all the way down!

    2. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like, if, say, an AC posted a link on Slashdot to a Pirate Bay proxy link aggregator site such as Pirate Bay Proxy , would UK ISPs then block Slashdot?

      Hmm...Let's find out!

    3. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll block you, anyway.

      Unless you link to sites that link to sites that link to sites that link to sites that link to sites that link to sites that link to sites - for a total of seven.

    4. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Warez sites from the late 90s.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Place links on popular blog sites and watch the carnage.

    6. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I got in.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Smauler · · Score: 2

      I'm in the UK and can access thepiratebay.se directly at the moment, using normal ISPs. I'm not sure if I should be worried.

    8. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Just you wait. If you hear loads of footsteps around your house, there's a special forces team outside waiting to take you down.

    9. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six degrees of Pirate Bay

    10. Re:What if I link to sites that link to proxies? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      "Virgin Media has received an order from the High Court requiring us to prevent access to this site. For more information about the order and your rights - please click the relevant link below"

      I don't bitch at my ISP for obeying court orders. The law on the other hand..

  2. Doesn't the UK... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the UK have some amazing slander and libel laws? Time for a lawsuit...

    1. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or maybe TPB, Wikipedia and some other good guys could block all UK IPs for a week?

    2. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe TPB, Wikipedia and some other good guys could block all UK IPs for a week?

      Yeah, block ordinary UK users from accessing sites that the vested interests in the UK establishment are trying to stop them visiting anyway. Then block another of the sites that lets them know what's actually being done.

      That'd show them! Right, Sherlock?

      Seriously, do you have two brain cells to rub together, or did you just drool all over your keyboard while you hammered out the most childishly churlish (and churlishly childish) kneejerk response you could possibly manage? Pillock.

    3. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Direct your spit at the morons in the UK. If there is public outcry the people may pull their heads out of their beer and forcefully correct the guys in charge. If they don't I honestly don't care if they can't access the Internet at all.

    4. Re:Doesn't the UK... by trippin_efnet · · Score: 1

      Ultimately this fight, if we want this behavior to change, is the peoples fight. We need a resurgence of the "We write code." mentality of the 90s cypherpunks. The ISPs aren't going to stand up and fight, the UK govt looks to be as bought and sold as the US govt, and the muggles of the world don't really care as long as they get their sports and other mind numbing escapes in prime time television.

    5. Re:Doesn't the UK... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Can anyone post links to all the current proxies here? That would be a good start. Is the IP address pool fixed for TPB? Anyone have the list? Perhaps our good friend APK has some advice on what to do with a list of IP addrs so that DNS-based censorship won't matter?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Doesn't the UK... by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Summon ye not the Dark Lord APK!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    7. Re:Doesn't the UK... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the UK have some amazing slander and libel laws? Time for a lawsuit...

      Why do you think that an ISP blocking access to a website with a page stating that the court ordered them to block that site constitutes libel or slander?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    8. Re: Doesn't the UK... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Or a likely more effective approach would be a click through page explaining the issues, possible solutions, and requiring them to click on something before passing through to the content they want.

    9. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Probably most users just think their ISP is a POS but so are all the others. Like most other things in the UK with a "regulator".

      If BT isn't blocking you as a result of government policy, then it is probably because their DNS settings are corrupt - again.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    10. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      That's kind of the point... TPB can't block UK IPs, because of TPB proxies. TPB itself is already blocked by most (all?) UK ISPs, so TPB blocking UK IPs would not make one bit of difference.

      TLA overload, sorry.

    11. Re:Doesn't the UK... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Well, that's odd. I was just going to grab a few proxies to put up here, but it seems that http://thepiratebay.se and http://thepiratebay.to are perfectly accessible to me now. They have been blocked in the past, but are apparently not now.

      I'm using BT and TalkTalk ISPs, I've got a router spreading load, so I'm not sure which connected without having a more in depth look.

    12. Re:Doesn't the UK... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      And thepiratebay.org isn't blocked either, it just forwards to thepiratebay.se .

