×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Project Free TV, YIFY, PrimeWire Blocked In the UK

timothy posted 1 year,27 days | from the good-thrashing dept.

United Kingdom 195

hypnosec writes "The movie industry in the UK is having a ball, as far as blocking of sites allegedly involved in piracy is concerned, as courts have asked UK ISPs to enforce a blockade on Project Free TV, YIFY, PrimeWire and others. Getting a torrent or steaming site blocked in the UK is a mere paperwork formality, since ISPs have completely stopped defending against these orders. As it stands, a total of 33 sites have been blocked in the UK, including The Pirate Bay, BitSnoop, ExtraTorrent, Torrentz, 1337x, Fenopy, H33T, KickAssTorrents, among others."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well then... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499501)

Guess you'll have to pay for your entertainment, like normal people.

Re:Well then... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499687)

Guess they'll have to route around this damage in the network.

Re:Well then... (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499737)

Well, that took all of thirty seconds.

Re:Well then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499891)

Yup. Thousands of taxpayer pounds well spent.

Re:Well then... (5, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499913)

We gave them an inch, and ... the results were as expected.

Re:Well then... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500251)

We gave them an inch, and ...

they give you 7 inches, while you're contemplating your toes.

Re:Well then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499985)

Yup. Thousands of taxpayer pounds well spent.

Yes, and if only the taxpayers were smart enough to realize this.

In their defense, it is rather difficult to ascertain the situation with your head up your ass.

Re:Well then... (1, Insightful)

rally2xs (1093023) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500227)

Yep - I hate thieves in all their forms, and this screwball idea that downloading other people's work and just using it isn't stealing is insane. They shouldn't simply be blocking sites, they should be sending a few hundred thousand people to jail until the public gets the idea that this is a bad idea. Fer cryin' out loud, large groups of people spend months or even years of their lives producing wondrous entertainment, maybe something like Avatar, you can get it for a mere $20 at the store, and... you're so cheap that $20 is too much for you? Get a life, pony up, and be a citizen instead of a public enemy.

Re:Well then... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500613)

You're funny...

Re:Well then... (4, Insightful)

dk20 (914954) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500717)

So taxpayers should pay to put people in jail to protect the entertainment industry's outdated business model?

The same group who often book their sales in tax favourable jurisdictions should also get to put people in jail at your and my expense? I thought jails were for real crimes? Isn't copyright violation a civil matter in most nations?

Speaking about putting people in jail, how many times have the various recording industry's been charged with abuse of monopoly, price fixing, etc?
Those examples on the other hand are not CIVIL matters and the penalty can include jail time (again in most nations) but no one has ever served it.

Here (canada) they were charged with selling compilation CD's without paying the royalties. Now if a person does this it is considered piracy and in the US they charge you $20,000 per song but what do you think happened to them?
So yeah, lets jail people because laws to prevent people from doing some things always work (cough)Prohibition (cough)... Even the government realized it needed to update its business models....

And how utterly pointless it is... (4, Informative)

Shuntros (1059306) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499505)

Personally I'm not a big user of these kind of services, but it's only a handful of the "big" ISPs who are doing the blocking. I prefer a more personal service so I use a small ISP which offers special geeky extras (full class C, reverse NS delegation etc) and they perform no such blocking. But even if I didn't it's trivial to bypass such blunt instruments.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499583)

Which ISP do you use?

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (3, Insightful)

Dagger2 (1177377) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499651)

Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net.uk] would be my guess. Though I'd prefer to describe things like rDNS delegation as something that any non-crap ISP will do, rather than geeky extras...

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499693)

Well, in this day and age, pretty much anything beyond bare bone access to webpages and online games is already considered "geeky extras"...

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499897)

Oh yes. If you want more than TCP port 80, you're gonna pay extra for that!

Welllll, back to PrimeWire. Tee hee.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (3, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499745)

Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net.uk] would be my guess. Though I'd prefer to describe things like rDNS delegation as something that any non-crap ISP will do, rather than geeky extras...

In my experience of dealing with a lot of different ISPs for customers is that almost none of them know that rDNS can be delegated, and when you eventually manage to get through to a third line engineer and explain to them how it works and point them at the RFCs, you eventually get told that their internal systems aren't set up to allow it, so no.

