Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Pirate Bay, BitTorrent Websites To Be Blocked In Australia, Federal Court Rules (abc.net.au)

Posted by BeauHD on from the copyright-infringing dept.

New submitter AnonymousCube writes: The Federal Court has made a ruling that will result in internet access for Australians being censored. Five websites are to be blocked after being deemed to be copyright infringing, most notable of which is The Pirate Bay. Internet service providers are given the choice of how they will implement blocking, but the result will be that when a user visits a blocked site they will be redirected to a warning page telling them the site cannot be accessed. Other sites being blocked are the BitTorrent websites Torrentz, TorrentHound, and IsoHunt, and the streaming service SolarMovie.

64 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Umm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is going to work how, exactly?

    1. Re:Umm.... by dintech · · Score: 5, Informative

      It won't work. This happened in the UK. The ISPs were forced to blocked thepiratebay.se and any other variants that court orders stipulate, but there are some many proxies being created all the time that it's a pointless endeavour. Effectively, there's no meaningful block as it's impossible to maintain.

  2. Internet Censorship Mark II by aberglas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was a huge fight about three years ago when the then Labor government's Senator Conroy tried to ram through internet censorship in Australia. The uproar was sufficient that the now marginal conservative government will not touch it. But now there is another attack from the courts, which is more difficult to deal with.

    (Conway, incidentally, has taken up a lucrative job lobbying for gambling in Australia.)

    1. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The UK has already implemented this; many tracker sites are now blocked at ISP level.

    2. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by vlad30 · · Score: 2

      Lets Play Whack-A-Mole or is it like a Medusa snake

      --
      Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    3. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by aberglas · · Score: 1

      The UK public allowed general censorship in. And without much fuss. Defeating the Conroy censorship is one thing the Australian public can be proud of.

    4. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by stealth_finger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The UK has already implemented this; many tracker sites are now blocked at ISP level.

      And yet even my wife can google pirate bay proxy, find a working one and she's away getting all her shit shows.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by severn2j · · Score: 1

      Im pretty sure the UK public didn't get a choice in the matter..

    6. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To be fair to the courts the uproar a few years ago was due to the websites being a government doesn't like shopping list. People are far more open to something that has been targeted specifically through courts.

    7. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by Altrag · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. People don't like being censored by anyone for any reason. They're just afraid to speak up in these kind of cases since the sites in question are well known for illegal activity. No matter how stupidly excessive copyright laws have gotten, they're still the law and advertising your use of such sites to the legal system is.. not brilliant unless you plan on going the civil disobedience route and are willing to take the jail time and/or massive fines to prove your point.

      And then of course there's the slippery slope argument. I'm not sure how Australia handles case law and precedent but had this been an American court, it could open the floodgates for anybody who's got a few lawyers on hand to start shutting down any site they can even vaguely tie to the original case. So yay, instead of a government shopping list, we get a corporate shopping list of sites. Not much of an improvement in my opinion. Hopefully Australia is less reliant on case law than the US.

    8. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK the block only applies to the bigger ISPs anyway (Virgin, TalkTalk, BT, Sky and I think a couple of others). Some of the smaller ones block, some don't.

      In any case, these days VPN use is mandatory in the UK.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by mjwx · · Score: 1

      There was a huge fight about three years ago when the then Labor government's Senator Conroy tried to ram through internet censorship in Australia. The uproar was sufficient that the now marginal conservative government will not touch it. But now there is another attack from the courts, which is more difficult to deal with.

      (Conway, incidentally, has taken up a lucrative job lobbying for gambling in Australia.)

      It was closer to 6 years ago.

      The thing about Conroy was that he was a big player in the religious right in the Labor party. His filter plan never made it past his own party as the religious right were a minority in Labor. They were mostly Third Way Centrists and smacked down the idea of a filter pretty hard (despite Conroy's multiple attempts to sneak it in). As such it was guaranteed he'd never be party leader.

      The difference between the then Labor government and the current Liberal government (they're our conservatives for Americans playing along at home, note the big L) is that the far right, including the religious right is in control.

      The Abbott/Turnbull govts are a big part of the reason I chose to move to the UK rather than to the eastern states. Given the success they've had in blocking pirating sites in the UK, this will be no impediment and wont help Murdoch's bottom line one iota (to access $TorrentSite in the UK you just put $TorrentSite into Google). I would expect Murdoch to be back at parliament next week demanding harsher measures.

