MPA force BT to block access to Newzbin

Further to my previous thread: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/f/4015992-n...

The Motion Picture Association have won their action against BT, who now must block access to Newzbin.

Linky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322957

"MPA signalled its intention to pursue other ISPs".

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 28-Jul-11 10:33:55)

It was inevitable that sooner or later this would happen and personally I think it's about time. Unfortunately many people think it's ok to take media that has a monetary value and not pay for it - that can't be right from whatever angle you look at it.

Hopefully once this gets understood that the Real issue can be tackled, which is bringing media companies into account for high media costs that seem to be held artificially high.

Rather than just taking without paying for media, a far bigger statement could be made (in regard to pricing) by boycotting media companies. With facebook member "campaigns" reaching the population, I'm sure that could be a good way to get any large companies attention.

It raises interesting questions of course, such as:
- If Newzbin creates 10 mirrors, with 10 domain names and 10 ip addresses, are BT obliged to hunt them all down and block them?
- Why are customers from all other ISPs allowed to view this "prohibited" content?

As I see it, this ruling is pointless unless:
- A list is set up and maintained which can add "prohibited" sites with minimal legal proceedings
- All ISPs are obliged to block the sites on the list.

If the blocking is implemented via Cleanfeed then any ISP using that will have the block too.

BT with its share of the market is an obvious choice, and path is open for shorter cases to get similar rules with other providers potentially.

Prohibited is the wrong sort of list, why? A government may not like something and prohibit discussion, but the discussion might still be perfectly legal.

Why are customers from all other ISPs allowed to view this "prohibited" content?

You answered that in your OP. BT are just the start.

I think this is a very good ruling. Concerns such as BT should not turn a blind eye to the fact that they are aiding people to break the law. This is no more a matter of "freedom" than the freedom to drive a car after having downed a bottle of Vodka.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You answered that in your OP. BT are just the start.

Are copyright holders really going to take court action, one by one, against every ISP in the UK for every individual site infringing copyright on the internet? Is that really workable?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It raises interesting questions of course, such as:
- If Newzbin creates 10 mirrors, with 10 domain names and 10 ip addresses, are BT obliged to hunt them all down and block them?
- Why are customers from all other ISPs allowed to view this "prohibited" content?

As I see it, this ruling is pointless unless:
- A list is set up and maintained which can add "prohibited" sites with minimal legal proceedings
- All ISPs are obliged to block the sites on the list.

Even under those circumstances it can be bypassed fairly easily by anyone with a little knowledge. So it is not the 'victory' that the MPA consider it to be.

Not paying for films/music etc is not right but the industry could stop ripping off the consumers and charge a fair price.

I doubt it. But, in consort, they are certainly going to take down the most obvious offenders. They'd be stupid not to.

As I pointed out before, this has cost BT millions - or more exactly BT users. BT is an innocent party, that carries data and should not act as censor. The MPA should sort out those providing te feeds or te data centres housing the servers it sits on and not the carrier.

BT does not care what the network carries, a user asks a server for data and pays BT to carry it. It is not BTs problem.

This ruling will start an avalanche and massive legal costs for the ISPs who will pass them on to us.

BT have already shown, with Phorm, that they have investigated in the technology necessary to track users' browsing habits. It shouldn't be too difficult for them to block a particular server or group of servers.

In terms of blocking access to an IP Address/block or domain name not hard.

Blocking it in such way that stops people trivially getting around the block, and BT run the risk of being made complicit if any blocking is so easy to circumvent that they may be deemed to have not made strong enough efforts to block a site.

James Blessing's comments are worth noting, the current CleanFeed is relatively small scale, the costs of scaling to cope with blocking large situations and highly dynamic situations may be reflected in broadband price rises.

i.e. those accessing the 'free' content, may result in everyone paying more for broadband access. In the same way that shops have to accept some degree of shoplifting, hence build this cost into the price tags.

those accessing the 'free' content, may result in everyone paying more for broadband access. In the same way that shops have to accept some degree of shoplifting, hence build this cost into the price tags.

A good analogy. Similarly taxpayers pay higher taxes to account for those who evade/avoid tax. It's the way of the world, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to stop such abuses.

Do you think maybe a mandatory levy on everyone's broadband subscription, payable to the copyright holders, might be an avenue to explore?

No

Because that would encourage people to search for the free, and feel they have justification i.e. levy has already paid for it.

So in essence, increasing retail prices to cover for shoplifting is encouraging shoplifting, and discouraging retailers from fighting the shoplifters, when they can easily recoup their costs without a struggle.

I agree that shoplifting is a fact of life, but it should not be subsidised by the law-abiding. Those who break the law should be prosecuted accordingly.

Also If Film industry was failing, however records were broken with th last Harry Potter film. Indeed how does MPA explain the following.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 had a record-breaking first weekend at the box office in the U.S.

The final film in the franchise took $92.1million on Friday, the largest opening day takings in history.

Then it shattered more records with $168.6 million in ticket sales over its debut weekend, the best three-day opening ever in the U.S. and Canada.

Edited by NilSatisOptimum (Thu 28-Jul-11 13:36:13)

Shoplifting - those that are caught are prosecuted.

But seems people protest freedom of speech etc when accussed of copyright infringement.

If one believes a vibrant media industry comprises of the films featured in the top 10 only

So if a film makes a profit at the cinema no-one should worry about downloading a copy for viewing at home?

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

Also If Film industry was failing, however records were broken with th last Harry Potter film. Indeed how does MPA explain the following.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 had a record-breaking first weekend at the box office in the U.S.

The final film in the franchise took $92.1million on Friday, the largest opening day takings in history.

Then it shattered more records with $168.6 million in ticket sales over its debut weekend, the best three-day opening ever in the U.S. and Canada.

So are you saying that if any business makes profits that you think are too high, that it is reasonable to take their products without paying?

If people want to see something they should pay the price for it - if they don't want to pay the price then they obviously don't want to watch it enough. Many people obviously willing to pay the price for Harry Potter series so it makes money irrespective of how many people might be downloading it to watch.

There are arguments that the film industry makes too much profit. Arguments that DVDs/Blu-Rays etc are too expensive. Arguments that cinema visits are too costly. However, to me none of these mean it is right to download something for free that hundreds of people have put significant effort into creating and that someone had a vision for in the first place. If a person doesn't think it is worth the money to pay gfor it then why bother to download it? Or, wait until it has been out a few years and pick it up in a bargain bin - if it's not that good then waiting a while for it shouldn't be a big issue.

Downloading copyright material does nothing to inform the industry that it is going in the wrong direction - boycotting it entirely would send a much stronger message, but then people would miss all those films that they actually do want to see but don't see why they should pay for.

Although it�s a main point that pirates are accused of, revenue is lost, jobs are lost, and the industry is crumbling. It�s not, records and attendance is up and keep going up.

Take a Spielberg with his Films, he will release a commercially appealing film for the masses every so often, these finance the films where event or story he thinks needs to be out there which the masses are not interested in, therefore will often be less/loss profit. It�s time the Film industry moved on, to what many clearly want, easy current accessible media, with a price!

Edited by NilSatisOptimum (Thu 28-Jul-11 14:37:46)

In reply to a post by AEP:

I think this is a very good ruling. Concerns such as BT should not turn a blind eye to the fact that they are aiding people to break the law. This is no more a matter of "freedom" than the freedom to drive a car after having downed a bottle of Vodka.

And what features does the law require motor vehicle manufacturers to implement to stop that?

On the one hand I agree that ISPs ought to accept their part in this but on the other (more important in my mind) hand I worry about what else is going to banned. I'd rather pay for crime and keep the freedom.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Shoplifting - those that are caught are prosecuted.

But seems people protest freedom of speech etc when accussed of copyright infringement.

Exactly, just as a shoplifter shouts "assault" if someone rugby tackles him.

They abuse the system then hide behind it's protection. It's a pity they don't realise just what happens within the piracy industry. The sharers make the stuff freely available for the pirates, who then mass produce and spend the cash on all sorts of nasty things.

Some people have money to pay for a film,
and there are some people that don't.
There are others that spend all their time on a load,
but most of us could but won't.

There are criminals out there, and angels in here
doing lots for a buck (or naught),
<COMPLETE THIS FOR TBB FAME!>

*Yet ANOTHER from Guestys "All My oWN wuRK" series.

Signed: The FC Bard-[ish].

I think the point being made is that the <insert industry> is always crying about how they're getting killed by piracy when the figures disagree.

If everyone was pirating on the scale the industries sometimes try to suggest you'd have no one buying films or music. So I wonder why the likes of iTunes seem to do so well. Or why a film can take hundreds of millions in sales in a single weekend.

Wish I could plead poverty while counting vault loads of money!

Essentially those who don't know what they're doing will get caught out.

It will just make those who pirate on a larger scale become that bit better at hiding themselves. Plenty of free tools out there that can make it basically pointless even trying to track you.