Its a pretty sad state of affairs.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (4, Informative)

Shuntros (1059306) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499797)

Very well put. Getting a large ISP whose staff "follow the flowchart" to provide such things is not as easy as some make out. I have a number of non-catalogue products including bonded FTTC which has saved me a fortune on what I used to pay for dedicated hosting (I don't need 5 9's uptime). Instead of a call centre grunt giving a standard "We don't provide that service" response, I get a technically literate person on the end of the phone who understands what I'm asking for and says "Let me have a word, see what we can do". You pay for that kind of service, but for me it's worth it.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500481)

Very well put. Getting a large ISP whose staff "follow the flowchart" to provide such things is not as easy as some make out. I have a number of non-catalogue products including bonded FTTC which has saved me a fortune on what I used to pay for dedicated hosting (I don't need 5 9's uptime). Instead of a call centre grunt giving a standard "We don't provide that service" response, I get a technically literate person on the end of the phone who understands what I'm asking for and says "Let me have a word, see what we can do". You pay for that kind of service, but for me it's worth it.

The ISPs I've dealt with are servicing expensive leased lines... you'd expect them to pull out a few stops to make things happen, but no...

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (1)

Travis Repine (2861521) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500695)

Why would they? They know they won't get the service of their paying consumers unless they turn a eye away from those movie theater pests who claim they are loosing money at an alarming rate unless piracy is stopped. Well, let's just see if I go back to the movies again assholes...that's what Netflix is for a fraction of a cost...

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499967)

A while back I was trying to setup a DNS server on a DMZ (wanted to host my own domain names) and couldn't get it working behind my router. Was getting infinite loop lookups from inside my network. Even though I'm only on a home broadband package, when I rang up support at my ISP (Zen in case you're wondering), the first line support person was able to talk me through how to get it working. I was really impressed.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500123)

Zen are one of the better mainstream ISPs - they're actually a b2b ISP, their home packages are more of a sideline.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (1)

Shuntros (1059306) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499787)

Not A&A actually, but along those lines. It's a little more than just PTR NS records, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

jonbryce (703250) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499863)

The ones that are required to do censorship are BT (including Plusnet), Talk Talk (including AOL), Virgin and Sky (Including O2).

Re: And how utterly pointless it is... (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500125)

Sky would also include Be, I believe.

Re:And how utterly pointless it is... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499811)

I make it a point to use these sites now. I hadn't even heard of YIFI but since they blocked it I have been checking for releases there.

Re:And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499959)

Exactly. My ISP isn't exactly small, but it's also not one of the major players, and they don't block anything either.

In fact, my other half is a rabid TV downloader and wants to watch the shows when they come out on American TV so she can discuss stuff in forums without spoilers. We have a Sky subscription so we will have paid for them when they air, she just doesn't want the lag. Anyway, the ISP have been sent the usual e-mails from lawyers about her torrenting activities. The ISP just forwards them on for information purposes and says we can ignore them if we want. Unless they get a court order, they're not doing jack shit.

Re:And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500035)

Well, I thought Plusnet would be big enough to be hit by this but they don't even seem to blocking pirate-bay. 76/18mbit fibre, no complaints at approx 600gb used one month, 20quid a month, reasonable I think.

Re:And how utterly pointless it is... (1)

phrostie (121428) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500325)

I would rather get the owners of the content to offer the same services with the same banner adds.
there is obviously a buisness model for it.

Re:And how utterly pointless it is... (2)

hjf (703092) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500557)

"Full class C"? Allocated by InterNIC, right? :P

It's been 20 years since "IP classes" have been replaced with CIDR.

What ISP allocates a full /24 anyways?

Honest question: Who, other than an ISP or hosting/VPS provider, *needs* a /24 nowadays?

Slippery Slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499511)

The thin end of the wedge has become slightly thicker...

What about Google (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499513)

They've started blocking searches that can lead to kiddie porn, and thus accepted the linkage.

The next step in that is mandatory reporting of any IP addresses that does those forbidden searches. Having accepted the searches are bad, it follows that surveillance of this badness will be the next step. Thus they've accepted the surveillance principle.

Copyright lobby already wants Google to block all copyright infringements from search results. (and read the New Zealand Kim Dotcom indictment, it talks about 'selectors being tasked' i.e. PRISM talk, meaning spooks are now copyright enforcers).