      One good thing that the courts did in this case was demand that all future URL's go through individual cases to be added to a block list. That means that they're not going to be able to keep up this game of whack a mole.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "There was a huge fight about three years ago when the then Labor government's Senator Conroy tried to ram through internet censorship in Australia."

      Is the Labor Party actually more in the corporate pocket that the conservative party?

      Remember when US conservatives thought of Australia as 'America made better?'

    11. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No they aren't. People don't like being censored by anyone for any reason. They're just afraid to speak up in these kind of cases since the sites in question are well known for illegal activity.

      I'm sorry but there is absolutely zero evidence for any of what you said. People don't give a shit. They aren't afraid of speaking up as anonymous protests (which attract very few participants) show, as well as the fact that there's several elections which made this a major topic (the Labour government was voted in right after they announced censorship the first time), and there's entire political parties dedicated to these issues which for all the elections they have run in Australia have a grand total of zero seats to their name.

      People don't care. People hate being shat on by their government but they are more concerned with mosquito bites.

      The original proposal got very little backlash and that was a government body arbitrarily deciding on what to block. People didn't even create an uproar when innocuous websites appeared on the leaked blacklist such as that website belonging to a local dentist. You're not going to find much of an uproar for a case which has actually been through the courts. ...

      Especially in a country where VPNs are common.

    12. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Bloody /. reading everything so literally. Ok lets de-generalize a bit:

      Most people don't like being censored by anyone for any reason.

      I'm sure someone somewhere recognizes their lack of self control in whatever arena and is happy to be externally censored, but I'd be surprised if that was even a significant minority.

      A decent percent of the people who would normally speak up in these situations are just afraid to speak up in these kind of cases

      People who wouldn't bother speaking out regardless are probably still not going to speak out.

      People hate being shat on by their government but they are more concerned with mosquito bites

      Agreed. I say all this stuff but beyond Slashdot posts and "sign" the most of Openmedia.ca's campaigns, but beyond that I do a whole lot of sweet fuck all. Sure I vote but between modern "pick the least bad" politics and the fact that one vote out of 35million is only slightly more than meaningless, that's not really accomplishing much either.

      Luckily for us normal people, there are folk who are willing to speak up against many issues, but that group diminishes in size significantly when there's jail time or hefty fines on the line, rather than just volunteer time and standing around at protests.

      People didn't even create an uproar when innocuous websites appeared on the leaked blacklist such as that website belonging to a local dentist

      Define "uproar." If you mean millions of people taking to the streets Arab Spring style well then no, of course not. But if you mean "a handful of dedicated people creating enough discussion to effect change" then you've got yourself an "uproar."

      You're not going to find much of an uproar for a case which has actually been through the courts

      The question is.. why not? The courts ruling in favor of media conglomerates based on laws written by the government isn't exactly a step up from the government acting directly.

      Certainly it sounds like the judge didn't go too overboard in this instance -- particularly the lack of rolling injunction (which would almost certainly lead to another hidden blacklist since there'd be little to no further oversight in that case) but it still opens up the possibility of anyone who doesn't like a website opening up a potentially successful lawsuit based on some vague copyright claims.

      Its not those specific sites that need to be fought for, its the concept of censorship in general that needs to be fought against before it just becomes the way of things and we've lost a little bit of freedom forever.

    13. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to speak figuratively then you should have said so. I said yes, you said no, I said yes again. I don't know how you thought this could be taken any other way than "literally".

      Define "uproar." If you mean millions of people taking to the streets Arab Spring style well then no, of course not. But if you mean "a handful of dedicated people creating enough discussion to effect change" then you've got yourself an "uproar."

      Except no, a handful of people didn't actually create any meaningful discussion. We don't have ourselves uproars regardless of how you look at it, and even the Conroy government proposal was mostly killed by ISPs not wanting the expense of administering a content filtering systems. Few people cared at all.

      The question is.. why not?

      Because people by'n'large just do not care. This censorship thing doesn't affect the vast majority of them so the vast majority don't care. It's not just censorship, it's just a general implications of policy that doesn't affect people, and the people affected by blocking the pirate bay are a) minor, b) barely care themselves as they'd fire up a VPN and route around it.

      This is the same way principles of freedom and privacy have been eroded bit by bit over the years. We're de-sensitised to being screwed by governments, so when they do it bit by bit we barely notice and don't care right up until we are personally affected by it. It's human nature, and many of those who go against human nature tread very close to SJW territory.