And if a site gets added, the industry and ISPs will always be lagging behind the next site that shoots up to take it's place.

Sounds like a function/feature creep on this cleanfeed nonsense though. I'm sure this was warned about at the outset.

That is true that they complain they are losing money when clearly most of the movie companies are still raking it in.

But, that does not mean that piracy is right and whilst I think the companies should change their stance and also their sales model the people pirating are still in the wrong (in my opinion).

In reply to a post by Guest_Again:

Some people have money to pay for a film,
and there are some people that don't.
There are others that spend all their time on a load,
but most of us could but won't.

There are criminals out there, and angels in here
doing lots for a buck (or naught),
but if you steal from the gov, for food, greed or love,
in the end you're bound to be caught.

© The last two lines to me.

Breach the copyright and I sue.

And what features does the law require motor vehicle manufacturers to implement to stop that?

None. Nor does it require computer manufacturers to implement measures to prevent copyright abuse.

You would better ask what features the law requires those who provide us with roads, to drive our motor vehicles on, to implement; i.e. the Government. The main feature is a Police Force, one of whose duties is to prevent such abuse.

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmcupFx3FQ

Even China and Saudi Arabia don't block illegal movie downloads.... Maybe because they are not Corporate Dictatorships, as we are here in the UK.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

Also If Film industry was failing, however records were broken with th last Harry Potter film. Indeed how does MPA explain the following.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 had a record-breaking first weekend at the box office in the U.S.

The final film in the franchise took $92.1million on Friday, the largest opening day takings in history.

Then it shattered more records with $168.6 million in ticket sales over its debut weekend, the best three-day opening ever in the U.S. and Canada.

So are you saying that if any business makes profits that you think are too high, that it is reasonable to take their products without paying?

I find that if I replace all instances of "take" and "steal" in your posts with "copy" and "duplicate", not only are your posts more technically accurate, but also less alarmist and make the incident far less serious (I don't want my motorbike stolen, but if someone takes some photos of it and builds their own identical one, I don't care!)

You could apply the same logic to banknotes and coins, but I wouldn't recommend trying it. Sometimes just copying an idea can get you into deep trouble.

Well, China is one of the main sources of counterfeit and pirated goods, so I don't find that too surprising. Would you have us do all the other things that China does also?

I find the argument "if it's good enough for China it's good enough for us" to be somewhat unconvincing.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You could apply the same logic to banknotes and coins, but I wouldn't recommend trying it. Sometimes just copying an idea can get you into deep trouble.

The point where that becomes morally wrong, to me, is not when you copy a coin for your own use/keeping/collection, but when you try to pass it to someone else as a legitimate coin.

Or when the person the built a replica of my motorbike tries to sell it as a genuine Kawasaki.

The same applies to piracy - the point where it becomes criminal, is where you try to sell the copies you have made. Up until then it is civil.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Well, China is one of the main sources of counterfeit and pirated goods, so I don't find that too surprising. Would you have us do all the other things that China does also?

I find the argument "if it's good enough for China it's good enough for us" to be somewhat unconvincing.

No, I would not want to be like China.

My point was that China, a place I would not like to live, and Saudi Arabia, a place I have lived, are awful places full of what I consider to be human rights violations (you should see how they treat women in Saudi..) and while they both have restrictive internet filters, we now filter things even they don't.

In a couple of years, we will probably be in a worse state than they are.

The point where that becomes morally wrong, to me, is not when you copy a coin for your own use/keeping/collection, but when you try to pass it to someone else as a legitimate coin.

I think the law would take a different view.

Your analogy is imperfect. Most of the work involved in producing a film is not the simple act of duplicating it. To pursue your analogy one would have to suppose that a means existed where you could take a Kawaski and somehow produce a perfect replica for little or no cost. Now, if that were possible, do you think it would be fair to the manufacturers of motorcycles?

My point was that China, a place I would not like to live, and Saudi Arabia, a place I have lived, are awful places full of what I consider to be human rights violations (you should see how they treat women in Saudi..) and while they both have restrictive internet filters, we now filter things even they don't.

Does it not occur to you, taken in conjunction with the fact that you do not want us to be like China, that perhaps they have got it wrong? Perhaps some filtering is a reflection of a civilized and responsible country.

In reply to a post by AEP:

The point where that becomes morally wrong, to me, is not when you copy a coin for your own use/keeping/collection, but when you try to pass it to someone else as a legitimate coin.

I think the law would take a different view.

Your analogy is imperfect. Most of the work involved in producing a film is not the simple act of duplicating it. To pursue your analogy one would have to suppose that a means existed where you could take a Kawaski and somehow produce a perfect replica for little or no cost. Now, if that were possible, do you think it would be fair to the manufacturers of motorcycles?

The key difference I am trying to get across is that if a person views a film for free, weather by borrowing a DVD from a mate, downloading it from the internet, streaming it online, or looking through the window of the theatre, the publisher has not lost anything, or been negatively affected in any way.

They might be upset and offended that the viewer has not given them some money, and they might feel they are entitled to some money, and me and you may well agree with them, but they have not lost anything that they had before the viewing took place.

In reply to a post by AEP:

My point was that China, a place I would not like to live, and Saudi Arabia, a place I have lived, are awful places full of what I consider to be human rights violations (you should see how they treat women in Saudi..) and while they both have restrictive internet filters, we now filter things even they don't.

Does it not occur to you, taken in conjunction with the fact that you do not want us to be like China, that perhaps they have got it wrong? Perhaps some filtering is a reflection of a civilized and responsible country.

Then as China were the first to come up with the idea of filtering the internet, you must be meaning they are a very civilised and responsible country

Edited by nemeth782 (Thu 28-Jul-11 16:35:16)

You could equally argue that, in my corrected form of your analogy, the motorcycle manufacturer has not been negatively affected in any way. They may be upset that you have obtained a perfect replica of one of their motorcycles for free, but you would argue that you weren't going to buy one in the first place.

So, can I ask again - in the corrected form of your analogy, do you think that would be fair to the motorcycle manufacturers?

No. Unlike you, I draw no conclusions about the morality of a course of action just because China does or doesn't do it. China is a red herring.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by Guest_Again:

Some people have money to pay for a film,
and there are some people that don't.
There are others that spend all their time on a load,
but most of us could but won't.

There are criminals out there, and angels in here
doing lots for a buck (or naught),
but if you steal from the gov, for food, greed or love,
in the end you're bound to be caught.

© The last two lines to me.

Breach the copyright and I sue.

CLASS (action] (sneakily done) - Whenever there's a claim ~> I'm game!

Please read the following - it has been missed out from my original piece, and has completely RUINED my work, my thought processssessssesss and my spealing has been adverslyley affected - oh-NO!!

*On phone to Ambulance-Chasers-R-Uz* who just said that I FULLY displayed any caveats et ergo thou art est gettin' a sueing - and all I need to do is merely reiterate the bit[s] that objected to complete. Shamefull!!

"<COMPLETE THIS FOR TBB FAME!>

*Yet ANOTHER from Guestys "All My oWN wuRK" series.

Signed: The FC Bard-[ish].".

S.Y.I.C,M8TY!

*YAWN.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You could equally argue that, in my corrected form of your analogy, the motorcycle manufacturer has not been negatively affected in any way. They may be upset that you have obtained a perfect replica of one of their motorcycles for free, but you would argue that you weren't going to buy one in the first place.

So, can I ask again - in the corrected form of your analogy, do you think that would be fair to the motorcycle manufacturers?

Any analogy can have holes picked in it as no two situations are every 100% the same. For example, creating a duplicate motorbike is not free and is not without effort. If someone were to build a replica bike, I do not believe Kawasaki would care, unless they were selling those copies. In the same way as people build race replica motorcycles without drawing the ire of the manufacturers.

But back to the actual topic of the thread. The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship. It is the censorship I disagree with.

You might disagree with Piracy, and I would hope you disagree with child exploitation, but closing the door on these things and pretending they don't happen (as we all know blocking http access to one nzb aggregation site will not hamper piracy when there are other sites, and VPNs) is not a solution.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

The key difference I am trying to get across is that if a person views a film for free, weather by borrowing a DVD from a mate, downloading it from the internet, streaming it online, or looking through the window of the theatre, the publisher has not lost anything, or been negatively affected in any way.

If I had a mate who was always wanting to borrow my DVD's and didn't buy any of his own, he wouldn't get to borrow them. I don't have any selfish [censored] for mates though. Equally, you'll be very hard pressed to find a cinema, theatre or footie ground with windows. I wonder why? If you have an original idea and someone rips it off, depriving you of a comfortable lifestyle for the rest of your days, will you happily accept that it's being duplicated or copied and not stolen?

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

That's a flgrant misuse of that quote. Again there's the piracy argument hiding behind censorship laws. There would be no threat of censorship laws if piracy didn't get corporations bothered. Equally, if folk just didn't buy the produce the makers would have to reduce their prices.

