Pirate Bay site sinks, Swedish police raid its ISP Rumors are flying after the Pirate Bay's website took a dive on Monday just as news broke of a raid by Swedish police on its hosting company PRQ – but the group says the two facts are not related. "Dear internet. We have not been raided. We are not shutting down. We like turtles, waffles and you," the group said on its …
It seems today that freedom is now reserved privilege for corporations, the super-rich and politicians. This development has been ongoing for long time now. It is older then me already.
Not everyone is like this. As that would be generalization. But this problem is widespread enough to be a problem.
Adam Curtis has covered this properly. Here is a documentary on this problem, http://www.jonfr.com/?p=6920
Disclaimer: Yes, this is my blog. But I have collected the documentary film on my blog already. I am too lazy to find them on youtube and post all the links here.
"It seems today that freedom is now reserved privilege for corporations, the super-rich and politicians. "
Nothing new there unfortunately old bean, think the Maya(n) priests kicked this off although back then not being part of the elitist super priests or one of their calendar flunky's meant your heart was being ripped out, at least we just have servers removed now etc,
Lets call that progress at least :)
"It seems today that freedom is now reserved privilege for corporations, the super-rich and politicians. "
Point out a time and a place where this wasn't true.
As to freedom... I'm not sure what triggered this. How is the police taking away some servers for an unknown reason of an ISP that contains highly questionable content a restriction or blow to your freedom?
"As to freedom... I'm not sure what triggered this. How is the police taking away some servers for an unknown reason of an ISP that contains highly questionable content a restriction or blow to your freedom?"
What is "questionable"? If they are after criminals that rape kids. I fully understand. If they are after people who share digital content. Then I do not understand. Since every study that has not been fabricated by the MPAA or RIAA shows that impact of "piracy" is none. In fact, sharing turns in profit. As it allows people to see new entertainment and see if they like what they are watching. It is also a fact that digital files on the internet do not last that long. Maximum 2 to 5 years (depending). So buy blue ray or dvd often make more scene for people in the long term.
Case in point. Almost none of the show that I currently watch are shown on television I have here in Denmark. That is 0. The exception being Doctor Who. But that is already 1 season behind on DR HD. I can already get on blue ray and it is not that expensive.
I buy movies and television shows on dvd or blue ray when I have the money. I already have a long list of television shows and movies that are on my "to buy" list. So piracy is not the problem.
But the economic crisis is the problem. People buy food before entertainment. That is a fact and nobody at MPAA and RIAA are going to change that fact. Regardless how they want to.
"What is "questionable"? If they are after criminals that rape kids. I fully understand. If they are after people who share digital content. Then I do not understand."
Questionable content covers the entire array; as that is what the ISP seems to be fine with hosting.
As to not understanding what the police are doing if it's piracy... well, if they are police, they are simply enforcing the law, as is their remit. There's no point complaining to police about the existence and illogicality of individual laws, because making them, or prosecuting and offenders isn't any of their business. It's a bit like moaning to the Postie about getting letters that you don't want.
"People buy food before entertainment."
Maslow is right on the money *most* of the time, but oddly not all the time. People *will* go hungry for a day or two in order to buy luxury items, on occasion. Not that we really have to make that choice often in the West: Even those of us who describe ourselves as 'dirt broke' can fritter income on luxuries. The problem is that those luxuries are often over-priced, and free/cheap alternatives all too easy to come by, thus making the choice an easy one.
"As to not understanding what the police are doing if it's piracy... well, if they are police, they are simply enforcing the law, as is their remit. There's no point complaining to police about the existence and illogicality of individual laws, because making them, or prosecuting and offenders isn't any of their business. It's a bit like moaning to the Postie about getting letters that you don't want."
There is the problem. The law for most part is written by corporation for corporation. They call it the fancy word "lobbing". But in reality it comes down on the same place. It is a self-service to laws for corporations. Not every corporations do this. There are few that have the decency to leave the law up to the lawmakers.
The problem of the law in regards to piracy is also well explained here.
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html
Claims made by MPAA and RIAA are just ridiculous in reality. It would be good if more people would figure this fact out.
As all the "naughty" sites don't actually host any of the pirate files, just links to them, akin to charging BT for the services its customers offer via a telephone, Matt could only be assisting the assisting of a criminal act.
