General Chat Thread, BT ordered to block pirate links in General; I know this may be another strongly argued for/against topic but to me it's absolute rubbish.
BT will be blocking ...
28th July 2011, 01:53 PM #1
BT ordered to block pirate links
I know this may be another strongly argued for/against topic but to me it's absolute rubbish.
BT will be blocking access to the newzbin website in an attempt to stop pirate movies.
How I see it, piracy DOESN'T fund criminal gangs. The movie is recorded and uploaded to the internet for 90% of the world to download. It isn't tagged with "For gangs only". Any man and his dog can get access to usenet and download a film. Just because a criminal gang download it, burn it to DVD and try selling it does not make the actual piracy a cause. If said gang were to steal some DVDs from a shop and sell them on the market, that is exactly the same thing, they still have the movie for sale and will still be profiting from the sale.
Also, as newzbin does not host any of the files, it is in essence a search engine. If I were to type into google "how to make a bomb" and one link gave me a PDF download, is Google at fault for giving me that link? In the same instance if I were to go on to newzbin and type "harry potter movie" and got a link to download it, surely that is the same thing (if piracy and intent to cause destruction are both illegal)
I think what annoys me more is the national filtering level, BT have decided that all of their customers need banning from this site, so what if another site pops up that while not strictly illegal it annoys some high court judge. let's ban it nationally.
It is in the same sense that o2 has now started filtering all of its mobile web access and ask for credit card details to prove i am over 18 before i can even view sites like gambling sites. their argument is that the phone could be used by under 18s so the filter is on. my argument is that i pay them £x every month and have provided my date of birth, they know my age, why should i have to authorise it with them. if i decide to give my phone to a 10 year old and they view pornography on it, on my head be it. why should o2 take the stance that the country needs nannying?
could i as easily argue that i will not pay them my monthly fee as i have worries that my money could be funding some terrorist group, so until i see evidence they are not funding terrorists i will not pay?
can't wait until most of the uk get sites blocked by "UK NetNanny" or something similar!
sorry, rant over and I know I kind of veered off a bit with the O2 example, but it all does irk me a bit, and as one comedian once said about the dvd "you wouldnt steal a purse" advert......dont tell me what i wouldn't do!
hopefully this discussion won't deteriorate into a "i download illegal stuff and its awsome/i think piracy is like rape" sort of argument, hopefully it can stay on track!
8 Thanks to MK-2:
Chris-W- (29th July 2011), Diello (28th July 2011), garethedmondson (30th July 2011), j17sparky (7th August 2011), newpersn (28th July 2011), penfold (28th July 2011), Rawns (29th July 2011), sted (28th July 2011)
IDG Tech News
28th July 2011, 02:53 PM #2
just buy or rent your movies and stop downloading them.
28th July 2011, 02:55 PM #3
BT don't have a choise, there's a court order in place which requires them to do it which came out of an injunction brought about by the Motion Picture Association.
It's a demonstration of the failure of the music and film industry to move with the times, this is a battle they will simply never win. The copyright laws throughout the whole world are essentually un-enforceable as they stand, the ease at which you can download material is rediculous, even my friends 9yr old can search for torrents and knows how to download them. Some drastic changes are needed and I personally think the whole idea of selling recorded material for a profit is an outdated concept that doesn't fit in with the modern way society consumes these products and that model needs to be revised and the laws surrounding it also need to be revised.
As for the censorship of the site, we all know that within weeks something new will pop up to replace it owned and run by a different company which will require a new injunction to stop and the whole process starts all over again, complete waste of time. They need to embrace the technology and the will of the masses and find a way of working with them instead of battling against it all the time.
Thanks to maniac from:
newpersn (28th July 2011)
28th July 2011, 02:57 PM #4
lol, i agree with MK-2 on this, mainly because if there is no challenge to this there is no telling where companies will draw the line, first it will be usenet then it will block all our xxx sites then eventually before we know it we will have a system like the chinese great wall...
28th July 2011, 03:43 PM #5
In my veiw 'the powers that be' are trying to take control of something that was not made to be controlled. I think it is wrong that they are being allowed to even try. To me it is simmilar to controlling who you get to interact with when you are out for a walk... You are not quite sure who you will meet on it, but you make up your own mind if you want to talk to them or not. You dont have a nanny on your shoulder to tell you off for talking to a stranger.
It should be the same for the internet. People are already loosing the ablitly to think for themselves, no need to hasten it further!
28th July 2011, 03:43 PM #6
It won't make a jot of difference, it's a tiny part of the whole piracy problem.
IMO they shouldn't be going round blocking access to these sort of sites, they should sort out the biggest problems - cinema costs and inconveniences, release DVD's being more full of rubbish than the film itself, most of which you can't skip and they might actually make an impact.
