Registering a domain in a small country is a pain in the balls. A domain registrar with too little work has plenty of time to scrutinise your application, invent stupid rules or make you jump through hoops.
Get a .kp domain guys...
The Pirate Bay has been torpedoed after telecoms companies from two countries blocked the website’s dual domains. The world’s largest file-sharing site moved a Swedish .se domain to a Greenland-based .gl address between late Monday night and early Tuesday morning after apparently being tipped off that the Swedes were planning …
Ah, .ie domain registrations, where the high cost is justified on the grounds of exclusivity and the reasons you'd want to get one offered are "well, it shows you're doing business in Ireland". It's almost as though .ie domains are being managed by people who don't have the faintest understanding of the technology involved...no, wait, it's exactly like that.
Do they still have the policy whereby, unless you can prove you're a business based in Ireland, you can only register your full name [and no nicknames. Sit up straight, boy —and stop chewing!]... after providing your birth certificate, mother's maidenhood and assorted other paperwork in triplicate?
Good old Ireland. At the forefront of the campaign to create the world's first Infomation Cycle Lane.
@m a d r a:
No, see, you're missing the point. Being excessively expensive and restrictive is a way of denoting the domain's exclusivity. Because we all know that when you think Internet, you think dot-ie. Never mind those tacky dotcoms, I heard anyone can have one of them for a tenner or less! Truly the filthy floozies of the internet world. Dot-ies, now - they've got standards. And class. And definitely aren't just yours because you had the money to spend.
(Don't forget the rule about how you won't get a .ie domain if you want to serve up smut! Because we all know that Ireland is a smut-free country. Yep. Definitely. *cough*)
It occurs to me that de Valera would likely approve of the nonsensical policies governing the sale & administration of the .ie domain. Which, if you know anything much about the man's policies and legacy, says about all that needs to be said...
There are only 3 countries in north america so coming last place is nothing to write about. Most Europeans consider mexico part of central america. If you are not of that opinion it is still 3rd of 4.
It is less than 1/3rd the size of australia. The ridiculous landmass you speak of is actually a product of the way we map the globe to a flat surface. If you look on google maps for example it appears as large as USA and canada combined. This is bullshit.
Anyway it is smallish. Roughly 12th in the world. Brazil and argentina both have its number. Anyway, I am sure they meant small in terms of population.
A quick query on my GIS system returns six countries in North America, not counting the Caribbean: Bermuda, Canada, France (St. Pierre & Miquelon), Greenland, Mexico, and the US. Not sure what's the source of my data, but everything looks in the right place.
I am a European, educated in three different European countries (including the UK), and they all considered Mexico as being in North America.
And - to be top-of-the-line stupid: Registering a domain widely associated with piracy in a subsidiary of Denmark .... and bestest friend of Sweden???
On top of that, Denmark will do anything any lawyers ask of them, indeed Denmark will even pre-empt that lawyers may ask for something to be done to someone and put citizens on a trip to the US for a 15 year old drug charge, that the Americans had forgotten about!
The Piratebay could learn from Slysoft (http://www.slysoft.com/en/about.html) and locate somewhere where EU or US copyright laws are not universally respected. Venezuela, pehaps?
"When I started university, many moons ago, people would hand out IP addresses in numeric form. They were for muds, IRC, and BBSes, mainly, and I know, as a fact, that some didn't have DNS addresses."
Yeah , I remember that too. Good thing IP6 wasn't rolled out back then or we'd have been royally screwed!
"Sorry, could you repeat that , fe34:ab3f:c7da:22... what?"
That doesn't work anymore in an environment where one DNS entry can point to any number of actual IPs. And TPB probably uses this technique as part of its cloud strategy, ensuring that the name resolves to a working server SOMEWHERE. So, yeah, you need the DNS name because the IP addresses may not be the same from day to day.
Your constant metaphors comparing the The Pirate Bay to some kind of pirate ship do not bear close examination. The copyright hoodlums have named their outfit a BAY - a place for pirates to convene. Hence "dropping anchor" and "firing broadsides" are incorrect similies.
I shall be writing to my MP
It's a pity the military forces don't go after the Somalian pirates with the same kind of drive the lawyers have for TPB. Which is a little absurd as last time I checked, TPB had never killed anyone.
(FYI, Somalian pirates have a habit of throwing all the AK47s over the side and claiming to be fishermen when intercepted).
