100M : The Pirate Bay is blocked

[GavChap]

I'm still in my VM contract. When that's done, I'll probably switch to Infinity.

Originally Posted by AndyCalling

I understand and will co-operate (I've never posted such anyway) but I do think you are wrong to indicate that copyright infringment is illegal. It does not break criminal law, neither does it 'border' on it. Please change the term to 'illicit'. The term 'unlawful' is actually probably more accurate, but many will not realise this term does not imply a breach of criminal law and so it is probably best avoided. I ask this because there seems to be a great deal of misinformation going about on this one and you don't want to look like you are engaging in such dodgy propaganda I'm sure. Best not to be seen to take sides on this one I feel.

Sage advice, I have edited my original post to include the term unlawful, as you are quite right, copyright breaches civil law not criminal law.

Originally Posted by AdamD

I get the feeling this is just a first step in web censorship, it's a dark day in my opinion

Instead of adapting with the times and charging reasonable prices for cd's/dvd's etc, they've decided to censor the internet instead.

Starting to feel like the country depicted in V for Vendetta, where everything is controlled/restricted.

(Doesn't seem to be blocked on Sky broadband, yet)

It's not blocked by BT yet .

Anyone who is still trying to blame English courts or VM need to think a bit and start blaming TPB itself ,if they had shut up shop when they were ordered to instead of changing domains and moving countries to avoid jail,then there would be no precedence set for blocking sites which will become more widely used

Just to add to that ,a site that professes to champion the freedom of the Internet has single handedly caused the start of widespread censorship ....the irony is outstanding

[craigj2k12]

They are trying to move their servers to the sky the last I heard

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by martyh

Anyone who is still trying to blame English courts or VM need to think a bit and start blaming TPB itself ,if they had shut up shop when they were ordered to instead of changing domains and moving countries to avoid jail,then there would be no precedence set for blocking sites which will become more widely used

Seriously !?!?

So basically any site that the media industry deems is to shut up shop when ordered to? Lets not forget this is the same media industry that uses DMCA notices that have proven time and again to not be valid.

I suppose that you are in complete agreement with the US law enforcement agencies coercing the anti-terrorist squad of New Zealand to storm the home of a businessman, terrorising his pregnant wife and children. I also guess you are in complete agreement with the US law enforcement agencies not paying to keep evidence that is to be used against said businessman which could possibly be used in his defence. I also guess you completely agree that said businessman should not have the best law team to defend himself as the prosecutors of the case have tried to do.

I wonder what your position is on Richard O'Dwyer. A UK citizen who having committed no crimes in the UK is possibly going to be extradited the the US to faces charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright?

Originally Posted by martyh

Just to add to that ,a site that professes to champion the freedom of the Internet has single handedly caused the start of widespread censorship ....the irony is outstanding

Utter nonsense, Newsbinz(?) was the start of it last year.

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Seriously !?!?

So basically any site that the media industry deems is to shut up shop when ordered to? Lets not forget this is the same media industry that uses DMCA notices that have proven time and again to not be valid.

I suppose that you are in complete agreement with the US law enforcement agencies coercing the anti-terrorist squad of New Zealand to storm the home of a businessman, terrorising his pregnant wife and children. I also guess you are in complete agreement with the US law enforcement agencies not paying to keep evidence that is to be used against said businessman which could possibly be used in his defence. I also guess you completely agree that said businessman should not have the best law team to defend himself as the prosecutors of the case have tried to do.

I wonder what your position is on Richard O'Dwyer. A UK citizen who having committed no crimes in the UK is possibly going to be extradited the the US to faces charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright?

You've misunderstood my post entirely .I don't agree with any censorship of the Internet at all including forcing TPB to shut up shop ,but they have been ordered to shut and the owners have been sentenced to jail time and as a result of there stubbornness have now allowed Internet censorship to arrive in the UK ,when what they should have done was shut the site down and started up again with a different name and domain,the lesser of the 2 evils so to speak

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:01 ----------

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Utter nonsense, Newsbinz(?) was the start of it last year.

No ,it was shut down ,not blocked totally different thing

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by VMPirateandproud

How dare you block the piratebay VM I pay £60 a month in ***** good faith. Is this what the internet is going to be like now? *****
Were all get around your stupid blocks,how **** dare you

[Mod edit: there is no need to swear excessively]

I love it when someone signs up just to post complete bull excreta

The courts and the media owners have failed because everyone i have spoken to about this who uses torrents have said " I still have access and it was easy to get around".

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by martyh

You've misunderstood my post entirely .I don't agree with any censorship of the Internet at all including forcing TPB to shut up shop ,but they have been ordered to shut and the owners have been sentenced to jail time and as a result of there stubbornness have now allowed Internet censorship to arrive in the UK ,when what they should have done was shut the site down and started up again with a different name and domain,the lesser of the 2 evils so to speak

You start out well but end up contradicting yourself.