Likewise ISPs blocked these torrent search engines as being equivalent to torrents and in turn equivalent to the copyright infringement, thus it follows that they'll keep being asked to block ever more tangential stuff. For example, sites that list torrent search engines. Sites that discuss torrent search engines. VPN sites, and so on.

nothing about Google everything about Monarchs (-1, Troll)

globaljustin (574257) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499577)

so what Google block's kiddie porn...

WTF does that have to do with the English Monarchy (via their corporate holdings) dominating its peasants

I don't even want to hear the English complain when they're living 1984 in 20 years.

First, it's not like they didn't have a novel warning them.

Second, they know their democracy is contingent on Royal perogative. They can find out who owns what assets. They can read where the Monarch's money went & how companies like **Royal** Dutch Shell and BP continue colonialism via different means to this day. They have basic freedoms. They should know better.

Third, Ireland & europe, and the USA would help them peacefully transition.

That's why this censorship happens...because English people aren't free.

Re:nothing about Google everything about Monarchs (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499621)

It's the slippery slope. Once you start slipping, you've lost static friction, and start slipping faster.

Google have already started slipping. ISP have already started slipping. It's the same thing.

Also you ignore the most significant point in my comment: the spooks spying on Kim Dotcom for copyright infringement. That's a mark of how far its gone.

http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1304/AFFIDAVIT_OF_DISCLOSURE.pdf

Page 17: "Secret//Comint/Rel to NZL,AUs,Can,GBR, USA", i.e. 5 eyes spooks network.
Page 19: "selectors of interest"
Page 19: "Kim (unreadable) not tasked due to US domain"
Page 21, "Kim Dotcom selectors - all tasked"

It has nothing to do with monarchy, this is a US corporate thing. They believe they can fix the economy by creating more IP rights to sell, in place of actual goods and services, hence insane patent laws and the NSA & it's five eyes buddies involved in a minor copyright case.

Re:nothing about Google everything about Monarchs (3, Informative)

mrbester (200927) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499903)

Royal Dutch Shell is not British. It's Dutch. They have a royal family too.

Re:nothing about Google everything about Monarchs (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499995)

http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/at-a-glance.html

Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies. Our headquarters are in The Hague, the Netherlands, and our Chief Executive Officer is Peter Voser. The parent company of the Shell group is Royal Dutch Shell plc, which is incorporated in England and Wales.

The Netherlands is a taxhaven for multinationals in the EU, that is why the headquarters is in NL.
Further Royal has nothing to do with the royals themselves. It is neither linked to Dutch or British royalty, a Royal (or Koninklijke) prefix is awarded to companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koninklijke
To qualify for a nomination, the company or organization has to meet the following conditions:

        it has to be leading in its field of expertise;
        it has to have national importance;
        it has to be in existence for at least 100 years (in principle).

As a rule, the Monarch will award only one Royal title per branch of business. Medical and financial corporations are excluded, as are organizations with political or religious goals.

Re:What about Google (1)

nurb432 (527695) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500621)

The next step in that is mandatory reporting of any IP addresses that does those forbidden searches.

Most likely this is already happening.

Giving up the essential for the trivial (5, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499517)

These companies exist because the public allows it. The public is getting nothing but censorship out of the bargain, giving these companies carte blanche to do whatever they please to the internet. The world is caving to the slightest whims of an industry that we would survive just fine without.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499679)

Well, to be fair, the torrent sites only exist because apparently some people can't survive just fine without entertainment.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499727)

Or maybe they just want access to a better product?

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (-1, Troll)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499751)

Oh look, it's the, "They'd paid for it otherwise!" argument.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (5, Insightful)

thej1nx (763573) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499789)

*This* Industry however is not necessarily the source of all entertainment. There was a time when the industry did not exist, but entertainment still existed. The reason you have these torrent sites is because the industry has been very very good at monopolizing, stifling and killing any independent entertainment. People might not necessarily want to rob a talented artist that they love. But they might still not give two hoots about short-shifting a faceless greedy faceless "corporation" or a bunch of greedy middlemen. The industry has its time and place when they actually provided value by handling distribution of content that would not have been possible without them back then. In the digital internet era, that is no longer the case. They are perceived merely as blood-sucking parasites that leech off both the artist and the public.

If Mariah carey had gone independent instead of being with Columbia or Virgin Records etc. she would have been able to retain all of the profits, instead of just 10-15% share of it. Consider the irony. The middle-men should be the one getting the 10-15% profits after deducting actual costs. But instead, it is the content creator.