    14. Re:Internet Censorship Mark II by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The UK has already implemented this; many tracker sites are now blocked at ISP level.

      How are they blocked? Via IP? Via the ISP's DNS servers? If the later do they also block third party DNS servers?

  3. The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Methodology is being left to the ISPs. Which means it will most likely be a DNS block. People just need to point their routers at the google DNS and it is circumvented.

    As for the foxtel muppet he's claiming aussies don't use VPNs. Uh huh, right. That's why we have had legislation put through explicitly saying defeating geoblocking with VPNs is ok. Cause no one in Australia uses a vpn... Nope no one.

    1. Re: The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      ...what?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re: The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by gravewax · · Score: 1

      just change DNS for the machine doing the downloading, unless you are insane that is just a disposable VM anyway. Anyone that cares about quota etc isn't going to be affected by this.

    3. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by gravewax · · Score: 2

      Interestingly after hearing the news I asked my work colleagues in the room how many of them would be affected by this. Answer, big fat zero as we all use VPNs, VPN use has exploded since they brought in the metadata laws. Some of them don't even download torrents they just object to being monitored.

    4. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by admin7087 · · Score: 2

      VPNs will probably be blocked for non-corporate customers soon, too. Don't use technical solutions for social problems. Vote your politicians out of their offices instead.

    5. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by dwywit · · Score: 1

      There's a couple of positives - the court said "no rolling blocks", which means that ONLY the websites they brought to the case will be blocked - any others (proxybay, anyone?) can't just be blocked without a further court order, which takes time and money.

      Also, this is their "See? We've scored a victory against the pirates" moment. Future courts will get to look athe evidence, and hopefully consider just how ineffective this method is. I don't use my ISP's DNS server, there's plenty out there who don't consider censorship to be a valid business model.

      And it won't take long for dedicated downloaders to learn how to type a few numbers in the address bar.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    6. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by gravewax · · Score: 1

      you massively overestimate the value of copyright protection. the government is not going to tank the economy to help a tiny segment of the market, not that they could block VPN's even if they tried.

    7. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Future courts will get to look athe evidence, and hopefully consider just how ineffective this method is.

      Quite likely. Unfortunately they'll likely take it as evidence that they need even more stringent blocking methods. Just ban all bittorrent traffic! And all unregistered VPN traffic (VPN registration system will only cost the taxpayers a few hundred million or so to setup.. no worries.) Hell while we're at it lets just ban all unregistered traffic that looks vaguely encrypted.. we've wanted to ban encryption for a while now, thanks for giving us the excuse!

      And so on. We may be taking the long way around, but the West is slowly and steadily aiming to match China's level of internet freedom.

    8. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      If the better VPN's can get around everything China can buy, code and build, the efforts of the Australia gov should not be much of an issue for most good VPN brands experts.
      Just an added cost for people in Australia, internet costs and now a VPN to keep the internet working.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re: The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      What's a quota?

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re: The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Internode, iinet, tpg, telstra, optus. ie most of the market all have quota free content.....

    11. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Methodology is being left to the ISPs. Which means it will most likely be a DNS block. People just need to point their routers at the google DNS and it is circumvented.

      The Fine Aritcle mentioned that the method of blocking needs to be decided between the "Rights" holders and the ISP's. That means a protracted period of negotiation and probably back to court to decide who is going to pay for it. ISP's will have an extra cost and the "Rights" Holders will be trying everything not to pay for it.

      In fact this decision may well get dropped in a second court case because the court will rightfully grant that ISP's are due reasonable compensation and the "Rights" Holders will flat out refuse letting ISP's off the hook.

      As for the foxtel muppet he's claiming aussies don't use VPNs. Uh huh, right. That's why we have had legislation put through explicitly saying defeating geoblocking with VPNs is ok. Cause no one in Australia uses a vpn... Nope no one.

      That Foxtel Muppet is head of a dying empire. Every one of his businesses is losing money and subscribers... But he has a few more dirty tricks up his sleeve to delay the inevitable.