It's a hypothetical situation. Just suppose (I know it's impossible but suspend your belief for a moment and just suppose) that it was possible to duplicate a motorcycle for free. Would it be fair on the motorcycle manufacturers? Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?

The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship.

No it is not. There is no attempt to stop people from viewing these movies, just to stop them stealing them.

Yeah. It should be:

First they didn't come for me
and I was happy.
Then they didn't come for the copyright pirates,
and I was very happy.
Then they didn't come for the thieves,
and I was reasonably happy.
Then they didn't come for the rapists,
and....

In reply to a post by AEP:

It's a hypothetical situation. Just suppose (I know it's impossible but suspend your belief for a moment and just suppose) that it was possible to duplicate a motorcycle for free. Would it be fair on the motorcycle manufacturers? Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?

The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship.

No it is not. There is no attempt to stop people from viewing these movies, just to stop them stealing them.

If your hypothetical situation were true, and people were able to instantly duplicate motorcycles for free, then the fact of Kawasaki not liking it would not change the fact that they may as well not like the sun and ask it not to rise, and they would quickly find that their then outdated business model would die. Fairness would not even be a factor.

You still refuse to answer the question. Understandable.

In such an event Kawaski would do all they could to make access to such a machine impossible. Do not be surprised that copyright holders do the same.

As a matter of interest, what business model would you suggest that Kawaski should follow if such a case existed?

There are millions of duff coins floating around and they're essentially legitimate because people are using them quite happily. If you have more than a couple of pound coins in your wallet there's a decent chance one of them is dodgy.

Notes are a different kettle of fish.

In reply to a post by AEP:

The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship.

No it is not. There is no attempt to stop people from viewing these movies, just to stop them stealing them.

It IS about censorship. Blocking Newsbin doesn't affect me, I have never visited or used it, and my ISP does not use cleanfeed anyway.

What does affect me is the knock on affects of this. Publishers representing rights holders (even though they are guilty of infringement themselves - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/30/judge-a... ) can now get orders to block websites.

Next it will be sites like the pirate bay. Again, I don't use it, so I don't care. However, after that, it could be youtube.com. People often post copyright infringing items on there. Then Facebook. Plenty of my friends have posted event/wedding photos that the photographer held the copyright to. Then Google. Then all newsgroup providers.

Where do we draw the line? Do we now need a group of people to decide which sites are too illegal to be allowed?

I find censorship to be distasteful. And no amount of "please think of the children" will persuade me that it is justified. You would be as well to suggest mandate the use of ear defenders in case someone overhears the music from my iPod on the bus without paying for it.

Edited by nemeth782 (Thu 28-Jul-11 17:23:45)

In reply to a post by AEP:

You still refuse to answer the question. Understandable.

In such an event Kawaski would do all they could to make access to such a machine impossible. Do not be surprised that copyright holders do the same.

As a matter of interest, what business model would you suggest that Kawaski should follow if such a case existed?

I would suggest that if this ever happens, Kawasaki are no longer needed, that people can duplicate their own motorcycles, and they should be allowed to fail.

I would say the same of the music industry, the film industry, and the banks. I wouldn't expect any of them them to go out without a fight, but I wouldn't support them either.

False scarcity and perceived value is no value at all, but these companies (and indeed us as workers) depend on it. http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-futur...

And who would make the original motorcycles for you to copy. Who will make the films?

In reply to a post by AEP:

And who would make the original motorcycles for you to copy. Who will make the films?

It will be the same as if Microsoft go under and Linux becomes the dominant operating system.

We will open source it.

Someone will copy one of the old pre-motorcycle-duplication Kawasakis and modify it. Improve it a bit. Someone will copy that and modify it some more.

People will make films as art or just for fun ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blair_Witch_Project ). When there is demand for new films and none being made, someone will come up with a new business model (maybe, sell an idea, donate to have it developed, etc).

I'm not saying that the sinking of the Titanic will be 100% good, 100% pain free, or that the replacement, initially liferafts and later other ships, will be as grand or as large, but that doesn't mean we should fire our guns pointlessly at the evil water trying to hold back the inevitable.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by AEP:

The BBC news story isn't about piracy being right or wrong, it is about censorship.

No it is not. There is no attempt to stop people from viewing these movies, just to stop them stealing them.

It IS about censorship. Blocking Newsbin doesn't affect me, I have never visited or used it, and my ISP does not use cleanfeed anyway.

What does affect me is the knock on affects of this. Publishers representing rights holders (even though they are guilty of infringement themselves - http://business.financialpost.com/2011/05/30/judge-a... ) can now get orders to block websites.

Next it will be sites like the pirate bay. Again, I don't use it, so I don't care. However, after that, it could be youtube.com. People often post copyright infringing items on there. Then Facebook. Plenty of my friends have posted event/wedding photos that the photographer held the copyright to. Then Google. Then all newsgroup providers.

Where do we draw the line? Do we now need a group of people to decide which sites are too illegal to be allowed?

I find censorship to be distasteful. And no amount of "please think of the children" will persuade me that it is justified. You would be as well to suggest mandate the use of ear defenders in case someone overhears the music from my iPod on the bus without paying for it.

It's not about censorship at all, it's simply about a business getting it's rightful monies - two totally different things.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all

So it shouldn't be in the kiddie pron system.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all

So it shouldn't be in the kiddie pron system.

If a system and/or mechanism can serve more than one task, then what's the problem in using it?

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all, it's simply about a business getting it's rightful monies - two totally different things.

Ummm no its about censorship. Censoring that website won't get the business their rightful monies. We are just letting some overseas muppets block a domain name over here. Once we start on that road its going to be a very nasty one. You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

Try accessing some child pornography and see how long that argument holds water.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Ummm no its about censorship.

How is it censorship if the content that is being blocked from Newzbin is available elsewhere simply by paying the correct price?

Censorship is about content, not IP addresses.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

Try accessing some child pornography and see how long that argument holds water.

Why would I do that? I've no desire to

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Ummm no its about censorship.

How is it censorship if the content that is being blocked from Newzbin is available elsewhere simply by paying the correct price?

Censorship is about content, not IP addresses.

Why is it about content? Newzbin doesn't contain anything but a database of files, it doesn't hold the file its just an index. With or without Newzbin those files still exist and people will still download them because Newzbin itself doesn't have any copywritten content its just a glorified list.

Is it censorship. If some other party decides I can't access a website of course its being censored, just like when Iran censored access to Facebook etc

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Ummm no its about censorship.

How is it censorship if the content that is being blocked from Newzbin is available elsewhere simply by paying the correct price?

Censorship is about content, not IP addresses.

Why is it about content? Newzbin doesn't contain anything but a database of files, it doesn't hold the file its just an index. With or without Newzbin those files still exist and people will still download them because Newzbin itself doesn't have any copywritten content its just a glorified list.

Is it censorship. If some other party decides I can't access a website of course its being censored, just like when Iran censored access to Facebook etc

Of course it's censorship, that's why it's using the kiddie pron system.

It would demonstrate the paucity of your argument. The Internet may belong to the people, but the Government regulates the way it is used, particularly where criminal acts are concerned. Get used to it - that's the way civilized countries work.

In reply to a post by AEP:

It would demonstrate the paucity of your argument. The Internet may belong to the people, but the Government regulates the way it is used, particularly where criminal acts are concerned. Get used to it - that's the way civilized countries work.

On the contrary, that's the way dictatorships work. Civilised countries work around the blocks.

Is it a criminal act to hold a list of NZB's for material some copy written some not?

Remember its just an index it doesn't hold the files itself. Google contains links to warez sites, torrents etc etc explain the difference

In fact just type NZB into google

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In fact just type NZB into google

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+king's+speech+nzb

Nasty sorts of things?, do you work for the MPA?. It's purely about corporate greed nothing else, there is no 'greater good' or moral justification for this just pure greed and it simply wont work, the pirates are always 10 steps ahead of the likes of the MPA anyway, the movie industry needs to learn and adapt, stream movies online more easily and cheapily, cinema's are 20th century, even dvd/br are dated tech, this is not a fight that can be won by censorship and blocking but only by giving people a better service and not being so greedy and arrogant.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Shoplifting - those that are caught are prosecuted.

But seems people protest freedom of speech etc when accussed of copyright infringement.

Exactly, just as a shoplifter shouts "assault" if someone rugby tackles him.

They abuse the system then hide behind it's protection. It's a pity they don't realise just what happens within the piracy industry. The sharers make the stuff freely available for the pirates, who then mass produce and spend the cash on all sorts of nasty things.

If that's what you think, try my test of downloading some child pornography. Don't expect me to come and visit you in jail.

Civilized countries do not allow their citizens total freedom.

Civilized countries like China?.