    13. Re: Doesn't the UK... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's irresponsible to recommend rubbing brain cells together.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re:Doesn't the UK... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Because it is not a court order. It is a court order amended by publishing interests stating that it is an infringing website. That statement is the libel.

    15. Re:Doesn't the UK... by byornski · · Score: 1

      I am on BT and both of these are accessible. I think it happened around the time tpb came back up after being raided.

    16. Re: Doesn't the UK... by spongman · · Score: 1

      Not if you redirect to a page explaining why their choice of politicians prevents their free access to information.

    17. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not if you redirect to a page explaining why their choice of politicians prevents their free access to information.

      You say that as it the majority of the voting sheeple in the UK would actually care..
      All the politicians have to say are one of two magic words, and they'll get to do what they want.
      1. Paedo
      2. ISIS
      (and they're building up to having a third one, the old favourite, Russia)

    18. Re:Doesn't the UK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so that DNS-based censorship won't matter?

      Sorry, but at least one ISP (Virgin Media) redirect the traffic through a censorbox (originally intended to block/monitor access to CP).
      DNS jiggery-pokery wont help anyone on their networks..

    19. Re: Doesn't the UK... by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      Wait, you live in a country where the politicians actually listen to the people? Where do you live?

    20. Re:Doesn't the UK... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      So on the page that says "Virgin Media has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this site in order to help protect against copyright infringement", you're suggesting that Virgin Media did not actually receive such an order?

      Because it is not a court order. It is a court order...

      riiiight....

      Are you suggesting that the website being blocked should sue the Court for libel? I'm sure that would go over real well.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re: Doesn't the UK... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      All the politicians have to say are one of two magic words, and they'll get to do what they want.
      1. Paedo

      Is that what they say, or what they want to do?

      It's becoming hard to tell with the British 'establishment'.

    22. Re:Doesn't the UK... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The website could however potentially sue the media industry cartels for including them on a list of copyright infringing websites, drawing them into scope of the court order, when they're infringing no copyright.

      It's not clear whether that's the precise point to which you're responding but it's along the same lines.

    23. Re:Doesn't the UK... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      So have BT just not updated their blocks then?

      It shows just how effective they were in the beginning.

  3. Re: Happy Tuesday from The Golden Girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and now Slashdt will be blocked for linking to the site linking to proxies of Piratebay that provides magnet links to..... tadaaaaa.... infringing content!

  4. did they use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they use patented algorithms to block those sites, like foxconn robots do for producing iphones?

  5. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every site is linked to infringing material, somehow.
    Perhaps they did not get the memo about the internet being a series of tubes.
    Why don't they block google since it too returns a lot of torrents on its own?

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Let me introduce you to the rule of law, where *intention* has very strong weighting on actions being judged.

      Google *intention* in their actions is completely different to The Pirate Bays *intention* in their actions.

      Put this particular issue, as in blocking sites proxying torrent sites, in front of a judge, and the judge is simply going to say its an acceptable action by the ISPs, as the *intentions* of the sites in question is to circumvent a legal court order. Judges dont like their orders being circumvented - the correct approach is to over turn them.

    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought i could contribute to this discussion adding a few proxies to the pirate bay myself

      pirateproxy.sx
      tpb.piraten.lu
      thehiddenbay.net
      tpb.vnstat.co
      labaia.me
      tpb.thetorrentbay.so
      theofflinebay.org
      mrpirateproxy.com
      onepiratebay.com
      ilikerainbows.co.uk
      baytorrent.nl
      tpb.nullproxy.com
      piratebay.blackc.at
      superbay.info
      baytorrent.website
      torrentdr.com
      mypirateproxy.org
      pbproxy.com
      tpb.internetwarriors.pw
      thepiratebay.reviews
      thepiratebeach.eu
      thepirateboat.eu
      thepiratebayv2.org
      oldpiratebay.org
      proxyduck.com
      thepiratebay.to
      thepiratebays.me
      tpbt.org
      piratebay1.com
      baypro.xyz
      pirateshore.org

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. Google bought Youtube when that was a massive copyright violation, and it largely still is. Has that been taken down? No, everybody's still kissing Google's ass. The legal system always finds a reason to let Goliath go and stick it to David. Whether you believe the reason is up to you.

