why do they bother
there are tons of proxys for every one of em.
The UK’s biggest ISPs must block customers from accessing another two unlicensed movie-streaming sites, SolarMovie and Tubeplus. High Court Judge Lord Justice Arnold has ruled that the ISPs should add the sites to the ever-growing list of websites which it must prevent customers from accessing. The Big Five ISPs – BT, Sky …
there are tons of proxys for every one of em.
It's like digging a hole on the sea with a shovel.
I was thinking that I know the proxies for at least half on that list and Google seems still happy supply the rest on demand...knowledge fo purely educational reasons of course!
Opera users can just turn on 'opera turbo'.
The block list is like official government recommendation that a site is not just a malware pit of doom but actually has some worthwhile content. I would never of have heard about most of the sites without the list.
Why do they bother?
Because the board of directors need to make the shareholders think that something is being done to protect their investment. Doesn't matter that its ineffective, it protects the boards extortionate salary and prevents them being sacked.
Just wait until that gets declared as a circumvention tool...
They bother because it's the cumulative effect of creeping censorship. Start off with everything people agree is bad - child porn sites etc, then move on to things that can be portrayed as morally bad (torrent sites), and as that list starts to grow and people start getting bored with keeping an eye on it we will slowly start to get sites that "corrupt the youth" being banned. The Uk is fast becoming a cyber-province of the Great Firewall.
It's very helpful for them to catalogue the useful resources, though.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
I'm curious how big they are in the whole grand scheme of piracy. I've never heard of the majority of them. You'll be doing this a long time trying to take down the small websites, and the bigger ones will just get more and more proxies for access. Yes, another well thought out plan.
They are very big for the 'casual pirates,' especially those who just want music.
Conratulations. In other news, last month 5 news sites which are remarkably similar to the blocked sites popped up last month, and it's rumoured two new sites very similar to SolarMove and TubePlus will be opening within weeks.
And then THOSE sites get blocked next...and the ones after that...and the ones after that. The movie companies have infinite patience and the Internet only has so many v4 IPs. Eventually, they'll use the Whac-A-Mole exercise as an excuse to institute a mandatory national whitelist firewall for the sake of the people.
Dont know how they do it in the UK, but in Oz they have only blocked these sorts of sites at the DNS level. If you know the IP address, you can still get there.
The Brits aren't so dense. They block by IP; since most people don't know how to keep a hosts file or use an alternative DNS (they may not even be able to--depends on the ISP), that tends to be enough for them. That's why you typically have to reach the site by a proxy which hasn't been blocked yet. If the site changes IP, they'll just block that one, too.
Finally a reason to move to ipv6...
I guess they could keep blocking ipv6 addresses, but it would take a while to run out of free ones.
... for the advice, I will update my web favourites with the ones I hadn't heard of before. These court orders are proving to be very useful (read: Streisand effect).
Yup, me too.
Never heard of those two before. But I have now.
That's entirely the plan. Now, where did I put that receipt for the moat to the duck pond? Ah, a few grand? Might know a couple of internet downloaders who have fines coming their way. Good old boys at the station must have been watching the feeds...
And another loosing hand is played in the on-going game of Whack-a-Mole.
If people can cope with finding a movie or torrent site, they can cope with finding a proxy...
Thing is, they're attacking all the proxies, too.
...or a dictionary
eztv and kat are also blocked (on Virgin at least).
It's such a shame that there are ways round the block... (ztunnel, tor and vpn to name a few)
Thanks for the list. Now, just add a list of proxies from _outside_ of the UK...
Hmm. I smell a Business Opportunity.
"Under UK law, the rights-owner can apply to have a website blocked provided it can persuade a judge the evidence is strong enough. Lord Justice Arnold agreed the sites have the effect of making unauthorised stuff available."
How long till Google gets stiffed then?
Why is it alway Arnold that presides over these cases? Why do the defendants not get a right to defence?
Surely they realise this 'blocking' is naught more than an inconvenience for those that want access to these sites, it reminds me of kids hiding their eyes with their hands and believing no-one could see them.
"Why is it alway Arnold that presides over these cases?"
Its efficient, dear boy. It means the studios etc only have to lean on/ wine and dine one judge.
Whatever will we do?
I'm not sure who they think this is going to stop. A gibbon can work out how to sidestep the blocks...all they're doing really is publishing a shopping list.
These blocks are useless, someone will create a proxy website within a week...
Of the number of pages have been blocked to the number of new pages (proxy sites) created since the blocks.
Apart from the obvious ones (TPB etc), I've never heard of these sites. Since it is piss-easy to evade these blocks I think I'll pay them a visit and download something.
Will they ever learn about the Streisand Effect?
I was going to buy some DVD box sets today on Amazon ... don't think I'll bother now.
Sounds like their trying to bail out a sinking ship with a sieve. They'd be better off building a better boat.