What ends up happening is, that labels latch on to a "hit formula" and kill creativity by making snoop dogg and other artists sacrifice their styles in favor of the "formula", to maximize revenue. Worse, with their publicizing muscle and money, they don't exactly provide a level field for independents, since they ensure that the independents are all but drowned in the noise of all the ads, even if their own artists might be all but junk.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499927)

If Mariah carey had gone independent instead of being with Columbia or Virgin Records etc. she would have been able to retain all of the profits, instead of just 10-15% share of it.

10-15%? She got lucky.

Plenty of really, really big acts got NOTHING. Not one cent.

This is an industry that seriously believes that people like Peter Jackson shouldn't get paid for making The Lord Of The Rings.

Check out sites like cdbaby.com [cdbaby.com] instead.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500137)

Look what happened when Taylor Swift was forced to change to the "formula".

She went from hits like "Love Story" to "Screaming Goat" in that trashy "Trouble" song.
Its not always the artists selling out, its the labels forcing them to!

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (2)

Pharmboy (216950) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500157)

They didn't put a gun to her head, she made a choice. If you want the big bucks, you sell out, and she did.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (2)

umafuckit (2980809) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500609)

*This* Industry however is not necessarily the source of all entertainment. There was a time when the industry did not exist, but entertainment still existed. The reason you have these torrent sites is because the industry has been very very good at monopolizing,

It's true that the recording industry are fuckers but the reason we have piracy isn't due to that. Let's not pretend that TPB users are part of a moral crusade. We have piracy because people are cheap and want free stuff. There are independent movies being shared and pirated along with those from big studios. There's no distinction in most people's eyes. I can pirate World of Goo (http://2dboy.com) on TPB, an indy game that was released cheaply and, idealistically, without DRM.

Furthermore, pirating isn't the solution to fixing the recording industry. Pirating only provides the ammo those companies need to further abuse their customers. What is needed are more outlets for indy music, film, and games. Music in particular can work well. Unlike movies, you don't need vast sums of money to produce a high quality album and then sell it on the net.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499815)

I regret buying CDs now. I can't in good conscience give them any more money, not matter how much I want to support the artists.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (2)

cayce (189143) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500317)

If you want to support the artist, go to their concerts.

If they don't tour near you, go try and get a local promoter to book them, or do it yourself. Some friends and I have managed to get bands and artists we like by directly emailing their managers, then handling all the logistics ourselves. Local radio stations usually are willing to help, too. When you don't have to pay for logistics and you don't expect any profit, the final ticket cost is incredibly low. I'm not saying it was easy, it's usually a lot of hard work, but it's well worth it.

Re:Giving up the essential for the trivial (1)

camperdave (969942) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500555)

If you want to support the artist, go to their concerts.

What if they're dead? What if the band has split up? What if they produce good music, but suck as a person?

Who do you think you're kdding? (1)

westlake (615356) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499999)

The public is getting nothing but censorship out of the bargain... The world is caving to the slightest whims of an industry that we would survive just fine without.

Then why is the geek so obsessed with his free comic book movie fix? The big budget Hollywood production?

The paying customer is the censor here and he is getting exactly what he wants: The final say on future productions and budgets.

The projects which will be green lighted because they are reasonably likely to be profitable.

The paying customer gets "Gravity" into the IMAX theater, the director's cut on Blu-Ray and malware free downloads and HD streaming through Amazon, Netflix and others. The P2P geek whatever scraps that can be swept off the table.

It's a sad day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499519)

When I suddenly realise that I'm using my 'Tor browser' more than my 'normal browser' to access the internet, as I'm increasingly suspicious of what the 'Great Firewall(s) of Britain' is filtering/blocking/modifying on the fly...

[And I'll probably be auto-flagged as a 'subversive' for both using Tor and making this comment..]

Re: It's a sad day... (2)

loufoque (1400831) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499893)

I know of people who were refused entry in the US or denied a green card because they had hosted a Tor node before.

Re: It's a sad day... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500005)

No worries,
I have no intention of visiting the 'States again.
ever.
(Cue: Black Helo outside window, black sack over head, trip to nearest airstrip to the waiting Gulfstream.....)

Re:It's a sad day... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500633)

Which will be ineffective ( at least for getting to content, not staying semi-anonymous ) once every ISP blocks it, as your exit nodes will be no better off then your 'home' ISP.