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 1

      So automated circumvention would be okay? What about the intrinsic circumventive nature of the WWW?

    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Every site is linked to infringing material, somehow.
      Perhaps they did not get the memo about the internet being a series of tubes.
      Why don't they block google since it too returns a lot of torrents on its own?

      As an experiment, look it also from the perspective of someone who wants to block TPB.

      Try to make as clever as possible arguments against TPB. Now, what would your reasoning be to block TPB instead of Google?

    6. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by houghi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Use google.com (or google.co.uk) with filetype:torrent like metallica filetype:torrent and see what happens.
      Will they block it? Won't they block it?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Judges don't like be circumvented, but the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have Pirate Bay stock in your portfolio?

    9. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, wait. If everyone starts posting this all over facebook will the UK ISP's have no choice but to block facebook.com, too ?

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    10. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

      Therefore UK users can access the blocked sites?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "net" does not interpret anything. It's not a sentient entity, you know. And that old saying related to USENET, which most ISP do not support anymore. It's dead for all intents and purposes, and so are all the naive delusions about internet "freedom". Wake up, the dream is over.

    12. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      They'd better start blocking gov.co.uk (PDF warning). That PDF file contains a hyperlink to proxybay.info.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    13. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, if you do it, put it in a jpeg file to make searching for the links harder and they stick around longer.

    14. Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "net" does not interpret anything. It's not a sentient entity, you know. And that old saying related to USENET, which most ISP do not support anymore. It's dead for all intents and purposes, and so are all the naive delusions about internet "freedom". Wake up, the dream is over.

      Usenet is dead? Odd, I've been happily using it for years and enjoy reading these silly stories about plebs being blocked for accessing torrent sites.

    15. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the giant Viacom lawsuit that was won by Google largely because of the absolutely insanely massive ContentID effort that was put in place after the acquisition.

      If you have never checked out ContentID at a technical level, do - it's quite astonishing. It's very hard to argue that YouTube is a platform for massive copyright violation these days given that ContentID was thought by many to be impossible, yet there it is.

    16. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Smauler · · Score: 1

      I can just access thepiratebay.se directly at the moment. I've got 2 ISPs, BT and TalkTalk (both in the top 6). So yes, currently as a normal UK user I can access the pirate bay directly.

      I am, however, slightly confused as to why this is. It was blocked a while back.

    17. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Those results are DMCA'd fairly frequently, though the DMCA details are helpfully listed with the links that were blocked...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    18. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      Well that's one way of getting rid of any UK /. members.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    19. Re: SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Yes, sometimes words are used figuratively instead of literally. Basically, I'm saying that judges can try legal routes of blocking TPB all they want, but technical workarounds will inevitably happen, likely faster than ISPs implement the blocking.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  6. So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by mi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    six ISPs in the UK are now blocking sites that simply link to proxies for The Pirate Bay

    Should not net-neutrality — accepted by European Parliament nearly a year ago — have prevented such (mis)treatment of certain IPs?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you trolling? Do you know what "net neutrality" actually is? Did you read even the first sentence of the article you linked to?

      "The law is designed to ensure internet providers treat all data equally"

      "The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access."

      It has nothing to do with copyright protection, nothing to do with blocking sites or censorship. It has to do with the practice of charging content providers on top of what they charge customers, and/or throttling some content providers to give other providers (usually themselves) a competitive advantage over the 3rd party service.

      As in:

      "gee customer... youtube sure is slow (because we throttle it without telling you) perhaps you'd like to try comcast-tube its much faster!"

      Or

      "gee youtube... if you want your data to reach our customers on the internet connections our customers are already paying us for... then you have to pay us too, whatever we want, or it will be miserable for them to reach your site and they'll stop using youtube. PS... have you seen our new comcast-tube? Its neat-o!"