@Steve Evans : "(FYI, Somalian pirates have a habit of throwing all the AK47s over the side and claiming to be fishermen when intercepted)"
funny how things go: what I've heard is that the Somali where fishermen, but since the BIG Chinese and Japanese and European fisherboat-factories are fishing in their waters, they don't get to eat, and use their waters to intercept some boats.
In other words, if you want to get rid of Somali pirates, clear their waters from GIANT fisherboat-factories.
The app would either perform searches from a hosts url which can change dynamically as needs dictate, or even through the p2p client if there is a via distributed search protocol.
It already has an .onion address (jntlesnev5o7zysa.onion)
So even if they blocked ALL the public DNS (icann managed) names it would still be accessible through TOR. The public address just helps those who don't use TOR (or don't know how to use it). Perversely , the whack-a-mole that is happening these days is more likely to push people onto darknets to get their Games of Thrones fix - i'm not sure the authorities would like that though,
The other scenario is that an alternative DNS starts being used more frequently (bit or open spring to mind) so tld blocks by icann become irrelevant.
Yes, I never understood the Pirate Bay/BitTorrent model of using normal web domains to list content when it is so obvious what the inevitable outcome would be. Why on earth did they not savw themselves a lot of hassle in the first place, and built upon the model used by networks such as gnutella, allowing the search functionality to be within the protocol itself?
I'm not sure that applies across the board - besides, if it were true, it would equally apply to every search engine ever made publicly accessible and probably every computer-based comms technology ever made.
Newsgroups are still going strong and, barring Newzbin, haven't been persecuted for being an easy way to get warez. I've never heard of an IRC server being chased over warez/piracy issues even though that's another fine long-standing avenue for naughtiness.
Meanwhile, BitTorrent is a fantastically useful protocol for anyone who wants/needs to distribute large files without bleeding money for hosting, which means that it gets used for both lawful and unlawful uses. (I saw "lawful" because the "illegal" aspect of torrenting is based on the "oooooh, that's redistribution, therefore we'll treat people running torrent clients in the exact same way as we would someone mass-producing knock-off DVDs that they sell for a fiver down the pub".)
I have a whole bunch of torrents that I regularly seed at home - many of them are legitimately free films ferom the likes of vodo.net; others are legitimately free software packages or game mods; others are non-free but private-tracker torrents for things like Humble Bundle game packs (as in, the torrents are made available by the Humble Bundle founders and I seed them to try and help HB keep their bandwidth costs down).
The fact that naughty material is available as a torrent doesn't mean that all torrents are naughty or that the existence of torrents predisposes people to be naughty. If anything was going to predispose people to be naughty, it would be the access they have to a networked machine that's very good at making copies of information structures....
It's also worth noting that in certain countries, taxes are levied on storage media that are directly paid to performing artists collection bodies as "compensation" for piracy (Canada & Spain, for example). How easy is it to argue that an action is illegal if the state has already imposed a tax on you which asserts that you will commit the action and charges you accordingly?
"It's also worth noting that in certain countries, taxes are levied on storage media that are directly paid to performing artists collection bodies as "compensation" for piracy "
Supposedly. The general opinion of canadian artists is that the prime recipient is the canadian General Fund.
That's not the point. The point is that the levy is applied to storage media, and the legislature describing it states that compensating artists is the rationale.
The fact that the levy is incompetently administered does not reduce the potential problem of treating as criminal an activity for whose repercussions you are imposing a tax.
Most of the people I've talked to here in Canada about this (of course I am a completely law-abiding citizen and would NEVER pirate anything) are of the opinion that, hey, the government charged me for pirating music when I bought these blank CDs, so I'm damn well going to get my money's worth.
The private copying levy is not a tax. It is a royalty paid to music rights holders. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying levy is collected by the CPCC to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying. The private copying levy is earned income for rights holders and helps them to continue to create music.
Also, note the change in how the money is distributed:
Music authors and publishers: 75% in 2000; 58.2% in 2010-11
Performers: 13.7% in 2000; 23.8% in 2010-11
Record companies: 11.3% in 2000; 18% in 2010-11
I have to say I don't love the idea that buying a CD and having the temerity to transcode it to a format that can be used by the only audio-playing equipment that I own should involve me paying an additional levy. Especially not since buying the storage media involves paying the levy even if you only ever buy digital downloads:ie where the payment you've made for the song already accounts for it being a digital file.