      There are two things we can take away from this making it a complete failure.
      1. The court ruling said that every site they want to add in the future has to go through the court as a separate case. This means that it'll be expensive and risk listing the "Rights" Holders as vexatious litigants.
      2. Given the success of the UK's blocking program nothing is going to change. In the UK if you want to get to a torrent site, you simply plug that sites name into Google. ISP's will be doing the bare minimum.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      The sites will block known vpn endpoints on their own, if the government makes it worthwhile to do so. They'll harass large sites and ISP's that don't block known endpoints until they do. Enjoy it while you can.

      While this may seem a pessimistic viewpoint, I feel that "Wars" against this kind of censorship and privacy are already lost, and it's best to just protect yourself at this point as the masses have decided convenience is better than privacy.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    13. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      I suspect there will be a spike in Opera usage in Australia. Opera's built in VPN is about as easy as it gets - when you're dealing with seniors and idiots you need a one button VPN solution because even those people want their GoT.

    14. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm other articles I had read had the methodology left to the ISPs with 14 days to comply.

    15. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by sabri · · Score: 1

      They could block VPNs in a jiffy

      Right. Ask China how that's working out for them.

      All I need is one tcp or udp port, and I'll have a working VPN. It would be quite difficult and expensive for any ISP to block that without breaking other functionality.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    16. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah uh-huh. And how exactly will that work when it is completely possible to spin up a hosted vm all set to go as your vpn end point?

      They start blanket blocking ports and scripts that do everything for you automatically will appear everywhere.

    17. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by Ayanami_R · · Score: 1

      Millions will certainly be doing that.

      --
      "Science is the power of man"
    18. Re:The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by gravewax · · Score: 1

      not hard? it is bloody near impossible, not even china who have been actively trying to do it for years and spent a fortune on it have managed it. I need a single endpoint, that can be something as simple as HTTP or HTTPS endpoint and I can establish a VPN that is all but invisible. effectively blocking VPN means breaking the web for users, which has massive economic knockon effects.

    19. Re: The foxtel muppet recons people don't use vpns by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunately many Australian users' quota free
      > content will break if they change to a non isp dns.

      WTF are you talking about? DNS consists mostly of UDP traffic, under 512 bytes per request. And what happens if you tweak your system to forward port 53 traffic through a dialup connection, and use the numeric answer to access the site via your broadband connection? The dialup ISP sees a few kbytes of traffic per hour, and the broadband ISP sees someone accessing, and downloading from a site by its numeric address.

      A less sophisticated method is to manually

      nslookup bad.example.com

      and then access the site via the numeric address. DNS won't do the blocking. They'd have to blackhole the site at their end by IP address.

      --

      I'm not repeating myself
      I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  4. VPN sounds like overkill by ukoda · · Score: 1

    A simple proxy server should be enough in this case.

    This tactic may work where legal alternatives are available, work and are reasonably priced. However given the amount of content that is unavailable or grossly more expensive than in the USA, purely for commercial reasons, I suspect cost/hassle of VPNs and proxies will not stop people using them.

    Australia has been on a slippery slope for while so this comes as no surprise, they can expect a lot more of this tampering. I guess they are just trying to keep up with the UK.

    1. Re:VPN sounds like overkill by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      VPNs are an overkill against a dns block. But for accessing a huge amount of geoblocked content lots of Australians already have them.

  5. Big deal... by jonwil · · Score: 1

    There are any number of other places you can get content from so this block wont mean much to people who know the right things to plug into their choice of search engines...

  6. The "Pirates" need to start running for office. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 2

    The "Pirates" need to start running for office. They need to start re-working governments to stop this madness because if they don't, we will all live in the Cold War East Germany.

    1. Re:The "Pirates" need to start running for office. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They have run for many years. The population does not care.

  7. Australia... by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    The Pirate Bay, BitTorrent Websites To Be Blocked In Australia, Federal Court Rules (abc.net.au)

    Australian Torrenters, for those of you who haven't met him yet, allow me to introduce our new friend Virtual Private Networking...

  8. No worries mates by wosmo · · Score: 1

    Dear Australia,
    Relax. Already a solved-problem. The more popular the site, the more mirrors they haven't managed to ban yet. This is the sole benefit to politicians having absolutely no idea what they're talking about. They actually believe they can beat us on our own home turf.
    Love, UK&Ireland

  9. Next up by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    The sun will be blocked if viewed without paying for copyright.

    Please direct us to where we can pay the toll sir.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  10. Re: VPN by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Your company will buy an account with your ISP. A card with the company brand in the back of your "modem" will make the network part of your bands office network.
    A very secure link from a home to the office. Set bandwidth, 24/7 support but for work only.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  11. Isohunt and Torrentz? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Aren't both of those defunct already?