Yes, it could be a criminal act to conspire to allow someone to commit a crime, particularly if you profit from doing so.

Why would I want to do that?

Try the child pornography test if you think that we are free, or that we should be.

The fact that China does some thing that we agree with is irrelevant, as is the fact that it does some things we disagree with. That A implies B doesn't mean that B implies A; that's basic propositional logic.

In reply to a post by AEP:

try my test of downloading some child pornography.

No thanks, I suggest you keep your test to yourself.

Exactly.

There is no expectation, nor should there be, that you can access whatever you want via the Internet.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Exactly.

There is no expectation, nor should there be, that you can access whatever you want via the Internet.

Exactly what? I can access whatever I want on the Internet.

It makes me laugh that the MPA were trying to justify this on the ground that it would secure jobs and allow creative people to continue to work.

I know several scriptwriters, they have worked on some very big projects indeed including big name TV shows as well as films.

They are paid absolutly nothing for their work, they have an income which is less than my household income.

One of them tells people who say that they want to work in the entertainment is not to bother as you'll end up on the breadline.

So piracy isn't taking money away from them as they are paid so little it makes next to no odds anyways.

No you can't. Some sites are password protected, some are hidden behind paywalls.

There is a host of information on the Internet that you cannot access. And there is more information that you can access, but it will land you in deep trouble if you do.

All this talk of Internet "freedom" is a naive myth beloved by the likes of the kiddie hackers who are now facing long jail terms.

In reply to a post by AEP:

No you can't. Some sites are password protected, some are hidden behind paywalls.

There is a host of information on the Internet that you cannot access. And there is more information that you can access, but it will land you in deep trouble if you do.

All this talk of Internet "freedom" is a naive myth beloved by the likes of the kiddie hackers who are now facing long jail terms.

As I said, I can access whatever I want on the internet.

Yeah - sure.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Yeah - sure.

Yes. I'm unable to help with your child pornography however.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all, it's simply about a business getting it's rightful monies - two totally different things.

Ummm no its about censorship. Censoring that website won't get the business their rightful monies. We are just letting some overseas muppets block a domain name over here. Once we start on that road its going to be a very nasty one. You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

I think you are adding confusion to the mix, where in reality non is required.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It's not about censorship at all, it's simply about a business getting it's rightful monies - two totally different things.

Ummm no its about censorship. Censoring that website won't get the business their rightful monies. We are just letting some overseas muppets block a domain name over here. Once we start on that road its going to be a very nasty one. You can't censor the internet because the people that try don't understand how it works, it doesn't belong to government it belongs to the publc

I think you are adding confusion to the mix, where in reality non is required.

Why are you confused it seems simple to me. All the MPA are doing is cleanfeeding a search engine, is that hard to understand? The stuff the MPA wants rid of still exists and its still easy to find

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by billford:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

How is it censorship if the content that is being blocked from Newzbin is available elsewhere simply by paying the correct price?

Censorship is about content, not IP addresses.

Why is it about content? Newzbin doesn't contain anything but a database of files, it doesn't hold the file its just an index. With or without Newzbin those files still exist and people will still download them because Newzbin itself doesn't have any copywritten content its just a glorified list.

Is it censorship. If some other party decides I can't access a website of course its being censored, just like when Iran censored access to Facebook etc

Of course it's censorship, that's why it's using the kiddie pron system.

Nope, a wheel can be used for many tasks, doesnt mean to say that a system/mechanism is bespoke, as in this case it's not - it's technology that servers a function.
Censorship just doesn't appear on the same page at all.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Why are you confused it seems simple to me. All the MPA are doing is cleanfeeding a search engine, is that hard to understand? The stuff the MPA wants rid of still exists and its still easy to find

I suspect Vorlon doesn't know what a NZB is.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

Nope, a wheel can be used for many tasks, doesnt mean to say that a system/mechanism is bespoke, as in this case it's not - it's technology that servers a function.
Censorship just doesn't appear on the same page at all.

What wheel?

In reply to a post by Spetznaz:

Nasty sorts of things?, do you work for the MPA?. It's purely about corporate greed nothing else, there is no 'greater good' or moral justification for this just pure greed and it simply wont work, the pirates are always 10 steps ahead of the likes of the MPA anyway, the movie industry needs to learn and adapt, stream movies online more easily and cheapily, cinema's are 20th century, even dvd/br are dated tech, this is not a fight that can be won by censorship and blocking but only by giving people a better service and not being so greedy and arrogant.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Shoplifting - those that are caught are prosecuted.

But seems people protest freedom of speech etc when accussed of copyright infringement.

Exactly, just as a shoplifter shouts "assault" if someone rugby tackles him.

They abuse the system then hide behind it's protection. It's a pity they don't realise just what happens within the piracy industry. The sharers make the stuff freely available for the pirates, who then mass produce and spend the cash on all sorts of nasty things.

So are you saying it's perfectly acceptable to take a product with a monetary value from a company without paying IF you deem that their profits are too much?

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

So are you saying it's perfectly acceptable to take a product with a monetary value from a company without paying IF you deem that their profits are too much?

Are NZB's products with monetary value?

In reply to a post by Spetznaz:

Nasty sorts of things?, do you work for the MPA?.

So you can state categorically that organised criminals over the world do not use the sharing sites to gain access to freebies, market them for cash then use the proceeds to finance other crimes such as smuggling?

In reply to a post by Spetznaz:

It's purely about corporate greed nothing else, there is no 'greater good' or moral justification for this just pure greed and it simply wont work, the pirates are always 10 steps ahead of the likes of the MPA anyway, the movie industry needs to learn and adapt, stream movies online more easily and cheapily, cinema's are 20th century, even dvd/br are dated tech, this is not a fight that can be won by censorship and blocking but only by giving people a better service and not being so greedy and arrogant.

Like I said earlier, don't buy the product if you don't want to fill their pockets. If you can't afford it, don't steal it either.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

So are you saying it's perfectly acceptable to take a product with a monetary value from a company without paying IF you deem that their profits are too much?

Are NZB's products with monetary value?

I don't now why you are arguing Batboy, this whole subject is about theft of products that have a monetary value.

NZB have around 700,000 members and is said to make £1million a year from said members. It facilitates it's members in finding the latest copyrighted media that has a monetary value - how can that be right?
It argue's too that if BT put in blocks, it will atempt to circumvent them. To me that sounds like a blatent copyright violation and in my opinion they should be blocked. For gods sake it's not their media to do as they wish with.

Wrong, it's about blocking access to a legal website.

If a bus takes criminals to and from crimes, it's not the fault of the bus driver or company. If however, the bus company advertises areas of potential crime, it's being called an accessory to the crime(s).

So is it legal? That's the big question. They are profiting from others' crimes with the knowledge of them, and have no intention of stopping. In the non-Internet world, the bus company staff would be arrested, and the bus company closed down.

English law doesn't apply to the site.

Hallo! McFly!

It was an analogy.

In fact, when I think of it, I'm law abiding and have no reason to fear censorship. So call it censorship if you like. I'm all for it if it reduces the abuse of law.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

Hallo! McFly!

It was an analogy.

Not much of one, that's why I pointed out the gaping hole in your argument.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I pointed out the gaping hole in your argument.

Still haven't justified why people should not steal others' property.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I pointed out the gaping hole in your argument.

Still haven't justified why people should not steal others' property.

wut?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by camieabz:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I pointed out the gaping hole in your argument.

Still haven't justified why people should not steal others' property.

wut?

With the above response and "I pointed out the gaping hole in your argument", I'm wondering if you really have a point of view on this subject, or you just enjoy cherry picking your responses (just for fun), whilst missing the whole point completely.

Do you agree with Theft Batboy?, in this case it's the theft of Media that has a genuine monetary value. A simple Yes or No would be a perfect response - nothing fancy, drawn out or off topic.

Google also links to illegal material. Why is that not blocked? It is the same as newzbin. In fact you can probably get directions to ALOT more illegal material via a google search than you ever could on a newzbin search. This may sound obvious, but im talking legally how is newzbin different to Google ?

Edited by deleted (Fri 29-Jul-11 02:41:09)

Then what's all the whining about? Fact is, English law has been applied to the site.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by Spetznaz:

Nasty sorts of things?, do you work for the MPA?. It's purely about corporate greed nothing else, there is no 'greater good' or moral justification for this just pure greed and it simply wont work, the pirates are always 10 steps ahead of the likes of the MPA anyway, the movie industry needs to learn and adapt, stream movies online more easily and cheapily, cinema's are 20th century, even dvd/br are dated tech, this is not a fight that can be won by censorship and blocking but only by giving people a better service and not being so greedy and arrogant.

In reply to a post by camieabz:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Exactly, just as a shoplifter shouts "assault" if someone rugby tackles him.

They abuse the system then hide behind it's protection. It's a pity they don't realise just what happens within the piracy industry. The sharers make the stuff freely available for the pirates, who then mass produce and spend the cash on all sorts of nasty things.