So no, they can screw off, it's a tax. If it's applied across all storage media sales (ie there's no way for me to say "I won't be storing any transcoded media on this device, therefore I am exempt from the levy) then I don't see how they can argue otherwise.
Yeah, I noticed that the first time. I'm not personally convinced, though, because it's applied across the board and provides no exemption mechanism for those whose usage does not match the criteria. Hence, if it's a legislatively-mandated cost to be included in the price of all such items, it's no different in my mind to sales tax/VAT. (The more cynically minded might argue that the fact that the money gets funneled to a body who then pisses it away in a manner that most of its intended beneficiaries don't much like is yet another similarity to an actual tax...)
The difference between a tax and a levy in semantic terms is irrelevant, in any case - the key fact here is that if you buy storage media, you are paying a per-amount-of-storage-space charge to a body which compensates musicians for the transcoding of their music that you are assumed to do, whether or not you do it. At which point, screw 'em. If they're allowed to pre-emptively charge you for something you may do just by virtue of buying hardware, then the same sort of logic legitimises users pre-emptively snaffling naughty free copies of $BAND's new album before deciding to pay for it or not, because apparently we're reversing the usual order of the payment | product handover process in retail transactions...
It's a matter of degree.
Google doesn't celebrate the fact that unlawful behaviour can be committed through it - the pirate bay on the other hand openly promotes this as a feature, the clue is in the name.
In the other cases, lack of prosecution doesn't mean the behaviour can be considered okay.
I'm not trying to attack torrent technology - the question was asked what the Pirate Bay is doing that's illegal - that would be encouraging illegal behaviour, and I challenge anyone to say with a straight face that they do not.
Well, I guess it can be argued that with TPB in particular there's a specific focus.
But generally, with torrent trackers, unless they're focusing on specific media and stopping people submitting legitimately free material as torrents, that's not necessarily the case.
It's going to be interesting to see how Google treat trackers in future, given that the emergence of Google Play (or should I say re-emergence of Google Video?) means that they now find themselves with conflicting interests, since taking the AdWords money from torrent trackers may well mean depriving themselves of film rental/sale revenue through Google Play...
I've found that you can bypass these restrictions by simply googling the page on PB that you want and viewing a cached page from google.
Personally, I find the ease in bypassing these blockages moronic and shocking. Surely there is a much more effective way of blocking the page that isn't this easily maneuvered...
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Does anyone have hard figures on the legal/illegal content flow that are trustworthy?
'cause if not, my anecdotal first-hand experience (from others: I've never visited The Pirate Bay) is that 100% of the torrent usage is copyright infringing, and that will inform my views on the matter.
I venture to guess that downloads of <insert free operating system> are far outweighed by downloads of, say, Avatar.
Hell, I'll bet more people download copyrighted Wizards of the Coast Dungeons and Dragons material than legitimate stuff if it comes to that.
You're right to ask for numbers, but I'd also like to point out that there is a non-trivial amount of legitimately freely redistributed content out there in torrent form. I'm not going to argue that it's more popular than $USBILLBOARD#1ALBUM or $TENTPOLEHOLLYWOODBLOCKBUSTER, but it's certainly there.
There are also commercial operations using closed trackers to distribute their software.
There is also the ever-present warez issue of files being deliberately misnamed (as has happened not only by malware or dodgy smut merchants, but also with "poisoned" files released by record labels).
So without a clear and quite labour-intensive methodology (which will need to include some sort of anonymised data access to a large number of ISPs, as well as permission to retrieve and inventory every torrent identified from the anonymised ISP data, as well as some sort of magic to identify when non-free material is being legitimately torrented) there's no useful way of reaching any conclusion.
(I should clarify - this applies to the overall superset of torrent trackers; I suspect that the number of legitimate torrents on TPB is rather low as a proportion of the total number of torrents...)
... that in the old days the internet was controlled by American gangsters and corrupt governments. That can't be right, surely? Is that why my teacher calls it the Second Dark Age? A second era of "cultural and economic deterioration" that accompanied "a period of low activity in copying"?
She said that in those backward days people were so stupid they could not understand the difference between digital patterns flashing across the internet and plastic discs carted around in trucks. She was laughing so much she could hardly get the words out.
Was it really as horribly stupid as that, Grandad?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020