    2. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by Shortguy881 · · Score: 2

      Hmm... Its not mentioned in the article you linked, but all instances of net neutrality bills I've seen have the caveat of not blocking or throttling "legal" content.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    3. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Net Neutrality has nothing to do with government/law enforcement ordered takedowns. Its simply non-discrimination of data. ISPs are allowed to regulate the size of the pipe,(i.e. rate limit the whole connection), how much data goes through total, and nothing else. It has nothing to do with blocking sites based on court order.

    4. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that GCHQ hasn't put a stop to this yet. It just drives people to VPNs, which are more work for them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you a Republican, by chance?

    6. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by mi · · Score: 0

      "The law is designed to ensure internet providers treat all data equally"

      Exactly. Blocking some servers means treating their data unequally and is therefor a violation.

      Everything else is your (wishful) interpretation: go ahead and block, what vux984 does not care for, but keep his Netflix streaming along.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by mi · · Score: 0

      Net Neutrality has nothing to do with government/law enforcement ordered takedowns.

      Unless European Net Neutrality explicitly allows exceptions for such court-orders (and you seem to say, it "has nothing to do with" it), British courts ordering the blocking are in violation of the Europe-wide legislation.

      Its simply non-discrimination of data.

      Blocking a server completely is an ultimate "discrimination", wouldn't you say?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Blocking some servers means treating their data unequally and is therefor a violation.

      Blocking a site for censorship or copyright has NOTHING to do net neutrality whatsoever.

      Next you'll be arguing that ISPs aren't allowed to block email spam and known phishing sites either because "net neutrality".

      And god forbid they do anything at all to stop a DoS attack... because that would require treating some packets unequally.

      Exactly. Blocking some servers means treating their data unequally and is therefor a violation.

      Seriously. Get over yourself.

    9. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by mi · · Score: 0

      Next you'll be arguing that ISPs aren't allowed to block email spam and known phishing sites either because "net neutrality".

      Yes, as a matter of fact, this would be another manifestation of unintended consequence of government's mis- and micromanagement of the ISPs. Unless the laws has special provisions for such abuse-fighting, any sort of blocking — however legitimate 2 years ago — would now be illegal. And I doubt it has such provisions, because legally defining spam — as opposite to some kind of "hey stranger" speech — is notoriously difficult.

      And god forbid they do anything at all to stop a DoS attack... because that would require treating some packets unequally.

      Indeed. And it will suck — if NetFlix decides to offer some sort of "1 free week of HD special" for non-subscribers, DoS may be exactly how it will appear to the ISPs.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:So, net-neutrality didn't help them?.. by davydagger · · Score: 1

      which doesn't change the definition of "net neutrality", the concept of the internet as a public network, that private companies only charge access to, but don't decide content. I am also OK with takedown orders/siezures of equipment as long as there is a court ordered warrant, where probable cause has been established, and the warrant exists only for the minimum amount of equipment reasonibly suspected to be involved in the crime. This is the same burden of proof for law enforcement under all other circumstances, and my only demands is that the same standards apply everywhere, and the cops aren't simply given unlimited power because society is simply affraid of the internet.

  7. Great idea but ... by Malkhuth · · Score: 1

    This is a great idea. But what about the sites that link to sites that link to proxies? These ISPs just need to block those and their strategy will be perfect.

    1. Re:Great idea but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This topic was already posted earlier. YOU ARE A THIEF.

  8. It really is time to distribute the dns. by trippin_efnet · · Score: 2

    This is why we need some kind of distributed naming system that will lol at attempts made by evil regimes to censor information.

    1. Re:It really is time to distribute the dns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS is already distributed. Just make sure that your DNS server is not pulling from a censored one. Try opennic.

  9. Comment Subject: by Falos · · Score: 2

    So what happens if I post a list here, UK ISPs block slashdot?

    "Treating the symptom" is often considered a poor use of resources. And whack-a-mole doesn't even accomplish that. What's worse than "poor"?

    1. Re:Comment Subject: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's worse than "poor"?

      Negligent

    2. Re:Comment Subject: by nytes · · Score: 1

      Also post the list in comment sections for theguardian.com and the BBC (if they have an area for comments). Make sure the ISP's know they'd better block those sites.