So are you saying it's perfectly acceptable to take a product with a monetary value from a company without paying IF you deem that their profits are too much?

Vorlon catch up, we are not discussing the rights and wrongs of downloading films we are discussing whether a search engine that INDEXES such files (only) should be censored.

I don't know how many other ways there are to put it, censoring this website doesn't stop people downloading the files because Newzbin doesn't hold any of this copy written files

In reply to a post by DrDeath:

Google also links to illegal material. Why is that not blocked? It is the same as newzbin. In fact you can probably get directions to ALOT more illegal material via a google search than you ever could on a newzbin search. This may sound obvious, but im talking legally how is newzbin different to Google ?

^ This is what I'm talking about and waiting for a response from the johnny know it all's on here.

AEP, forget your child porn
Vorlon, forget your oooh its stealing etc

None of that actually matters, it seems hard to grasp so I'll try to make this easy.

1) Newzbin, very small search engine that allows you to search for some non copy written content and some copy written content and where to access the files, it does not host the files itself.

2) Google, biggest most widely used search engine and website in the world that allows you to search for some non copy written content and some copy written content and where to access the files, it does not host the files itself.


Please explain without drifting into child porn land or crime land why Newzbin should be blocked but Google shouldn't?

Type "free films, free ISO's free Xbox games" etc etc into Google and see how Google does the same thing but on a bigger scale.

No slipping, no squirming. Please answer

So if a company advertised lists of addresses known to be empty to burglars, that would be OK? Or, closer, if they sold lists of known sources of stolen goods would they be allowed to continue?

I think in both cases the firm would be commiting an offence and would soon be prevented from doing so. It's not just illegal to directly commit an offence but also to conspire to aid someone else to do so.

Please explain without drifting into child porn land or crime land why Newzbin should be blocked but Google shouldn't?

Simple. Because the copyright owners have not asked for Google to be banned. That's their perogative as they don't see Google as a threat to their property.

In reply to a post by AEP:

So if a company advertised lists of addresses known to be empty to burglars, that would be OK? Or, closer, if they sold lists of known sources of stolen goods would they be allowed to continue?

I think in both cases the firm would be commiting an offence and would soon be prevented from doing so. It's not just illegal to directly commit an offence but also to conspire to aid someone else to do so.

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Ok so we are getting somewhere now.

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

As for your reason (your words not theirs) its obviously BS. Google IS a threat to their property much bigger than poxy Newzbin.

MPA vs Newzbin1/Newzbin2 = Win (but doesn't stop anything in reality)
MPA vs Google = Fail (lots of egg on face, MPA tries to shut down Google and the courts laugh in their face)

The MPA has basically failed in its attempts to stop the uploaders of these films.
Has failed in its attemptst to close the link hostiing sites.
So now it is trying to stop people accessing the sites that have the links.

Those that download are not in my opinion doing anything wrong.
The links are there, freely accessed.
the MPA should reallly be trying to stop those that upload the films to the internet.
The ISP should not be responsable for what data you are receiving.
This action will only end up hurting BT, and its customers.
Prices will increase and client numbers will fall as people change providers.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Ok so we are getting somewhere now.

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

As for your reason (your words not theirs) its obviously BS. Google IS a threat to their property much bigger than poxy Newzbin.

MPA vs Newzbin1/Newzbin2 = Win (but doesn't stop anything in reality)
MPA vs Google = Fail (lots of egg on face, MPA tries to shut down Google and the courts laugh in their face)

The reasons I believe are much different to that.

Newzbin I assume are actually setting out to provide a service that at least in part provides indexes to copyright material. If the copyright holder asked them to remove these links then would they? If they wouldn't then they are an accessory to copyright theft.

Google are primarily a search engine of everything on the net (at least that isn't protected against search crawlers in some way). Some of this is copyright and if asked to take it down they will.

So, google work within the law and copyright whereas Newzbin have stated that they will break the censorship system that has been ordered by a legal process and therefore are working outside of the law.

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply.

I put that through BabelFish and it came back with:

"I have no answer to that one."

You may be right. But I guess that it's up to the MPA to use the law in the way that they think is most efficient. Who can blame them - it's their money.

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

Well. at least we now agree as to why Google hasn't been blocked.

It's up to the MPA to spend their money on litigation that they think is most effective. If you think that blocking NewzBin is not effective, then what's all the whining about?

In reply to a post by AEP:

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

Well. at least we now agree as to why Google hasn't been blocked.

It's up to the MPA to spend their money on litigation that they think is most effective. If you think that blocking NewzBin is not effective, then what's all the whining about?

Of course, the other reason they haven't gone after google - google can afford very expensive lawyers....

Very true; and the case against Google would be orders of magnitude weaker. For starters they don't charge the end user, and for seconds they are not narrowly targeted.

But, in the end, a company and its lawyers are going to start with the easy cases. They'd be failing their shareholders were they to do otherwise. If they are successful there they may never need to pursue others.

In reply to a post by ian72:

The reasons I believe are much different to that.

Newzbin I assume are actually setting out to provide a service that at least in part provides indexes to copyright material. If the copyright holder asked them to remove these links then would they? If they wouldn't then they are an accessory to copyright theft.

Good point, on that front Newzbin state that they have never been contacted by the MPA. Its easy to believe either party either way to be honest. Newzbin has a facility to ask for an index to be removed if you are the copyright holder so the facilities exist, whether MPA has used them is another matter. So its whether they did ask but got ignored, I don't believe they've stated in any of their court claims they've asked for removal and it has been ignored? So I'd suggest they've never tried.

Usenet (one of many hosting servers that host the actual content which Newzbin mearly trawls and indexes) does comply with DMCA requests, so the question is why is the MPA doing for a branch of the tree and not one of its roots?

In reply to a post by ian72:

Google are primarily a search engine of everything on the net (at least that isn't protected against search crawlers in some way). Some of this is copyright and if asked to take it down they will.

Yep I've seen that myself but there's a lot more to take down the MPA should get cracking!

In reply to a post by ian72:

So, google work within the law and copyright whereas Newzbin have stated that they will break the censorship system that has been ordered by a legal process and therefore are working outside of the law.

Well not really that's a bit of naughty journalism to be honest (is there another type?) they've not said they'll break anything, the way its reported on the BBC site and others suggests they'll attack Cleanfeed. They've mearly said that the way that Cleanfeed will block them will be irrelevant as there are existing tools on the net people can use to still access their site.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

Well. at least we now agree as to why Google hasn't been blocked.

It's up to the MPA to spend their money on litigation that they think is most effective. If you think that blocking NewzBin is not effective, then what's all the whining about?

Its not effective that is a fact and they will soon see. I'm complaining because its setting a precedent in that other parties outside the UK can block access to websites as they wish. Once this starts I've no idea where it will end, I couldn't give two figs about Newzbin its "the bigger picture"

In reply to a post by AEP:

Very true; and the case against Google would be orders of magnitude weaker. For starters they don't charge the end user, and for seconds they are not narrowly targeted.

But, in the end, a company and its lawyers are going to start with the easy cases. They'd be failing their shareholders were they to do otherwise. If they are successful there they may never need to pursue others.

What has charging got to do with it though? Surely a wrong is a wrong whether its Google or Newzbin? You can't say its ok to index copy written material but don't you even think about charging for the pleasure because that is just wrong

I'm complaining because its setting a precedent in that other parties outside the UK can block access to websites as they wish.

No it isn't. It is setting a precedent that sites who are involved in a criminal conspiracy can be blocked. Good thing too.

Companies will still have to convince a court of law before a site will be blocked. I'm in favour of the rule of law.

What has charging got to do with it though? Surely a wrong is a wrong whether its Google or Newzbin?

I can see that you are unfamiliar with copyright law. The difference that charging makes is that it changes a civil offence into a criminal offence.

In reply to a post by AEP:

I'm complaining because its setting a precedent in that other parties outside the UK can block access to websites as they wish.

No it isn't. It is setting a precedent that sites who are involved in a criminal conspiracy can be blocked. Good thing too.

Companies will still have to convince a court of law before a site will be blocked. I'm in favour of the rule of law.

But is it a criminal conspiracy to index someone elses server? I'd say its not.

So if the MPA took Google to court and said it was possible to source (for free) a download of the latest Harry Potter film via Google they would win and Google would have to sort it out?

In reply to a post by AEP:

What has charging got to do with it though? Surely a wrong is a wrong whether its Google or Newzbin?

I can see that you are unfamiliar with copyright law. The difference that charging makes is that it changes a civil offence into a criminal offence.

Thank you (seriously) because I didn't know that

But is it a criminal conspiracy to index someone else's server? I'd say its not.

What can one say? The courts seem to disagree with you. They, not you or I, determine how the law is applied.

In reply to a post by AEP:

But is it a criminal conspiracy to index someone else's server? I'd say its not.