    1. Re:Isohunt and Torrentz? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      Seems to work fine for me:

      https://torrentz2.eu/search?f=...

  12. Re: VPN by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    VPNs can be banned.

    Really? You might be able to sell your method to the Chinese government.

    --
    No sig today...
  13. Re:VPN by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the next 5 sites will be. And the 5 after that...

    Slipperly slopes are slippery.

    --
    No sig today...
  14. SolarMovie by jgullstr · · Score: 1

    SolarMovie seems nice. Thanks, Barbara!

  15. Re: VPN by 3247 · · Score: 1

    How does this work when travelling and using someone's wifi, exactly?

    --
    Claus
  16. Re: The "Pirates" need to start running for office by lazybeam · · Score: 1

    I have voted for the pirate party #1 since they started here!

    --
    --
    no sig for you. come back one year.
  17. How do they block by blogagog · · Score: 1

    Can Aussies just set their DNS server to some place outside of Australia? Or is it more complicated than that?

    1. Re:How do they block by tepples · · Score: 2

      ISPs could start by intercepting outbound traffic on port 53.

      You might suggest DNSSEC. But as I understand it, DNSSEC failed for two reasons: the root key is only 1024-bit RSA, which is dangerously close to breakable, and domain registrars who bundle DNS service with a registration tried to upcharge their registrants for signing a zone.

    2. Re:How do they block by Thanatiel · · Score: 1

      Please feel free to tell me when someone breaks a real-life (a.k.a without any known weakness) 1024 bits RSA key. These keys are rolling "fast".
      If the keys ended being broken, DNS will be the least of our problems but it will be trivial for ROOT to revoke the old keys and use stronger ones (size or algorithm).

      Note that if you take care to look at the root zone, you'll see both the KSK and ZSK are 260 bytes long. That is : 256 bytes or 2048 bits for the modulus.

      I'm trying to understand where you are going with DNSSEC. If you mean using a 'private' validating caching name server : yes, this may help and very easy to do (I'm using one right now on an Odroid).

      Anyway, if push comes to shove, it would be trivial to set a local resolver looking on a third-party server on a non-DNS port or tunnel on TCP. Technical solutions are legion.

      --
      Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
  18. copy-written by tepples · · Score: 1

    copy-written content

    Do you even know the difference between copyright and copywriting? Hint: the latter refers to creating the text of an advertisement. Unless...

    Offering access to copy-written content is illegal

    That sounds like you're obligating ISPs to install an ad blocker.

  19. Re:What about public domain torrents? by tepples · · Score: 1

    What about things that people create that they WANT to be distributed over torrents?

    That depends on the answer to the following: How can such an author be sure that he didn't accidentally copy a substantial portion of someone else's work?

  20. Re: The "Pirates" need to start running for office by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Oh hey! We found the guy who voted for them. Awesome.

    No one else cared.

  21. dead format anyways by luther349 · · Score: 1

    wile torrents will never die in there usefulness game clients using them and for downloading other large files the days of the huge pirate sites are dead. most pirates have moved to other means and back to privet sites. and wile i know piracy will never go away th thing is why pirate anything these days cant afford 60$ game with another 100$ of dlc wait a year get the goty edition with all dlc for 20$.

  22. Thanks Australia. by genner · · Score: 1

    Until I read this I didn't know SolarMovie was a thing. Good job Australia.

  23. Re:VPN by Gussington · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the next 5 sites will be. And the 5 after that...

    Slipperly slopes are slippery.

    Since it is easier to create a new domain than it is to add a new domain to the ban list, it won't matter.
    We already know that whack-a-mole is an ineffective strategy for censorship. All this will do is give foreign VPN providers more business.

  24. Re: VPN by torkus · · Score: 1

    They can be banned, just like guns, drugs, prostitution, abortion*, and so many other things.

    Doesn't mean people won't still use/get/do. They're just banned and therefore illegal...so only criminals have them. #facepalm

    --
    You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  25. Re:VPN by Dashiva+Dan · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the next 5 sites will be. And the 5 after that...

    Slipperly slopes are slippery.

    The next 5 sites will be 4 of the exact same sites, on their new ip's, and a clothing retailer, because... oops.

    --
    "lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.