Besides which, studies have long been done which show very clearly that the film industries biggest customer (paid) are indeed "pirates". I wonder when the court will overrule the MPAA's moronic attempts at blocking those studies from being properly published.
(I do not condone piracy in any way shape or form. )
Thanks to synaesthesia from:
j17sparky (7th August 2011)
28th July 2011, 03:55 PM #7
Oh this reminded me of another point! If dvd's came with a 'digital' copy, without costing an extra tenner then I would be more inclined to buy them. One of the benifits of downloading is not having a bookcase full of dvds, and the abliitly to play then on a range of devices.
Originally Posted by synaesthesia
(I know you technically could buy the dvd then rip it, but thats illegal aswell still is it not? so whats the point...)
Last edited by arwen; 28th July 2011 at 03:56 PM.
28th July 2011, 04:07 PM #8
I have to agree here.. the cost of buying either a DVD or an Album is ridiculous compaired to how much it costs to mass produce them.
Originally Posted by synaesthesia
I recall when a "Single" came on Cassettes, where there were only 2 songs an A side and a B Side and came in either a plastic case that soon ended up as a makeshift ice scraper for the car, or a cardboard sleave... And they cost less than £1!
Then the CD's came out and there were about 5 songs on it and the price rocketed to about £2-3 quid (which used to be the cost of an Album on Cassette tape!) and albums hit the £10 quid mark...
DVD prices are horrendously overpriced - they get made for about a few quid, and then sold at about £20 a pop!
And lets not mention computer games! (£50!?! - Hell a decent Speccy game used to be about £1.50!)
28th July 2011, 04:12 PM #9
It's just another in a long line of stupid rules from the government (UK/NZ/AU) who are sock puppets to the US government who are in turn sock puppets to the RIAA and the other companies that still think it is 1957.
Given the fact that the US is now helpfully attempting to provide a free trip stateside for anyone who even posts a link that one of their corporate masters takes exception too.
Stupidly market size wise they could all be brought and sold a dozen times over by MS/Google or Apple but they control how the people see their govenrnments. This gives them power but only because said governments are concerned at how their populations would react if they were told the truth in a truely negtive slant.
Sure people will wave the paranoid viewpoint flag but I prefer to think of it as pragmatisum.
28th July 2011, 04:12 PM #10
you sir do not know quality. a decent speccy game should be about £3, £1.50 was reserved for frogger and joe blade
Originally Posted by Gatt
28th July 2011, 04:14 PM #11
I stand corrected...
Originally Posted by MK-2
28th July 2011, 04:18 PM #12
- Rep Power
What will help to slow the problem of piracy (as you will never remove it completely) is to make the movies, music and games downloadable and at fair price, I'd bet that 50% of pirates will stop and download the legal content and support the creators.
For me the more concerning problem is that this is starting us on the road to censorship. How far does it go, shall we block Google as you can find out how to download things, make bombs and etc. Shall we stop teaching Alevel chemistry and other subjects just because if you have half a brain you can take what you have learnt and use it in a illegal way.
However this will be impossible to police, people will always find ways around filtering or other restrictions.
28th July 2011, 04:21 PM #13
And within a reasonable timeframe / avalibility to places outside the contental US.
Originally Posted by notalot
28th July 2011, 04:26 PM #14
but would it? remember the person going in to the cinema to film the movie has probably paid, so the price is paid there. i would guess a lot of the hackers/crackers do it more for a challenge than because they object to the price, as a lot of nfo files that accompany cracked software says "dont forget to buy the retail software if you like it".
Originally Posted by notalot
i dont think anything will stop or cut down piracy in general. make movies cheaper and all you do is enable said pirate to record twice/three times as many films for the same cost
28th July 2011, 04:32 PM #15
Why should the price of producing an item correlate to the selling price? I've not bought a new release for a long time, but I've seen some new CDs for about £7-8. That's just a bit more than the national minimum wage for an hour. (Pre tax of course).
Originally Posted by Gatt
I have had 100s of hours of enjoyment listening to each of my CDs, therefore per listen, it works out to be pennies, and get's less as time goes on. Is that not good value for money?
Likewise games. Just got back into playing CoD Modern Warfare 2 online, and noticed that I'd worryingly played it for over 3 full days and counting. I bought the game for £22. Again, more than worth it.
Never paid anywhere near £20 for a DVD, even when new.
Piracy doesn't happen because of the price of media. It happens because it's so damn easy to do.
By here_hare_here in forum Network and Classroom Management
Last Post: 21st February 2007, 10:27 AM
Last Post: 15th December 2006, 03:14 PM
By indiegirl in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
Last Post: 14th June 2006, 03:25 PM
By timbo343 in forum Windows
Last Post: 22nd March 2006, 12:38 AM
By mac_shinobi in forum Coding
Last Post: 26th August 2005, 02:29 AM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)