What can one say? The courts seem to disagree with you. They, not you or I, determine how the law is applied.

Judges seem to have a hard enough time getting the right rulings on things they are supposed to understand, never mind the Internet

I would guess that a judge in the High Court probably has a better understanding of Coyright Law, and access to better advice on the subject, than the average man in the street.

You'd be amazed how many people don't even realize that Copyright breach is sometimes a civil offence and sometimes a criminal one (most people seem to think that it is either just a civil offence or that it is always a criminal offence - both these are incorrect).

In reply to a post by AEP:

I would guess that a judge in the High Court probably has a better understanding of Coyright Law, and access to better advice on the subject, than the average man in the street.

You'd be amazed how many people don't even realize that Copyright breach is sometimes a civil offence and sometimes a criminal one (most people seem to think that it is either just a civil offence or that it is always a criminal offence - both these are incorrect).

Appreciate that but again we are drifting here, Newzbin aren't providing the copy written content, so whilst I'd agree this argument stands up for the people that host these files Usenet, I'm not sure it applies to a search engine ?

The judge decided that NewzBin and BT were both complicit in knowingly abetting the offence. Hence the ruling. Makes sense to me.

To use another, imperfect, analogy; motorists are often convicted for flashing their headlights to warn speeding motorists about a speed trap. Although not speeding themselves they are held to be complicit in abetting the offender to evade the law.

Fair enough, not sure about BT being complicit though.... its not their role to look at what people are doing just to provide them the ability to do so, they are just a transit network.

If someone wants to ask them to block something and they have to, fair enough but I'm not sure that BT is at fault in this, nor any other ISP , ISP's aren't gatekeepers

Again, the judge decided that ISPs do have a responsibility in this respect. Judge Arnold ruled that:

BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the Studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes; it knows that the users of Newzbin2 include BT subscribers; and it knows those users use its service to receive infringing copies of copyright works made available to them by Newzbin2.

The driver of the getaway car in the case of a bank robbery cannot claim that he is just a transport mechanism and has no responsibility for what the people that he transports do. It's well established in English law that to knowingly aid criminal offences is an offence in its own right. Once BT are made aware that they are complicit in the comission of an offence it is incumbent on them to prevent such an offence being comitted, as well as they can. This is all that the ruling means.

Once again, this is not a matter of censorship, it is a question of preventing offences from being comitted. BT tried to argue the Human Rights Act, Article 10 of which provides for freedom of expression. Unfortunately, they overlooked Article 1, taking precedence over 10, which protects the rights of creators.

I'm not interested in analogies on this one. A getaway driver is "in on it". BT and any other ISP's are not. A better analogy would be to say the highways agency was complicit as their roads were used on the getaway route.

Which as you can see is just ridiculous. Have ISP's ever been told it is their remit to police the activities of its users and that they track and flag any suspicious/illegal activity with regards to copyright material?

If they have (they haven't) then they are complicit. If they haven't (they haven't ) saying they are complicit is wrong

A getaway driver is "in on it". BT and any other ISP's are not.

Well, the judge decided differently. He decided that once BT had been informed of the abuse then they are indeed "in on it". You may not like that, but that's the law.

Have ISP's ever been told it is their remit to police the activities of its users and that they track and flag any suspicious/illegal activity with regards to copyright material?

I don't think so. But now they have been told that once such activity is brought to their attention they cannot just ignore it. This is very different from tracking illegal activity in the first place; once they know about it they can't just turn a blind eye.

I suspect that if, as a more direct analogy, it was brought to the attention of a carrier that the packages they were transporting for a particular company contained Cocaine then that carrier would have to take action to stop carrying such packages in future. Do you really suppose that they could continue to deliver such packages, knowing what was in them, with impunity?

This is where I get suspicious when companies/ organisations want Law applied in their favour. Take Sky for instance for some time now encourage people who like to download . If there was one ISP provider of multiple services which might suffer from copy right breaches, then SKY are the one in the UK, however they encourage people who download on mass to be their customers, One particular Sky shareholder is ardent supporter of RIAA and MPAA however proceeds over truly unlimited! If you go above the 50GB it will be suggested of at least using p2p (I've had it from this site), this more or implies these days, you are involved in copy right infringement.

Are you saying that because sky have unlimited downloads that they are encouraging people to break copyright law? How about the many films available on the sky anytime+ service that you could download in a month that could be hit by limits if there were any?

There are actually legal ways to do high levels of downloads in a month other than Linux ISOs (which are normally the reason that copyright breachers give).

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

It was inevitable that sooner or later this would happen and personally I think it's about time. Unfortunately many people think it's ok to take media that has a monetary value and not pay for it - that can't be right from whatever angle you look at it.

Hopefully once this gets understood that the Real issue can be tackled, which is bringing media companies into account for high media costs that seem to be held artificially high.

Rather than just taking without paying for media, a far bigger statement could be made (in regard to pricing) by boycotting media companies. With facebook member "campaigns" reaching the population, I'm sure that could be a good way to get any large companies attention.

the prime reason of piracy is lack of availability rather than price, price is also a factor but not the main one. This is why people will pay for things like newgroup access and top speed packages from isp's. As I know some people wonder why people will pay to download material but not the material itself.

When a movie is available the vast majority of downloads happen before its available at retail in that country, movies tend to be come available in stages with increasing quality each time, so eg. early on whilst its at the cinema in the first premiere country there may be a cam quality version and then not long after a better version comes along until finally a retail bluray will eventually be available. The rule of thumb is that pirated versions of movies in all the qualities become available before its possible to pay to watch them. There is a very simple way to stop this situation. Release movies worldwide in all formats at the same time. Stop staggered release, stop regional release. Also some people have stated they refuse to buy copy protected material and its the copy protection that actually stops them buying movies.

On the ruling itself, it shows again how backwards the UK is, the fact is these american companies wont get this ruling in their own country, they wont get it in the majority of countries, the UK apart from maybe australia is probably now the worst country for copyright in terms of legislation and legal rulings. Newzbin hosts no illegal content so the judge technically has got the ruling wrong, technically its the same as google. So we will now see a load of lawsuits against other uk isps for this and more lawsuits after for other sites to be blocked, the censorship of UK internet is well on the way now, but the simple fatc is they have achieved nothing. Any filtering is easily evaded.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 29-Jul-11 13:13:12)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

On the ruling itself, it shows again how backwards the UK is, the fact is these american companies wont get this ruling in their own country

I'm sure I read somewhere that the MPA have got ISP's in the US to throttle offending users until they stop doing it? Could be wrong of course.

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

The adjudication will achieve nothing, there are hundreds of indexing sites for files posted on usenet. A quick google search for ".NZB" and you'll see what I mean.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by AEP:

So if a company advertised lists of addresses known to be empty to burglars, that would be OK? Or, closer, if they sold lists of known sources of stolen goods would they be allowed to continue?

I think in both cases the firm would be commiting an offence and would soon be prevented from doing so. It's not just illegal to directly commit an offence but also to conspire to aid someone else to do so.

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by AEP:

So if a company advertised lists of addresses known to be empty to burglars, that would be OK? Or, closer, if they sold lists of known sources of stolen goods would they be allowed to continue?

I think in both cases the firm would be commiting an offence and would soon be prevented from doing so. It's not just illegal to directly commit an offence but also to conspire to aid someone else to do so.

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

No its called comparing apples with apples, not apples with say a rock, the two are so far apart its not a comparative.

Analogies are great when they work, this doesn't

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

A rubbish example that doesn't warrant a real reply. Different areas of the law so.... not relevant.

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

No its called comparing apples with apples, not apples with say a rock, the two are so far apart its not a comparative.

Analogies are great when they work, this doesn't

You forgot to add - "In your opinion"

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Actually it's a very good example and your response is quite typical of those who don't want to entertain the facts of the matter.

No its called comparing apples with apples, not apples with say a rock, the two are so far apart its not a comparative.

Analogies are great when they work, this doesn't

You forgot to add - "In your opinion"

As this is a forum and everyone's opinion is their own (a given) I didn't think it needed to be mentioned.

Of course the big winners here will be the organised criminal gangs who make pirated DVD's to sell on Market stalls and in pubs.

When the money trail for the Bali bombing was identified it pointed straight at pirated DVD sales in Australia and New Zealand.

Since then pirated movies became more and more avaliable on the internet and was slowing shutting down these outlets for the crime gangs.

So all the MPA is doing is once again changing the way this material is distributed.

I am not condoning pirated movies, given that in a very short time they are usually less than £4 for sale online but it has been proven time and again that the media indusries have no idea how to combat this just knee jerk reactions.

Look at how they tried to sue Bob Monkhouse for his private movie collection.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

On the ruling itself, it shows again how backwards the UK is, the fact is these american companies wont get this ruling in their own country

I'm sure I read somewhere that the MPA have got ISP's in the US to throttle offending users until they stop doing it? Could be wrong of course.