      And don't forget facebook and twitter.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    3. Re:Comment Subject: by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      Why not find some way to get them onto the sites of the ISPs' websites themselves? Or even better, the copyright holders' sites -- do they look at the lists closely enough to avoid smacking themselves upside the head? If they're using a "spray and pray" style of takedown, perhaps they will miss one or two of their own URLs.

  10. Hmm, got an idea... by dark_requiem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who wants to help me test their resolve by helping edit my new Wikipedia page, "List of Pirate Bay Proxy Sites"?

    1. Re:Hmm, got an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or just post them here.

    2. Re:Hmm, got an idea... by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      I just checked Wikipedia, and there is no article named "List of Pirate Bay Proxy Sites" at this time.

    3. Re:Hmm, got an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should definitely start one then...

  11. It really is time to distribute. by trippin_efnet · · Score: 0

    This is why we need some kind of distributed site location system that will lol at attempts made by evil regimes to censor information.

    1. Re:It really is time to distribute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://ipfs.io/

    2. Re:It really is time to distribute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point after all TPB is a well known source of information that wants to be free. Oh, it's only purpose is to facilitate copyright violation. Not really censorship.

    3. Re:It really is time to distribute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA discusses sites that are in fact only information sites. And, there are plenty of torrents existing on sites like tpb that have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement.

      Just because you agree with the tactics used by the few media conglomerates left, doesn't mean everyone does. So yes, in fact, it is censorship.

      If you don't see the end game these companies are reaching for -- control of the internet in the same way they control tv and radio -- you need to revisit history and watch how the fight to control radio and television is eerily similar to this current fight.

  12. In a long-term contract and want out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is your chance. Terminate the contract. Deliberate failure to deliver internet access should be answered with deliberate "failure" to pay.

    On a more serious note: The next wave of fascism to roll over Europe is going to be British.

  13. And they wonder why all their colonies revolted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the UK has got to be the closest thing to a police state in the English-speaking world.

    My tourist dollars will be spent elsewhere, in a vote against the UK government's continued repressive behavior.

    1. Re:And they wonder why all their colonies revolted by Smauler · · Score: 1

      And they wonder why all their colonies revolted

      Which ones, exactly? Most British colonies got independence without revolt, or any kind of uprising.

  14. Don't believe the facade. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The legal and court system is a show. It serves the purpose of giving the illusion that there are laws, democracy and due process.

    Rules are made by the ruling elite. Full stop.

    Courts are just part of the puppet system which serves to give people the feeling that they don't need to revolt right now.

  15. So fuck it up. by o_ferguson · · Score: 2

    Go to politicians' pages and post links in their comments. Go to news media sites and do the same. Then report the sites and get them blocked. Duh.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  16. piratebay proxies by houghi · · Score: 1

    https://www.google.co.uk/searc...

    and the first site tells me:

    pirateproxy.sx UK up Very Fast
    tpb.piraten.lu LU up Very Fast
    thehiddenbay.net CH up Very Fast
    tpb.vnstat.co US up Very Fast
    labaia.me LU up Very Fast
    tpb.thetorrentbay.so US up Very Fast
    theofflinebay.org SE up Very Fast
    mrpirateproxy.com LV up Very Fast
    onepiratebay.com US up Very Fast
    ilikerainbows.co.uk US up Very Fast
    baytorrent.nl DE up Very Fast
    tpb.nullproxy.com SE up Very Fast
    piratebay.blackc.at SE up Very Fast
    superbay.info UK up Very Fast
    baytorrent.website US up Very Fast
    torrentdr.com US up Very Fast
    mypirateproxy.org US up Very Fast
    pbproxy.com NL down N/A
    tpb.internetwarriors.pw ES up Fast
    thepiratebay.reviews US up Very Fast
    thepiratebeach.eu US up Very Fast
    thepirateboat.eu US up Very Fast
    thepiratebayv2.org EU up Very Fast
    oldpiratebay.org US up Very Fast
    proxyduck.com IS up Very Fast
    thepiratebay.to RO up Very Fast
    thepiratebays.me US up Slow
    tpbt.org US up Very Fast
    piratebay1.com EU up Very Fast
    baypro.xyz US up Very Fast
    pirateshore.org UK up Very Fast
    tpb.joodle.nl FR down N/A

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:piratebay proxies by xaxa · · Score: 1

      tpb.piraten.lu LU up Very Fast

      ... and blocked by Sky — but I shouldn't be surprised when I have internet supplied by an enourmous TV company. That's provided by the Luxembourg Pirate Party, but I guess the British police/courts have no issue interfering with e.g. the British Green Party's campaigns when it suits them.