Unfortunately if the music/movie industry have their way, such a heinous crime will be shortly punishable by several years in Guantanamo Bay and a fine which exceeds the GDP of Asia.
... and media companies worldwide continue to make it imperative for such places to exist.
In 'early' 2013, FXHD, one of the many channels I receive through an expensive SKY subscription, will start showing Dexter Season 7, despite the fact that it premièred two days ago. Like many US Dramas, there is an element of mystery which unfolds as the series progresses. As far as I know, there is no legal way for me, a UK citizen, to pay more money to see this series sooner, so I either become an Internet hermit, so that my US friends don't accidentally spoil it for me --- or I 'steal' it.
I am going to continue paying my SKY subscription for many reasons, but as many people's disposable income contracts, why on earth are media companies encouraging people to research into illegal means to obtain content? Once you have got away with downloading one item, it becomes clear that you can get pretty much everything for free. That is surely going to tempt some of those who visit for a single purpose to revisit even when the justification doesn't appear as strong, and before long you have made pirates out of people who would never have dreamed of simply downloading content for free.
If you continue to pay your Sky subscription and still download Dexter S7, then .... is that stealing? :) At worst you're not viewing the ads Sky would insert in the UK (advertising on top of the subscription I might add), but who in he world watches those anyway in this age of time shifted viewing? Everyone fast forwards through them.
"Everyone fast forwards through them."
true, and with the geological speed that big business adapts to changing technology I look forward to watching their response - maybe in ten years they'll realise that nobody has watched an advert.
That and the Highstreet - its doomed, just pack up the shops now and cut youir losses
It's like watching two Giant old supertankers slowly sink.....
Couldn't agree more AC.
There is no way that you can miss hearing details of a new series being aired across the pond, thus spoiling it for those who have to wait an unreasonable length of time for the series to air here in Blighty.
I'm currently downloading each new episode of Sons of Anarchy season 5 and season 2 of Homeland, which premiered last night. I point blank refuse to wait for it to be aired in the UK and risk having my enjoyment ruined by gossip, reviews, press releases, etc, I'm still paying my license fee and $ky subscription so there are no losers in this, with the possible exception of the UK advertisers - but then I'm not influenced by tv ads anyway, so the point is moot.
"There is no way that you can miss hearing details of a new series being aired across the pond, thus spoiling it for those who have to wait an unreasonable length of time for the series to air here in Blighty."
Seriously?!
That's a pretty lame excuse. I love my US TV shows, and NEVER have this problem. Ok: I had it once by 'liking' NCIS on FB and getting spoilers, but that was easily solved.
I don't have massive issues with TV piracy, but "I have to because otherwise find spoilers when I spend time reading stuff on the Net about them" has to be the most self-deceptive excuse for piracy I've ever heard. If you already *like* the show, why do you need to read press releases and reviews anyway?
I guess that depends on how much of a fan you are, if you're a bit hard-core and like to spend time discussing shows with other fans online, then this is a big problem.
I'm enjoy watching F1 and although I'm not fanatical about watching races live or discussing it online, I wouldn't want to be waiting 6+ months to watch a race either.
Ultimately, if I pay for the TV channel that will be showing it anyway, but "pirate" it to watch when I want, where is the *actual* harm as opposed to the technical infringement?
interestingly enough, I got fed up with the unreliability/unpredictability of torrents, and *paid* for an account with a n nzb index site, and *paid* a bit more for a binary newsgroup host, and now enjoy lightening fast downloads (6Mb/s) of what I tend to torrent. Which is latest episodes of US shows. (The fact that unlike a torrent I leave no trail doing this is a happy by-product.)
There's a lesson there somewhere.
The fact that unlike a torrent I leave no trail ...
Wrong: The ISP is required by "anti-terror" legislation to log all of your traffic and hand it over to the Proper Authorities - whoever they may happen to be - on demand. However, the "anti-terror" legislation is so neat that any infraction, including dissent, eventually must evolve into a Terrorist Atrocity so that The Authorities can do their masters bidding and prosecute.
What saves your butt is that the smooth functioning any dictatorship requires that everyone is guilty of something, they let a bit of corruption slip, saves it for later when you get to rat on your friends.