They have not got sites censored, the USA had a ruling in the past which actually gave isps a slap for traffic shaping based on protocol. Now they may have adopted a policy similiar to the 3 strikes rule but thats not net censorship.

Suspicious and Suggested, my key words, I'm clear on their definitions.

Indeed how many p2p users, are customers of TT? Again It will also be suggested, whatever your use of p2p and by going over the 50GB, you are not using it for legitimate purposes. Moreover its not my concern that p2p has been high jacked by copy right breaches.

I still find it amazing that some on this thread have completely missed the real point. Why is it so neccessary by some to completely gloss over the Fact that the media industry is a victim of theft?
If any other business was seeing physical products stolen most would see it quite acceptable for measures to be taken to stop such activity.
Now a judge has seen all the evidence of one particular web "outlet" that draws a significant amount of "members" through it's "model" which facilitates (via its software) in the finding and downloading of copyrighted material (in a streamlined way) which does have a monetary value.
I don't doubt that those sheer numbers result in a huge number of downloads of copyrighted material, which as the media business deals In copies (as their product), is a direct deprivation of their income.

Any other argument beyond this is pointless, because the media companies legal actions wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for mass theft against them. When those people actually acknowledge that and act accordingly there won't be any requirement for blocking x, y or z

Your talking about theft. I'm talking about censorship of a website.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Your talking about theft. I'm talking about censorship of a website.

Which I commented about on the last bit of my post. If such a site is a honey pot for those looking for quick and efficient links to reliable downloads on usenet and most their (if not all) traffic is for those looking for copyrighted material, then they are in a different league to a web search engine.
In fact it could be seen and may be the case, that most, if not all searches made through them, are made to find copyrighted media - which I guess the site is fully tailored to. I should imagine that the evidence (and counter evidence) put to the judge fully established that - hence the judgement.

Its not tailored to that though. It just searches the entire index of Usenet. If Usenet contains mostly copy written material the index will reflect it.

So why not (as per my previous posts) go for Usenet and DMCA takedowns?

nzb's like torrents arn't created automagically so sites like newzbin arn't just indexing but having users/editors create the nzbs & reports out of their index. this was the main point of contention during the previous newzbin trial.

newzbin used too (still may) have a searchable header index from usenet, where the "public" could create their own nzbs. this wasn't proven to be a method of copyright infringement for the people accessing it.

Edited by acting_funny (Fri 29-Jul-11 19:50:56)

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

Newzbin2 charge .30p a week.

These stupid fat cat corporations will never stop people from downloading stuff for free on the net and long may it continue. I say, the more these greedy corporate pigs try an cencor the net and shut down torrents, P2P, the more we should download and do what we like.

If someone says you can't do something, then just do the opposite.

Long live P2P, free downloads and use any means to get around blocked websites or security. The internet belong to everyone.

Sod the lot of them and stick two fingers up to the lot of them.

In reply to a post by hitachi:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

Newzbin2 charge .30p a week.

If you were a memer of the original Newzbin you pay nothing to use Newwzbin2. Anyway I would say that Newzbin & Newzbin2 have seen better days, there are far more powerful indexing sites out there that do not employ users or editors and who certainly don't charge anything.

Post deleted by billford


Filter evasion.

Edited by billford (Sun 31-Jul-11 19:03:51)

Newzbin2 Threatens to Nuke BT's Filters if Blocked.

But prior to the ruling, Newsbin2 said on Wednesday that if BT makes any attempts to block subscribers from the website, it will "ensure continuity of service to our UK readers" by breaking BT's Cleanfeed filter. This filter is typically used to block access to sites playing host to child pornography � now it will also filter out Newzbin2.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Newzbin2-MPAA-Usenet-Cle...

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

In reply to a post by hitachi:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

The original Newzbin web site did charge a subscription of £0.3p per week, they were closed down in the summer of 2010.

This adjudication is against Newzbin 2 who came into being within weeks of the Newzbin website's closure, and as far as I'm aware Newzbin 2 do not charge for accessing the site and will remain operational until sometime in October' 2011

Newzbin2 charge .30p a week.

If you were a memer of the original Newzbin you pay nothing to use Newwzbin2. Anyway I would say that Newzbin & Newzbin2 have seen better days, there are far more powerful indexing sites out there that do not employ users or editors and who certainly don't charge anything.

Um that is not true. You still have to have premium credit on newzbin2 regardless of if you were a member of the original.

Take it from someone that knows.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Newzbin2 Threatens to Nuke BT's Filters if Blocked.

But prior to the ruling, Newsbin2 said on Wednesday that if BT makes any attempts to block subscribers from the website, it will "ensure continuity of service to our UK readers" by breaking BT's Cleanfeed filter. This filter is typically used to block access to sites playing host to child pornography � now it will also filter out Newzbin2.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Newzbin2-MPAA-Usenet-Cle...

Rubbish, why would they attract more attention to themselves, their quote is taken out of context. If you follow the story from months back you'll see they were advising ways around any potential blocks months ago.

They'll avoid being filtered not break/hack it I'm sure.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

They'll avoid being filtered not break/hack it I'm sure.

They already have - http://torrentfreak.com/newzbin-uses-tor-to-stop-dom... - probably before the block is/was put in place.

===

Incidentally I'm sure Newzbin are really grateful for all the free publicity. I hadn't heard of them before this case.

Edited by kwikbreaks (Tue 02-Aug-11 10:07:47)

The url in the article doesn't seem to work for me: http://sc3njt2i2j4fvqa3.tor2web.org

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

The url in the article doesn't seem to work for me: http://sc3njt2i2j4fvqa3.tor2web.org

It worked for me when I tried it yesterday but to sign up for an account I had to use the native url. It's working now for me (Vodafone 3G) but I'm not sure if subsequent requests (such as a search) route via TOR or not as I just see the native url after using the tor2web one. I don't have a TOR client to try the other method and don't have enough interest to try it all out.

Edited by kwikbreaks (Tue 02-Aug-11 13:57:29)

Tried it again, this time with Firefox5 instead of IE9, and it works. Interesting. The original http request redirects to https, so maybe it's something to do with encryption.

Ahh - after I log in it fails. That may be because I get a redirect because I haven't bought any credit. I think the reason I was seeing the plain url is simple - I'd stored it as well as the tor service one and it was that one I must have clicked by mistake...

I imagine it all works OK if you have a premium account. It seems that freeloaders using this site don't get everything free after all

As the NZB files are available from umpteen other sources anyway it all seems a rather pointless exercise to me.

I get "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage" when I load the link. I think it's an ssl handshake issue which Firefox is more forgiving about than IE.

Doesn't work for me with IE either.

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

Government 1, Judge 0.

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

Did you read the article? From what I understood of it they are merely going to drop the requirement from the DEA because the court case with BT has proven that it does not need legislation. The desire to block is still there but does not need to be enshrined in the DEA because courts are able to do it without that Act.

In reply to a post by ian72:

From what I understood of it they are merely going to drop the requirement from the DEA because the court case with BT has proven that it does not need legislation.

Well it does at least reduce the possibility of a Government-backed IWF-style content blocking system, potentially operated by OFCOM, which IMO would be a step too far. Each case will need to be individually tested in the courts, with no "short cut" system to blocking websites which are suspected of copyright wrongdoing.

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

These stupid fat cat corporations will never stop people from downloading stuff for free on the net and long may it continue. I say, the more these greedy corporate pigs try an cencor the net and shut down torrents, P2P, the more we should download and do what we like.

If someone says you can't do something, then just do the opposite.

Long live P2P, free downloads and use any means to get around blocked websites or security. The internet belong to everyone.

Sod the lot of them and stick two fingers up to the lot of them.

So at what level of profits do you deem any company fair game to be stolen from? What would be the Net Monetary percentage and over how many year/s?

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

seems they used the ruling as an excuse to say its not needed. I bet those guys wish they didnt take BT to court now

glad the government seen sense, also they plan to make the laws more leniant and make copying of personal content fully legal.

In reply to a post by ian72:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

Did you read the article? From what I understood of it they are merely going to drop the requirement from the DEA because the court case with BT has proven that it does not need legislation. The desire to block is still there but does not need to be enshrined in the DEA because courts are able to do it without that Act.

Yeah that's what I'm not sure of now, its open to interpretation really. It states

"Plans to block websites that host copyright infringing material are to be dumped by the government."

That could be construed as saying the idea is dumped across the board, I mean the Ofcom report shows that URL blocking isn't effective.

What I'm getting at is... its a shambles if Ofcom are saying to the government that it won't work but then the British law says it has to be blocked regardless.

Certainly muddies the water anyway

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

seems they used the ruling as an excuse to say its not needed. I bet those guys wish they didnt take BT to court now

glad the government seen sense, also they plan to make the laws more leniant and make copying of personal content fully legal.