      (Others on that list aren't blocked.)

    2. Re:piratebay proxies by xaxa · · Score: 2

      Sky do at least link to this page: http://help.sky.com/articles/w... showing who has demanded the blocks.

  17. Napster by asciiRider · · Score: 1

    1998 called, they want their drama back.

  18. Down the line.. by Altrag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Try to ban illegal downloads. That doesn't work.
    2) Try to ban sites that link to illegal downloads. That doesn't work.
    3) Try to ban sites that link to sites that link to illegal downloads. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this won't work either. ...
    X) Ban everybody who's ever heard the word "download." Shut off the internet. Everybody goes back to direct copying and it still doesn't bloody work.

    Three things need to be realized and acted upon if there's any hope of reducing copyright infringement:
    - Make legitimate viewing easy. Recent history with iTunes, Netflix, etc.. and hell older history in the form of things like 7-11.. have shown repeatedly that people are happy to pay, and even pay more if they have to, for the product they want to be on demand.

    - Unnnlessss you price it too high. People will not pay 20% more for a one-time stream of a movie compared to buying the DVD. Its absolutely stupid to think they would. You can charge more for convenient access, but only for the part of the product that the consumer is receiving -- you must discount the cost of permanence, the cost of physical media/packaging, the cost of distribution, etc. If you don't people will just see it for the scam it is. (And of course there's an absolute maximum price point as well but that's standard economics and applies equally to the physical media.)

    - Realize that reducing copyright infringement by 100% is not possible. I'm not saying to stop fighting all together, but when all of your strategies seem to be "all or nothing," you're going to end up on that "nothing" side every single time. Things like invasive DRM that stops infringers for all of about one day but annoy legitimate users until the end of time is NOT really helping the situation. When I have a better experience downloading a pirated copy of something I've already purchased rather than watching the legitimate copy, there's something wrong with the whole situation and it doesn't take too long to start skipping that whole "already purchased" step.

    1. Re:Down the line.. by Alok · · Score: 1

      > Things like invasive DRM that stops infringers for all of about one day but annoy legitimate users until the end

      So true, reading about Sony rootkit, Spore DRM etc. just made me more scared to buy legal games - meanwhile, game torrents install and run without any problems.

      Of course, then I buy Diablo III, am happy the DRM isn't causing computer problems; and find out its my turn to get frustrated at game design instead :P

    2. Re:Down the line.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I have a better experience downloading a pirated copy of something I've already purchased rather than watching the legitimate copy, there's something wrong with the whole situation and it doesn't take too long to start skipping that whole "already purchased" step.

      There's an old infographic (about DVDs) on this, but it's still basically on the mark: http://i.imgur.com/GxzeV.jpg

  19. Block Payments to ISPs that block PirateBay by j0ebaker · · Score: 1

    It's simple...
    Block institutional payments to ISPs that block sites that link to Pirate bay proxies.

    They are blocking freedom of speech.
    And charge the ISPs for the inconvenience by noticing them of a fee structure. There should be something in the peering agreements that can be levereged.

  20. Solution by byuu · · Score: 1

    Easy. Start posting the links on major portals that even the UK govt wouldn't dare block. Link them behind HTTPS (so partial URI blocking isn't possible) of Twitter, Facebook, etc.

    You could probably link to said Twitter feed or whatever from your actual site, unless they start banning links to links to proxies to sites. But once people find out about the major portal accounts, they'll just start going there instead for updated proxies.

