Says the Guardian HERE

Edited by Gone To Lunch (04/11/11 12:54 PM)

Oh dear dare I be the first to reply!
It wont work.
There are far to many other ways for people to download movies,music,porn ect for free.
I wonder if any research has been one on why people think its ok to download and not buy music/films culture?

it DOES work. Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work.

---

Evidence?

Quote:

---

Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Remember that the pirates are using tools (e.g bit torrent clients, and other things) to perpetrate their piracy. The tools are written by clever people, but used by people with little technical clue.

The use of "weird routes" (and whatever else it takes to bypass any blocking attempts) will inevitably be built right into the tools, and entirely automatic, so ultimately, the pirates using the tools won't have to do anything different from what they've done in the past. Most won't even be aware the "weird routes" are involved.

A better plan might involve (where possible) suing pirates, and, most importantly, educating the public.

In terms of addressing it, I think it will help to connect illegal music downloads with illegal porn downloads (and the pirates who are behind both) in the public's mind.

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work. Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Narcoman, can I ask a naive question. Does Pirate Bay and the like make money or is it a sort of 'we're liberating music for the masses' business model? I've never used a pirate 'vendor'. Needless to say, Robin Hood/Dick Turpin, both just as bad. But I honestly don't know how it typically works and I'm really curious. As for your observation that making piracy downloads harder will help, I am sure you are right.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

100% with Narco on this. It is possible to copy commercial/rented DVDs, but it's a pain and it requires downloading viri/led bits of software from dodgy sites. And when you burn them to DVDs... often they don't work and waste plastic... I have been told..

I was watching the Big Bang Theory a few nights ago from a Czec website and it pushed my fragile SONY VAIO's NVIDIA video chip to the limit (maybe a virus too?) which caused it to crash, damage the chip (let's no get into this...), and turning my expensive computer into lovely doorstop. Lesson learnt!

My point is, by making it difficult, albeit and admittedly not impossible, to clone digital media, it's already a huge step forward to minimise digital theft. Like installing a double lock on your front door: it won't stop the determine professional, but the local scumbag/druggy probably will.

--------------------
www.bugiolacchi.com
Songwriter/guitarist

Quote chris...:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work.

---

Evidence?

Quote:

---

Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Remember that the pirates are using tools (e.g bit torrent clients, and other things) to perpetrate their piracy. The tools are written by clever people, but used by people with little technical clue.

The use of "weird routes" (and whatever else it takes to bypass any blocking attempts) will inevitably be built right into the tools, and entirely automatic, so ultimately, the pirates using the tools won't have to do anything different from what they've done in the past. Most won't even be aware the "weird routes" are involved.

A better plan might involve (where possible) suing pirates, and, most importantly, educating the public.

---

aal of the above.

Evidence? Less piracy in Denmark.

Honestly - make anything harder and you'll remove some of the issue. Do nothing, and there are no changes. You'll never get RID of piracy - but by blocking sites you stop people like my dad. !!

That's most pirates - people who haven't got a fekking clue and just go to a torrent site. Block those IPs.... done for 90% of piracy. Most pirates aren't wised up computer genius' - they're just idiots who've been given an easy route. Make it hard, and trust me, a lot of the issue goes away. It's the whole reasoning for speed cameras (just drive around with your number plate covered up), an old lady at the self service check out (the possibility that they might be caught).

Everything in life is governed by how hard it is to do. Piracy is just so piss easy at the moment. Make it hard.... cus you'll never completely lose it. Oh - and those grannies who get slammed down hard in the USA with $20,000 fines. [ ****** ] em. Double the fine when they complain.....

Quote baward:

---

In terms of addressing it, I think it will help to connect illegal music downloads with illegal porn downloads...

---

Which could (arguably) make it all the more attractive to some/many people (i.e. teenage lads with raging hormones!).

Better, perhaps, to associate piracy with all the virii and sh!t that gets embedded in cracks and warez as you rummage around the virtual dark back streets and alleyways where the lowlife crims hang out who, in real life, would take your hand off just to grab your cheap watch.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work. Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Narcoman, can I ask a naive question. Does Pirate Bay and the like make money or is it a sort of 'we're liberating music for the masses' business model? I've never used a pirate 'vendor'. Needless to say, Robin Hood/Dick Turpin, both just as bad. But I honestly don't know how it typically works and I'm really curious. As for your observation that making piracy downloads harder will help, I am sure you are right.

---

Advertising believe it or not!! And some of them (like the old russian owned MP3.com) charged fees.

Quote narcoman:

---

Evidence? Less piracy in Denmark.

---

A few years ago various Danish ISPs implemented a trivial-to-work-around block on thepiratebay's main website. I'm struggling to find any stats on how much this reduced piracy in Denmark (if at all).