"The ISP is required by "anti-terror" legislation to log all of your traffic and hand it over to the Proper Authorities"
....and the logs will show a substantial amount of encrypted traffic with a usenet provider. Of course, this is only really useful if the usenet provider is located in a country which doesn't cooperate with our Proper Authorities.
hmmm encrypted, they like encrypted, that means you are *really* doing something naughty (in their book anyway).
If you are encrypting stuff and you don't want nanny gubinment to see it then you must be a teririririrrrist. Now be nice and open the door for that nice gentleman in the black suit and flak jacket.
wow you PAID for an index site and you PAID for a newsgroup host.
Arnt you all pleased with yourself for paying for stuff !
That dosent justify anything you know - thats like a burglar admitting he paid for the crowbar and gloves!
I doubt the IP owners are going to see any of that money
They've already seen it - he just said he pays a subscription service to SKY for which they pay FX, so that they might show the channel which carries Dexter S7 in 2013, which they have already agreed to be paid to Showtime in order to secure the contract...
On top of that, he is paying for an additional service to receive something he is already contracted to have licence to view slightly sooner than the whim of the first service provider.
So erm, what was your point again? Money paid to the 2nd service should somehow belong to the 1st, even though the 1st is already getting their contractually obligated slice of the pie from the first payment he makes and they have no cost involved in the 2nd service at all?
But: If he downloads something and doesn't watch it on Sky, the set top boxes tell Sky that this program was watched by fewer people than actually it was. Therefore Sky think that it's not popular, don't buy the next series or similar programs and the content producers - who have a popular product - don't make any more because it appears that it's not a popular product, because it's been pirated so much.
Think things through a bit, please.
I think the point AC was making was that he was willing to pay two service providers a certain amount, which allows him (albeit unlawfully) to satisfy his viewing habits.
If the content providers et al could actually get their act together and provide a similar service, then why would he need to do it unlawfully ?
Record and film companies just haven't understood that technology has allowed us to separate content from media.
oh they understand it.
The difference is that they are both services with far lower overheads, basically because they are stealing copyright.
NZB indexers are free or £7 for 10 years ("vip" service) - slightly less than sky
Newsgroup hosts start at £124 / month - slightly less than sky
the difference - they arnt paying for the content, I'm sure if SKY could steal whatever they wanted and broadcast it wherever thay wanted they too could give you a great servive at a great price
Freetards have left the magnificent film and movie industries in turmoil with their selfish actions. Next up - take out open source - a scam that supposedly benefits people whilst simultaneously wrecking business models for excellent companies such as Microsoft. Intellectual Property and the ability to copyright ideas have to be sacrosanct if we want corporate profits to be maintained. Our pensions depend on it. Already we're seeing Apple take a stand against Samsung and it's great to see.
Pirate Bay does not host content. this despicable little web trash paper is of course doing pro censorship propaganda by mentioning north american boy love association. Guess what theregisterUK, proclaiming something is a right as your internet spam website should well know, just look at the stuff you publish and proclaim here .
"It is PRQ doing the hosting....." Just to get the tinfoilhat brigade screaming and shrieking, you might not know it but PRQ also act as the hosts/tunnel-gateway for the Wikileaks servers in Sweden. I'm sure Big Brother would love to get a look inside the PRQ datacenter and trawl through their logs.....
/MuuaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
I love comments like this because they're written by supporters of The Pirate Bay (et al) and the reasoning goes along these lines:
The Register is saying bad things about TPB, those bad things are that they host pirate content. This is slander because everyone knows piracy is wrong. I however support the pirate bay and what they do, so I download pirated content all the time, but that's ok. Somehow. It's a level of doublethink I find rather amusing.
Oh and also, until the technology changed, TPB hosted the torrent trackers which were server side software required to make a torrent work. So, they may not have had the content on their disks, but they supplied the infrastructure to make it work.
No, the slander is claiming they both host material and using guilt by association with nambla. I never said downloading copied electronic material (pirated as you say) was wrong, you did.. You really need to be more honest with your purposeful invented misrepresentations which then you try to pass off as fallacies on the part of other people. You invented the fallacy in your mind by distortion/lying and/or faulty reasoning.