  21. Ahem by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    One of the other blocked sites, piratebayproxy.co.uk, doesn’t have any direct links to infringing material.

    Are you sneakily trying to imply that the Pirate Bay itself does have direct links to infringing material? If the PB has "direct links" you might as well redefine "direct links" to include the proxy sites anyway.

    Anyway, the solution is obvious. We just need a site listing all the sites that aren't Pirate Bay proxies, then visit sites which aren't on the list!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Ahem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Blocking lists of proxy sites then means blocking sites that link to sites that link to sites that provide a service saying where to get the infringing material.

      The only reason Google isn't blocked is that they have money and influence, as the filetype:torrent and intitle:"index of" are some of the resources most useful to pirates today.

  22. What happended Britannia? by Snufu · · Score: 1

    You used to be cool.

    1. Re:What happended Britannia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Saxons invaded, then it all kinda went downhill after that...

  23. D.O.I.T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DOWNLOADING OFTEN IS TERRIBLE

  24. Pirate Bay Proxys? by bughunter · · Score: 1

    Really? Pirate Bay? That's like people still using Altavista or Napster.

    Kickass kicks ass. Although they're not immune from the copyright cosa nostra thugs either.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  25. I'm on sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .to is fine but .org and .se are blocked as usual, however, ukbay.org still works, as far as proxy linkers go.

  26. Re: Happy Tuesday from The Golden Girls by davester666 · · Score: 1

    sorry, since the piratebay is still somewhere on the internet, you are no longer permitted to access the internet. have a nice day. and yes, you still need to pay your ISP for the possibility of accessing the internet.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  27. P2P is antisemitism at work,a repeat Crystalnacht! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Anglo-saxon (anglo-americans): please realize that law and order exists not to make the next generation of criminals, thiefs, fraudsters, robbers, murderers,, etc. ever more cunning, by encouraging them to invent ever more weird ways of circumventing law enforcement and courts and win impunity. Rather, it exists to minimize crime rate by reliably catching AND punishing criminals. Therefore, the desired end result is a docile society, where people are honest and gain prosperity by working hard.

    I think, ideally criminals, except the pettiest first time offenders, should be neutered and their off-springs should be de-genitalized too. This way, the genetically encoded criminality inclination could be purged from the human gene pool in a few generation. In such a world, repeat copyright-piracy offenders would not dare to cheekily construct puny excuses, as to why it is OK to steal from jewish authors, musicians and movie studio owners in a repeat Crystal-nacht.

  28. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad is day when censorship became weapon of choise in democracy. I remember time when it was considered big no no in democracy... Now it has foor throw the door so to speak. Its only question what is censored next. new political partys website? opinins to goes agains official line of government?

  29. Why bother finding logic by cloud.pt · · Score: 1
    It's pretty obvious that TPB, or most other piracy-related blockades originate out of lobbying, politician monetary incentives and even influences on the judicial system directly.

    Ask yourself a question, with a cognitive and morally correct mindset instead of that straight-edge abiding citizen mask you usually wear for society approval: Is it constitutional to block TPB itself?

    NO! IT'S THE FREAKIN INTERNET, AND THE FACT YOUR GOVERNMENT IS SANCTIONING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.

    With that said, why even bother finding logic to this proxy listing blocking? Linking to a site that links illegal content is illegal? Linkception nonsense you say?

    The nonsense started way back. Fight the root of the problem, not the ever branching ramifications of an unconstitutional decisions that keep bending the law.

  30. Re:P2P is antisemitism at work,a repeat Crystalnac by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Dear Anglo-saxon (anglo-americans): please realize that law and order exists not to make the next generation of criminals, thiefs, fraudsters, robbers, murderers,, etc. ever more cunning, by encouraging them to invent ever more weird ways of circumventing law enforcement and courts and win impunity.

    You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak. ;) Laws exist for precisely this purpose. Thank you and good night.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  31. The UK needs to have better experts for its ISP's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just go on a proxy from Switzerland, that still isn't blocked. Even some of the normal proxies are not even blocked.

  32. UK could take a lesson from U.S. by iq145 · · Score: 1