Relatively pointless (1)

Bozzio (183974) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499531)

I don't know about the streaming sites, but I know the blocking of torrent sites has had little effect or the more (or less) tech savvy people who use them. People get around not being able to browse for their torrents by subscribing to torrent RSS feeds (for TV), and by using things like Tor if they absolutely need to browse the Pirate Bay or other sites.

The trackers are not blocked, and therefore the torrents still work fine.

Kinda pointless.

Re:Relatively pointless (3, Insightful)

niks42 (768188) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499565)

I think you overestimate the capabilities and patience of a large percentage of the population of the UK. I think these actions will shut down 80% of the movie sharing. It is a right royal pain in the bum, and personally I think the MPAA just don't understand that any action they take will have unintended consequences, but on the whole, it will have the effect they desire - most of the traffic will be gone.

They should just be careful what they wish for.

Re:Relatively pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499703)

I think you overestimate the capabilities and patience of a large percentage of the population of the UK.

I wonder if this is only part of the equation. At the moment if considering damages a court might lessen the award if you argued that you were streaming, not downloading - if you could successfully argue that you didn't know the difference. It is a lot harder however to make that argument if you've gone and modified your DNS provider, used a VPN or routed through TOR to bypass restrictions imposed by your ISP.

Re:Relatively pointless (2)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499719)

I think you overestimate the willingness of people to put up with crap. Especially once they learned that there is another way. People are probably willing to accept various hardships thrown at them by the manufacturers of DVDs and BluRays ... until they learn that it is trivially easy to circumvent those unskipable trailers and other junk that cuts into their movie watching pleasure. It's not even the money, in my experience.

You really think someone who wants to see the latest episodes of his favorite show will let something like that block keep him from doing it? Even the last tech illiterate dimwit manages to type something akin to "how to get around that bloody brit ISP torrent block" into Google search, and then follow the step by step instructions this will almost invariably result in.

Re:Relatively pointless (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499823)

In the past it has had little effect, with P2P traffic steadily increasing. In fact I'm surprised that GCHQ hasn't tried to stop them because it only pushes more and more people on to VPNs where they are much harder to spy on.

Re:Relatively pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500019)

They'll share them offline.

Re:Relatively pointless (2)

oobayly (1056050) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500491)

I think you overestimate the capabilities and patience of a large percentage of the population of the UK. I think these actions will shut down 80% of the movie sharing.

Don't really agree with this. The people [that I know of] that torrent are *not* tech savy, however they are more than capable of googling something along the lines of "BT piratebay blocked"* which will give them a workaround on the 2nd link. I think the best way to describe it is "never underestimate the ingenuity of someone who doesn't want to pay anything"

* Typing "BT pirate" immediately suggests BT pirateproxy. These people don't know need to understand what a proxy is, all they know is that a proxy lets them get to stuff they not allowed to see.

trackers *are* blocked (5, Informative)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499739)

Trackers *are* blocked and taken offline all the time. That is, if there were any trackers left, most are gone. BitTorrent has different methods now to discover peers. PEX, DHT and LDP for peer discovery, Magnet links to replace .torrent files. You essentially can't block bittorrent without extremely "expensive" Deep Packet Inspection, essentially eavesdropping on every consumers internet traffic 100% of the time.

Re:trackers *are* blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500127)

It's coming, don't worry. You know, think of the children and the terrorists.

Re:trackers *are* blocked (-1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500177)

Yeah, great. So the idiots who want free movies will get DPI implemented across the board, thus dramatically lowering the bar for all other kinds of censorship in future. This whole thing reminds me of the drug war. These tele-addicts simply don't have any lines they won't cross in order to get their fix, and attempts to stop them thus spiral downards into ever harsher and more aggressive monitoring and control.

BITTORRENT USERS - JUST BUY THE DAMN MOVIES ALREADY.

Re:trackers *are* blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500283)

Can't, they aren't sold or distributed to my country =)

Re:trackers *are* blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500387)

BITTORRENT USERS - JUST BUY THE DAMN MOVIES ALREADY.

I checked the stuff I have downloaded recently. Out of 10, only one was something I could have bought (not counting "fly to other side of the Earth to watch it") and 10 euros a month for what I would use 1 hour of streaming doesn't sound too lucrative deal. For all others, the legal options simply say "Sorry, due to licensing limitations, videos are unavailable in your region." or similar.