@Truthandpower, no that is clearly what you thought, you've been called out and are now trying to weasel out of it. Just hold your hands up and admit it.
Here, just to help you: I have downloaded copyright material, which I didn't own, in the past. I can't justify it, I know it was wrong. I know that someone has lost out because I have downloaded their copyright. The difference is I am not going to try to spin my behavior as somehow not a problem, or weasel out of what I've done.
It is possible to download anonymously, it just takes a bit more physical effort.
1. Book a room at a hotel with good WiFi as Mr Smith and pay cash
2. Download away and share with your friends by physically sharing storage media
(If you're super paranoid, wear a disguise while you check in and out)
You forgot to mask your NIC's unique MAC address. All the authorities have to do is follow the trail from the pirate website to the hotel ISP's logs, get the MAC address, ask the manufacturer where that unique NIC went, and follow it back to your system. There might also be some logging of other unique identifiers from your OS (such as your OS licence/certificate number for Windows and iOS, harddrive and/or motherboard serial number, or IMEI if you use a mobile device) passed on by your browser which you didn't know it was doing (aren't cookies fun?). Just about every hotel in the Western World has cameras and they will have recorded you at the hotel and probably when you booked into the room that the logs show the MAC address was being used in. All of which will lead to daily showers with criminals.
Of course, for the price of the hotel room you could just buy the media legally online for a lot less - D'UH!
No need to spoof MAC addresses when USB dongles are cheap and easy to use. I've got a wireless N dongle, because my older systems have wireless G; it's trivial to move the dongle from one machine to another as I wish, and get higher speeds. Once wireless AC comes down in price and becomes easier to find I'll probably get a wireless AC dongle, too.
No need to mask the MAC; I for example, have an old Toshiba laptop which shipped with wireless G and I long ago purchased (using cash, for reasons which made sense at the time) an USB wireless N dongle. I have also replaced the hard drive in the Toshiba, when the drive that it shipped with died three months out of warranty. Paid for that drive with cash, too. That particular Toshiba has Ubuntu 9.04 installed. And, frankly, any cameras noting that I'm present at a certain location won't be of much value, as when I go near hotels it's usually on official business and there will be a whole bunch of us in the conference room or whatever. And, as I'm there on official business, I'm not the one paying for the room. So, yes, I can download any bloody thing I want, for free, and I can't be tracked unless Big Brother wants to go to an _awful_ lot of trouble... and they're not going to, as there are all the low-hanging torrent-using fruit around. It's much easier to grab them.
".......I can't think of any hotel that won't need a credit card...." And most insist on you buying Wifi time with their service, usually by credit card. And to sign into those services you will be opening a browser and accepting a whole lot of cookies that will rape your system for info. Sure, if you're a genius you may have your MAC address masked and your browser set to return false identifying info, but most people just aren't smart enough to plan that far ahead. The last time I stayed in a hotel in Geneva it wouldn't let you connect to the Wifi unless you accepted their cookies.
I think he means the ISP is likely to be held accountable for hosting TPB and illegal distribution of copyright protected material. It doesn't make any difference if you're the front end (TPB) or backend (PRQ) when it comes to illegal distribution of copyright protected goods or services. Chances are good that many will be fined and or jailed when the dust settles, as happened to TPB once before.
It's like these people are clueless and think the second time around they won't get caught. Really?
I'm rather more intrigued by the "How" rather than the "Why" or "What" of PirateBay's (probably temporary) removal. When I saw this article, I tried a "ping" of PirateBay unsuccessfully. My ISP's DNS reported PB's address as 194.71.107.15 but no packets were returned. Curious about where the link was broken, I tried a TraceRoute on PirateBay. TraceRoute correctly looked up 194.71.107.15, then returned the address of my modem/router, the address of my local ISP's local switch and then nothing beyond that.
I live in a semi-rural area and generally a traceroute to even my ISP's corporate webpage results in hops through a dozen or so nodes. For it to stop at the local telco switch connection would seem to indicate a net-wide banning of that IP address.
...the knock will come at the door and those who chose to pirate or facilitate piracy will be held accountable for their violations of law. Japan has just started mandatory 2 year prison sentences and stiff fines for anyone who pirates, so other countries are likely to follow. If you want to play, your gonna pay.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