I can assure you Newsbinz(?) is still around they've moved to somewhere like the Seychelles and have anti-blocking software as part of their arsenal. It might be called something like NewsBin 2

Which is why this ruling is so bizarre the courts have tried it before and it hasn't worked so they decided to do it again.

some say this

Newzbin, the Internet’s premier Usenet indexer, has pulled the plug today marking the end of an era. The operators of the site cite the lost legal battle against the MPA as the main reason for the shutdown. Apparently, the court case drained the site’s financial resources.

http://torrentfreak.com/newzbin-usen...defeat-100518/

and this backs up what you said ,but either way sites like TPB and Newzbin are responsible for the censorship we now face .Yes they should have questioned through the courts the decision to have shut down orders placed on them but once they lost those appeals they should have shut down instead of giving governments the opportunity to introduce censorship which could be used against other areas of the Internet

[AndyCalling]

Originally Posted by Mick

Sage advice, I have edited my original post to include the term unlawful, as you are quite right, copyright breaches civil law not criminal law.

Nice one.

I still think that using the term 'illicit' would cause less misunderstanding. I recognise that 'unlawful' ought to be the best word to use but I fear many may misconstrue it to imply a breach of criminal law when, as you and I both know, it implies no such thing.

I can't really criticise you for having the linguistic standards to stick with 'unlawful' though, since it is technically the best word for the job.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Actually, I suggest you check the common dictionary definitions of the term illegal, which is basically something in breach of statute. Statute can be any law passed by parliament whether the penalty or consequences fall into criminal or civil remedies. As large aspects of copyright protection are encompassed by statutes it is correct to define the sharing of copyright materials as illegal.

But this is all rather pedantic and in this thread. If you wish to debate further the specific legal definitions please start another thread and leave this one to the Pirate Bay blockages.

[AndyCalling]

Originally Posted by Rob

Actually, I suggest you check the common dictionary definitions of the term illegal, which is basically something in breach of statute. Statute can be any law passed by parliament whether the penalty or consequences fall into criminal or civil remedies. As large aspects of copyright protection are encompassed by statutes it is correct to define the sharing of copyright materials as illegal.

But this is all rather pedantic and in this thread. If you wish to debate further the specific legal definitions please start another thread and leave this one to the Pirate Bay blockages.

OK, I'll stop. I will do no more than to respond to your point that this is pedantic. It really isn't meant to be, and usually I don't do the language police thing, but the implications of using the wrong term in this case casts people as criminals and that is not a minor matter. This misunderstanding is being used by some to intentionally mislead (though hopefully not on this forum) and so it's an important point to correct in this topic.

Also, just to defend myself, I think you may have been looking at a US dictionary perhaps? The word 'illegal' has a broader meaning there. I recommend the OED. Remember we are only talking about file sharing, not selling things for money. That would, of course, make a big difference.

My aim was to reduce antagonism, not increase it, so this is my last word on the point as requested.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by BomberAF

Can anyone think of any other way to justify having 100 mbs broadband if you cannot download torrents?

I regularly download files at 11+MB (megabytes, not megabits) that max out the connection and are 100% legal.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BomberAF

Can anyone think of any other way to justify having 100 mbs broadband if you cannot download torrents?

Usenet?


Nah, I've got 80mb broadband and never once used it for torrents. Regularly max it out in other ways though, most often with FTP transfers and Steam.

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:24 ----------

Originally Posted by GavChap

Upload speed. Working from home I tend to do more uploading then downloading, so faster upload would be advantageous, but not for the price VM want. I can't wait to get 6Meg upload. With the top 100Mb tier you get 10Mb upload.

Course, with BT Infinity's bottom tier you get 10Mb upload, and at a lower monthly cost than VM's 30mb service (though admittedly it's not unlimited). Or get 20mb upload for a few quid more than 6mb on VM.

---------- Post added at 21:32 ---------- Previous post was at 21:27 ----------

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Utter nonsense, Newsbinz(?) was the start of it last year.

You realise the censoring of torrent sites has been happening since at least 2005, right?

I remember it well, I was there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_D-Elite

In fact, even before that media cartels were frequently going after media sharing services on a regular basis - Audiogalaxy, Napster, Kazaa, etc... You're a decade too late if you think the Pirate Bay was anywhere near the start or end of any part of the online piracy saga. It's been going a long, long time and copyright "holders" have been trying to put a stop to it for a long long time too.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

You realise the censoring of torrent sites has been happening since at least 2005, right?

I thought NewsBin was the first time the UK courts had ordered a site to be blocked.