Re:trackers *are* blocked (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500605)

It's always as black and white as that. My DVD collection numbers in the thousands (both movies and TV shows), as does my CD collection, everyone bought and paid for. When I look for a torrent, it's because what I want isn't available to buy. If they want my money, I'm stand here with it in my hand.

Re:trackers *are* blocked (2)

nurb432 (527695) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500641)

BITTORRENT USERS - JUST BUY THE DAMN MOVIES ALREADY.

You really don't see the bigger picture. Drop dead. Soon.

Re:trackers *are* blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500689)

> BITTORRENT USERS - JUST BUY THE DAMN MOVIES ALREADY.

CONTENT PROVIDERS: MAKE YOUR DAMN MOVIES AVAILABLE.

Let me add, at reasonable prices and conveniently. No, a $30 BlueRay containing lots of crap I am not interested in, and that I can't skip, is not a reasonable price and it is not convenient. Keeping movies unavailable for years, only to bring them out again for short periods of time and at exorbitant prices is not a reasonable price and is not convenient. Making them available for streaming for short periods of time, only to yank them without warning is not convenient. You don't want to do all this? Fine. You won't be getting my money, and the net is still there.

Posting anonymously obviosuly (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499567)

I'm in the UK and I use O2 (currently being migrated to Sky).

I use a digitalocean.com droplet (virtual machine) to access these. I have the bottom end droplet which costs $5/month.

On this I install apache, php and phproxy (google it) and that is it.

I won't use the public proxies that seem to have popped up as they all have nefarious bits of crap installed in them or are very overloaded.

Re:Posting anonymously obviosuly (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499573)

Pity they're based in New York.

Not an issue ... (2)

slimdave (710334) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499609)

Because only a trivially small proportion of the population cares. Few have even heard about these services.

If you care about free TV in the UK then you could start by not watching or recording live transmissions, and you then have no obligation to pay the TV license -- they only waste it on extra redundancy payments for senior managers, and politically motivated nonsense stuff like moving programming oop north.

I get by on BBC iPlayer delayed transmissions, streaming to my TV through Chromecast. Possibly ITV and Channel 4 have compatible streaming services, but sadly their programmes are not compatible with me.

Re:Not an issue ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499643)

'..I get by on BBC iPlayer delayed transmissions, streaming to my TV through Chromecast..'

You do realise that as the Beeb are now running 'Live' TV on iPlayer, they'll be using this as a justification for demanding either that you pay a license fee to use the service or they'll want an 'internet/broadband tax' to cover this?

Never underestimate the money grubbing bastards at the Beeb, that particular gravy train has been on track for a long time now, and, besides, they've 'meedja lifestyles' to maintain, and we wouldn't want the poor darlings to suffer now, would we?

Re:Not an issue ... (2)

jonbryce (703250) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499887)

You have to pay the TV licence if you want to watch the live streams, but not the on-demand streams.

Re:Not an issue ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500075)

Yes, all fine and well at present.
the point is, however, that the very fact that the Beeb are making Live streams available via iPlayer means that, eventually, they'll be arguing that the very fact that hey, our database flagged the fact that you've a Broadband connection but no TV license at your premises, and our records show your IP number uses iPlayer, which means that you'll need a license to cover the merest possibility that you might inadvertently watch one of our live streams..
That, or they'll go for either a rewording of the TV license, or a broadband tax.

See the definitions for money grubbing..
See the lifestyles of the rich and famous at the Beeb funded by the License payers (muggins here included)...
See the shite they put out every night..

The money has to come from somewhere to fund their lifestyles (as it's most evidently not being spent on the programming), they'll not allow the old 'I only watch on-demand content online' excuse to wash forever...

Re:Not an issue ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500153)

Yes yes, and if we're going to play the scary hypotheticals game, they may claim that because the day ends in "Y" then you owe them either your bone marrow or one limb (of your choice). I mean, may can cover so many things that haven't happened yet. Should we be scared of all of them?

Re:Not an issue ... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499649)

Channel 4 have compatible streaming services, but sadly their programmes are not compatible with me.

I have a TV license so I can legally watch live TV. C4 also to indeed have 4OnDemand to catch up. I happen to like Agents of Shield which is on 4.

And I still get it from TPB because it's easier, quicker and better.

Re:Not an issue ... (5, Funny)

badfish99 (826052) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499699)

> Few have even heard about these services.