I think it's a great idea to open up the rights of the individual who has bought a "license" to a particular piece of media (say music) so that he/she may copy that to other media for personal use.
For those who grew up in the vinyl era and who have had large vinyl collections (like myself), purchasing many of the same again on CD format has been expensive and something I've Always Believed the media companies could have been more flexible on.

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by GMAN98:

Government blocks the block?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698

seems they used the ruling as an excuse to say its not needed. I bet those guys wish they didnt take BT to court now

glad the government seen sense, also they plan to make the laws more leniant and make copying of personal content fully legal.

I think it's a great idea to open up the rights of the individual who has bought a "license" to a particular piece of media (say music) so that he/she may copy that to other media for personal use.
For those who grew up in the vinyl era and who have had large vinyl collections (like myself), purchasing many of the same again on CD format has been expensive and something I've Always Believed the media companies could have been more flexible on.

The question is will the media companies honour the change in law and remove copy protection.

Where has it said anything about removing copy protection (DRM)?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

seems they used the ruling as an excuse to say its not needed. I bet those guys wish they didnt take BT to court now

glad the government seen sense, also they plan to make the laws more leniant and make copying of personal content fully legal.

I think it's a great idea to open up the rights of the individual who has bought a "license" to a particular piece of media (say music) so that he/she may copy that to other media for personal use.
For those who grew up in the vinyl era and who have had large vinyl collections (like myself), purchasing many of the same again on CD format has been expensive and something I've Always Believed the media companies could have been more flexible on.

The question is will the media companies honour the change in law and remove copy protection.

A starting point would probably be preferable with Audio CD's which don't seem to have the amount of protection that Film media does. Also Audio entertainment is generally more portable, as too are the range of types of devices.

Whilst the lifting of Audio copying restrictions would be a big bonus to me ie a legitimate paying customer, I still think those who use every excuse under the sun to download music/media without paying for it, will continue to do so.

I've always seen about 90% of the comments that people make about the media companies simply not adding up. If people really believe they have a serious problem with companies making money, then that category isn't exclusive to the media industry.
Many of those that download illegally have no intention of paying and just leave the funding of the media industry up to those of us that are honest.

You would have thought that those that found any companies profits repugnant would simply boycott them.
So i'm all for legitimate customers getting flexibility (it's long overdue), but I think people like me that pay for our media, will continue to be penalised by those who have no intention of paying. I suppose they are similiar to those who refuse to have car insurance - ultimately we all pay.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Where has it said anything about removing copy protection (DRM)?

it hasnt, but obviously if DRM is kept, its effectively sticking 2 fingers up to the change. Vincent Cable called it common sense to allow people to make personal copies of media they buy.

its a step they should make.

if DRM goes, regional release dates go etc. Then I will be far more swayed towards the copyright infringerment cause. DRM defenitly turns people of buying media, they feel it is their right to make a copy if they pay for it. So removing DRM will be a very good first step in getting in touch with the consumer. Its far from a final solution tho. I am glad the government is recognising this as well.

I guess it depends on what the actual change is. If the change is so that is is no longer illegal to copy music then companies could continue to put DRM on.

If the change is to give people a right to be able to format shift then I would say DRM should not be allowed as it would stop people exercising that right.

So, I wonder which it is that they are looking to do. Decriminalise format shifting or make format shifting a "human right"?

DRM that allows copying to 3 or 4 devices is reasonable enough, obviously no DRM would be preferrable

DRM only inconveniences those who actually pay for their media. You don't see much DRM in illicit downloads (or so I'm reliably informed )

People who pay for media can also engage in piracy though, e.g. giving copies of a purchased music album to their mates.

True and obviously that's why DRM exists but it still doesn't alter the fact that hookey downloads are DRM free so it only inconveniences those who pay.

I agree I would say the affect of DRM is 0% on piracy. or at least very close to it. I think DRM is an all lose for media companies, it adds cost to develop and produce, it gives them bad PR which ultimately loses them sales and it can in some cases compromise quality of the product. Its one of those things they do because they feel they have to do it.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I agree I would say the affect of DRM is 0% on piracy. or at least very close to it. I think DRM is an all lose for media companies, it adds cost to develop and produce, it gives them bad PR which ultimately loses them sales and it can in some cases compromise quality of the product. Its one of those things they do because they feel they have to do it.

I think some people get a bit hysterical when it comes to DRM, without actually thinking how it will affect them in reality.
When a gaming company is seeing say 5x the amount of "copies" of it's game in the wild compared to the amount it has sold, I think it's quite reasonable for them to take steps to curb it. Regardless of the technicalities the shareholders will probally want to see some action taken.

DRM is here to stay, but it will just become more integral and transparent to the user. For instance I use Valve's Steam platform for most my gaming and that by design prevents copyright infringement.

not really, its completely unreasonable for a start to assume those 5x copies are lost sales.

Adding DRM loses sales thats obvious enough, the question is it does it generate sales as well? in my opinion no. Its all too easy to get a cracked copy from somewhere regardless plus the numerous cloning copying methods available to anyone with a pc and a burner.

One game I wont be buying is fable 4, lionhead took greed to a new level (or probably microsoft). They had a release policy for fable 3 which was designed to make people buy the game multiple times to get the maximum potential from the game. That is just pure immoral, we talking about a game that had an RRP of £45 a swell. So £135 to get all the weapons in the game, plus xbox live gold subs as they made a chunk of it online only as well. Situations like that and they cant figure out why piracy exists in the gaming industry.

DRM hasnt stopped me buying games however it does stop some people and is a punishment to those who legally buy media.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

DRM hasnt stopped me buying games however it does stop some people and is a punishment to those who legally buy media.

As one who makes images of games to HDD for a 'no CD' setup, DRM has been a pain. The games that won't work have basically been dumped in a box (note that I paid for them). I have no objections to DRM in principle, but ever since the 90s users have had to run games with CD / DVD in drive. There's not sense to that at all from a performance perspective, and the manufacturers have basically been ignoring users' wants in that area.

Having said that, the folk to blame are the copiers. Not the makers. Not the paying customers. Since the advent of the (widespread) Internet it would have been far easier if a registration system had been put in place, with the registrant and the copy holder both responsible for a copy found in the wild. It might not have stopped the pirates, but it would have discouraged the amateurs.

Anything moret han £20 for most games is ridiculous when they can be finished in a day. Others, such as Football Manager can be played again and again for years, and are probably better value for money. With the exception of these sorts of games, I generally avoid them unless there's a 3 for £20 type offer. I don't use steam or similar and refuse to play any game which charges a monthly fee. That's a crazy idea (but better than spending the money on drink I suppose).

an example of inconveniance is the xbox360.

star ocean 4 quite a good game and is 3 discs. on the xbox there is an option to install the game to the hdd, which I do so to reduce wear and tear and speed up game loading times. However the disc swapping is still needed for DRM enforcement. Towards the end of the game this gets very annoying as its constant swapping between disc 2 and 3. A good medium ground would have just have the game ask for a random of disc 1,2 or 3 when loading game and thats it check done no more disc swapping during game, no need to check frequently during the game.

What i want to know is :when will we the humble consumer be better protected from these shark's , that call themselves games publishers?
they are no better than those they are whining about for "Stealing" their products, Maybe if they actually provided real support and actually finished their "precious" products before actual release then i maybe more inclined to feel a tiny bit of sympathy for them, as things are i don't

example ubisoft is one big fail ,, it insists upon users connecting via it's only master server located in Montreal ,Canada, but is happy to sell their games on a global basis, from the uk the latency is 90-95ms also their server is often down, so online game play is not possible, can we sue them? no, so when they whine about someone having their( unfinished unsupported rubbish they sell as a game ) free , i say good luck to those who where not so stupid as to pay for it, ubi and other big corporates you suck, if you seriously expect us to buy then you already know what to do , blocking censoring is not that answer,

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 07-Aug-11 21:58:23)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

Maybe if they actually provided real support and actually finished their "precious" products before actual release then i maybe more inclined to feel a tiny bit of sympathy for them, as things are i don't

So boycott them and spread the word. They will respond if enough people do this. If people keep buying their games and they are not fit for purpose, return them and boycott them.

Just a little OT: for tommy45, it appears due to your complaints about BE one of its snake oil sellers is now accusing you of multi reviews.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/which_isp/t/4035310...

Shocking the staff allow that user and a select few other BE supporters to keep flaming people and recommending a congested ISP.

More shocking that you choose to attack the staff whilst hiding behind the "Anonymous" label. Don't you have the courage of your convictions?

Time to get back under your bridge.

Harry

In reply to a post by AEP:

More shocking that you choose to attack the staff whilst hiding behind the "Anonymous" label. Don't you have the courage of your convictions?

Have no desire for an account here. Was not an attack on anyone except the person making the accusations i addressed. Go back to the BE forum