One has to wonder if these blocks will be as ineffectual as the blocks put up for The Pirate Bay and its multitude of proxies. We should call these 'Hydra sites'. Cut off one head and another soon appears.
Post a comment working here yet?
While blocking piracy sites is a start, Blighty's beaks need to get in touch with reality and impose the same punishment for piracy and facilitation of piracy that Japan has with a mandatory 2 years jail time for piracy and a mandatory 10 years for facilitation of piracy, plus stiff fines. The pirates aren't very bright so they need a place to reside for a few years where they can get a personal, hand's on educational experience regarding crime and why you are punished for committing crimes.
LOL. You're hilarious. MPAA and their like "need to get in touch with reality" as you put it ...
Piracy is NOT a Crime, Piracy is NOT theft. it is Copyright Violation, a Civil offence, not Criminal...
Prison time for downloading something is mad... just fine them the retail cost... and if they cause losses, which are proven, then fine them that amount!
You are clearly not very up to date with the law. Whilst copyright infringement is, for the most part, a civil issue, it can be criminal if it is deliberate and systematic, especially for commercial gain.
This is a link to the CPS guidelines
So, to summarise, if you an individual infringes copyright by making casual copies, then it's not going to end up in a criminal case, but if you knowingly make a business of it, then it could be a different story.
Again, yet another poster not bothering to research freely available information.
"and a mandatory 10 years for facilitation of piracy" - I'm pissing myself laughing. You do know that people have had less for rape and murder, right? Okay, granted, there are often a variety of mitigating factors (which is why the sentence isn't something like "30 to life"); however these sorts of criminal acts are so far out of the ballpark of piddly little civil law things such as copyright infringement that it is akin to remodelling your house using a god-damned bazooka.
As for piracy - what counts as piracy, exactly? Buying a CD and then ripping it so you can put a copy on your phone? Do you feel it is justified that you should pay for the exact same thing twice because They Who Want To Make The Rules would like format changing to be illegal? Gee, now, you don't suppose they could have any ulterior motives in mind, huh, like, say, selling two copies of the same thing? [remember, that's mere pennies to the performer and rather more to them so it is in their direct interest to disallow such activities that would lose them profit]
Now, you might be saying "wait, what? aren't we talking about torrenting the latest cinema favourite?". Actually, we are. If the system is not seen to be fair, people are less likely to be supportive of it. Let's see: declared monetary losses that's a huge chunk of the GDP of the entire country, declared job losses larger than the number of registered workers in said industry, claiming insane amounts of losses for a DOWNloader (get real, said loss equals one retail copy), perhaps because such people (including children) are an easier target than the uploaders. Add to this the desire to take away your ability to put a work you have legally purchased onto a device of your choosing for your personal enjoyment, the non-stop bombardment of patronising bullshit before you get to watch a DVD you bought (you wouldn't steal a car...), the move to "licensing" things so you don't really own what you have purchased, and throw in the moronic UK legis. regarding orphaned works...and you start to see that it's all a bit one sided. One sided as in 10 PRINT "we get screwed" : 20 GOTO 10
So here is a deal. I'll give you your mandatory 10 years IF you give me a mandatory 10 years for the CEO (and if no current CEO, then just work down the hierarchy) of any media outlet that rips off work created by a regular civilian, with double if they assign copyright to some arbitrary entity such as "the internet" or suchlike. Hey, Daily Mail, I'm looking at you here. Plus a 10 year prison term for attempts to subvert the natural copyright expiry by evergreening or similar. Additionally, a 10 year mandatory term for the CEO/director of any entity that fires off invalid and unjustified DMCAs at work that can be demonstrated to not be work that they represent the copyright of, regardless of whether or not said DMCA was generated by a person or by automatic means. Don't you think that sounds fair?
> You do know that people have had less for rape and murder, right?
Well yes, but they aren't really important are they? That only affects the little people, no-one that actually matters.
Piracy is the more important crime to the government, as that affects where the money for coke and yachts (and the next election) comes from.
... Google pay out £550 Million in 'donations' to the Conservative Party, in order to ensure that they don't accidentally end up on that list.
Oh sorry, I was having a 'moment'... apologies.
Such that a court order is required?
The ISPs basically need a court order. If there wasn't one, then they'd be liable to legal action from the blocked site. Of course, they might still be able to win such a case (after all, ISPs routinely block sites carrying "illegal" content using subscription lists without court orfer), but I can guarantee no ISP wants to be responsible for policing the Internet for material infringing copyright. It would be a thankless, fruitless and incredibly expensive job.
So they'll leave it to the rights holders to get the court orders with, probably, only an objection if there are obvious objections. Otherwise, it's just a waste of money for the ISPs.
Does the judge admit he's trying to push water uphill with a rake?
The judge doesn't have a problem. The case is work - he gets paid. No problem. Even more the case for the Media solicitors.
If you want to SOLVE a problem - don't go to law...
If you want to SOLVE a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017