After demonoid ended I couldn't find any good torrent sites. But now my government publishes a list of the best sites every month. I'm really grateful to them for calling my attention to them.

Re:Not an issue ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500237)

Yes, same here. I had never heard of many of the sites and I'm sure when the lists are published they get significant boosts in traffic, the worldwide publicity more then making up for the lost views from the blocks.

Most ISPs (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499619)

Most ISPs have stopped defending against these orders and just add anything the BPI wants to their filters.

Some UK ISPs don't apply such filters. AAISP for example not only promises that it will give users 12 months notice should they ever decide to use filtering, but you have to explicitly select "unfiltered internet access" when signing up or you'll be shown the door.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499647)

The less I see, the less I buy.

I used to download entire runs of stuff like Babylon 5 and Stargate back then, bought the boxed sets when they came out.

We get very little TV exposure of newer shows on Freeview and I can't be bothered to kludge past the blocks so I don't even know what shows are out there worth watching.

I think the last thing I warezed&bought was Firefly...

I'm not going to buy a bunch of DVDs blind so there goes more sales...

Interesting move (2)

HuguesT (84078) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499659)

We will see in a few years or even less if big content providers make more or less money than before in the UK. I'm of the opinion that blocking free content leads to discontent, less visibility, and ultimately less profit, because people will not want to reward what could be construed as oppression.

Re:Interesting move (2)

Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499695)

It's not just 'big content'; the Big Four ISP*s that implement these blocks ( Sky, BT Broadband, TalkTalk and Virgin ) each have their own subscription TV and streaming services targeted at their customers, so making free stuff harder to reach also implicitly benefits them if it encourages up-take.

Noticable is how the smaller ISPs, that just act as an ISP without tryng to sell me media, aren't in scope.

* they're not really ISPs, more like Web-connected entertainment providers.

Re: Interesting move (1)

loufoque (1400831) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499907)

O2 is also a pretty big ISP...

Re: Interesting move (1)

JohhnyTHM (799469) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500243)

O2 (and also Be Internet) are now owned by Sky.

Re:Interesting move (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499765)

Reward it or not, but people can only buy what they know about. If I don't know that a certain show exists and that I like it, there is an exactly zero chance that I'll ever go and buy a DVD box of it.

This is especially true in countries where dubbing is the norm (because English isn't quite the language of choice). There you actually have two reasons why people won't buy a DVD box. First, the often incredibly atrocious dubbing (quite frankly, watching Simpsons or Big Bang Theory in German qualifies as torture). I would never have even considered buying a BBT box set if I only knew the German dubbed version. It simply is not funny. The dubbing script is very obviously from someone who neither has a clue about geek culture nor a clue about physics or technology in general. Not only do the jokes get mangled beyond any sense, it's also factually garbled. But I ramble. Bottom line, nobody can possibly consider that funny.

And then there's the time difference. Dubbing takes time. By the time these things are finally properly butchered (i.e. dubbed), not only are the time critical jokes no longer funny because references to current events are not current anymore, you also usually get the "holiday episodes" at some completely inappropriate time. Like the Halloween episode around Easter and the Christmas episode somewhere in mid Summer. That sure hits the spot, I tell you...

This is not really helping to make a selling point. Especially if you're dealing with a show where a key element is suspense and surprise. Can you imagine how interesting it is to watch a show built around suspense and resolve when roughly half a year before you even understand the buildup the resolution is already being discussed on the internet because your country lags behind about half a year?

Not really a selling point either.

Re:Interesting move (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499873)

It has also lead to a bit of a resurgence of the old sneakernet distribution network, which had sort of died down when broadband became almost ubiquitous in the UK.

The people with the technical knowledge/capability to bypass the blocks and download the material are doing so, and passing it around at work|school|college|university, those copies getting copied, and repeat_until_boredom("those copies getting copied"), in a totally 'invisible' way to the Media industry online spies.

The best part (or, if you're the media industry 'parasites' who've taken on the task of attempting control, the really bad part) is;
In my recent experience, no-one is charging anyone else for copies, unlike the old days of CDs and DVDs. As it's USB sticks, SD cards and portable Hard Disks that people are using now, so plug in the devices and copy the files at work, take them home, share with family and friends...repeat ad infinitum et ad nauseum.

And again, these copies are now moving globally in an untraceable manner (Downloaded in London one day, copied several times that day, copied in Ireland the next, the day after copied in the US..)

So thanks to their draconian attempts at blocking the distribution of the material online and driving it offline, they've now no idea as to the true scale of the unauthorised copying of their protected material, and, as people get increasingly paranoid about their online security, and as large capacity USB storage gets faster and cheaper...

This, I find amusing, so I'll get in some popcorn (watching these antics is definitely more enjoyable than watching the drek Hollywood tries to pass as entertainment these days..)

Re:Interesting move (1)

luther349 (645380) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500649)

and 20 new sites take there place in the case of pirate bay just another mirror.

building a market. (2)

rusty0101 (565565) | 1 year,27 days | (#45499681)

As I read the comments, it looks like people are missing a bet on what the practice that the cariers are doing can provide.

People are noting that techincally competent people can easily bypass the restrictions, and others are noting that the vast majority of the public is not sufficiently technically competent to work around it.

I'm reminded a bit of the drug dealer situation in most places. It's trivially easy for most people to find a supplier for nearly any drug that someone has an interest in getting. Most people don't go looking for them for whatever reason, but it's not because they don't know where to go, or at least if they thought about it a bit they could figure it out. The same is likely to be true of media content.

So, user George doesn't know how to get around these filters, but it's likely that one of George's friends does, or one of George's friends knows someone who can. If this ever became a significant issue, I suspect that people would set up secure chat servers (or even a https based site) where they let their neighbors know they can request whatever movie they are interested in, and through a bot on the server they get back a link to the file already downloaded, or to the file being downloaded, and they can start watching. The link may be to a torrent proxy that goes and gets the bits of the files from other people offering the same sort of a service, and none of the people providing this service actually have copies of the files maintained on their systems either. (Yes, that somewhat defeats the purpose of a torrent, but the idea is to provide a service to end users, not necessarily be a good torrent netizen.) To reduce the likelyhood that the person providing the service is adversly affected, he or she may require that the 'customer' run a torrent proxy on their system that the load of torrent traffic gets distributed across. Better operators will do something like build their software package to prevent spam bots from running on the customer's computers. That may even be all that the customer is asking for from the service provider, and the torrent operation may be going on completely transparently to them.

I know, that seems complex. But from an end user perspective for the movies, it looks like I log into a secure web server, identify the movie I want to watch, and get a link to that movie. I click on that link, and I start watching the movie. Perhaps George texts or IMs a movie title to Bill, who texts back a URL that George then enters in their web browser, or even follows right on their phone or pc.

In time a network of providers of the service will exist, or several networks. It might be done through something like IRC, and the various providers will check to see who's closest to the end user and get a link close to them.

Re:building a market. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500069)

It might be done through something like IRC, and the various providers will check to see who's closest to the end user and get a link close to them.

Yes, XDCC and fserve bots work fine thanks.
Many IRC networks are dedicated to filesharing: http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?chat=xdcc
It's trivial to find XDCC results in google, just append xdcc -torrent to your search.

Re:building a market. (1)

oobayly (1056050) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500585)

You don't need to be technically competent to get around the filters - you just need to be able to follow instructions. You don't even need to know any keywords like "proxy" - "how do i unblock torrents" does just fine.

Fuck YIFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499941)

I'm glad YIFY was blocked. No one deserves to watch such shitty rips.

What's the difference between China and the UK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45499975)

There isn't one!

Re: What's the difference between China and the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500063)

One owns the other...

Re:What's the difference between China and the UK? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500203)

Language

YIFY? Good riddance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500033)

They are doing everyone a favor, blocking this low-bitrate crap.

Steaming site (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500209)

Steaming site? James Watt would be so proud...

Blocked? Not just yet. (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500261)

Project free tv still seems to work for me, for now at least. I'm a customer with that otherwise crappy company known as talktalk. I was considering changing to sky, but if they've blocked PFTV, then that's that plan gone right out the window!

Might go with A&A instead..

Re:Blocked? Not just yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500459)

If you are good on the phone Talk Talk are giving away free home plug powerline adapters - get some of them off them then cancel. I would move but the few sites I use have not been mentioned yet. I much prefer WSO to PFTV

Misuse of power (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,27 days | (#45500365)

Come.in
Problem solved.

The biggest problem I have is that they are using the cleanfeed system (which was originally used to block child porn) to block these sites.

Darknet (1)

nurb432 (527695) | 1 year,27 days | (#45500597)

Problem solved.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?