Quote:

---

Most pirates aren't wised up computer genius' - they're just idiots who've been given an easy route.

---

Yep - that's the whole point. The standard tools (torrent client etc) will be updated by one computer genius, then used by loads of idiots.

For example, the BT newzbin2 "block" isn't even in place yet; however, the operators of the site have already updated their client to work around it.

For everyone who's fallen for it (not just Narco), the "it'll-stop-all-but-determined-pirates" idea is naive, and I'm afraid bollox.

Quote narcoman:

---

Advertising believe it or not!!

---

Shurely that ought to be sortable. Why are the companies who's products are advertised doing business with TPB ? Same goes for the banks/paypal handling the money, and the ad networks linking all this stuff up. They are all legit companies, so why are they doing business with TPB ?

Quote chris...:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

Advertising believe it or not!!

---

Shurely that ought to be sortable. Why are the companies who's products are advertised doing business with TPB ? Same goes for the banks/paypal handling the money, and the ad networks linking all this stuff up. They are all legit companies, so why are they doing business with TPB ?

---

absolutely

Quote chris...:

---

For everyone who's fallen for it (not just Narco), the "it'll-stop-all-but-determined-pirates" idea is naive, and I'm afraid bollox.

---

Dear chap - Nobody has fallen for anything. It's one part that's all. I'll tell you what DOESN'T work - simple legislation. It needs legislation with meaningful punishment and pro-active shut down.

Can't find stats for Denmark? There aren't any. But sales are UP.

Quote narcoman:

---

Nobody has fallen for anything.

---

Virtually everyone who's already posted on this thread (and probably most of those who are about to do so...)

have fallen for the notion that trivial-to-work-around blocks will stop all but determined pirates. As I've said above, the use of tools means this is not the case.

Even a web browser is a tool. How many kids have written their own web browser ? And how many use a one someone else wrote ? Do they need to know how it works under the hood ? By the same token, it will not be necessary to be a computer geek in order to use tools that facilitate piracy (which includes web browsers).

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work. Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Narcoman, can I ask a naive question. Does Pirate Bay and the like make money or is it a sort of 'we're liberating music for the masses' business model? I've never used a pirate 'vendor'. Needless to say, Robin Hood/Dick Turpin, both just as bad. But I honestly don't know how it typically works and I'm really curious. As for your observation that making piracy downloads harder will help, I am sure you are right.

---

Advertising believe it or not!! And some of them (like the old russian owned MP3.com) charged fees.

---

Makes you sick, doesn't it. Bringing down an entire industry just to scrape a few meager scraps from the bottom of the barrel. I guess charging fees direct is no longer an option as the perpetrators could be traced too easily through their merchant services, you would hope. But has anyone tried suing the advertisers directly? That might hurt their revenue supply badly enough maybe, if there was a way through international law?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

charging fees direct is no longer an option as the perpetrators could be traced too easily through their merchant services, you would hope.

---

The operative words being "you would hope".

Newzbin2 (the subject of recent court order for BT to "block") DO charge.

Why they haven't been traced and sued, in the way you suggest, I don't know.

Quote chris...:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

Advertising believe it or not!!

---

Shurely that ought to be sortable. Why are the companies who's products are advertised doing business with TPB ? Same goes for the banks/paypal handling the money, and the ad networks linking all this stuff up. They are all legit companies, so why are they doing business with TPB ?

---

Huge traffic brought on by the provision of pirated content.

It's the standard format nowadays. In the old days they charged a membership or subscription. Now they rely on advertising revenue generated by huge traffic without charging users.

I have always said this: remove the link to the breached content and only the diehards will chase it. Most of the music content that is pirated is not done by computer programmers or seriously clued up techies. It's kids and the like who have been moulded into believing that anything this is digital in format can be taken without it being 'illegal'.

Then you have the penae who try to justify it.
Here's a good example and it was educational for me:

I was at a party with family and the son of the voice coach for my niece was chatting to me about music. I asked him how many songs he had on his i-whatever. He said '4,500'. I asked him how many he had actually paid for. He said 'none' He then qualified this with: 'well, it's the 3 album rule innit?' I asked him what the 3 album rule was and he informed me that once an artist/band had released 3 albums it meant they, in his words, were 'caked' and therefore had made enough money that he could take the artist's products without paying and feeling guilty about it.

You see, to steal digital format content is now viewed as theft by many irrespective of how you explain it to them. If it can be copied and redistributed without having to steal the original then it's not piracy/theft.

Go figure.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote chris...:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

charging fees direct is no longer an option as the perpetrators could be traced too easily through their merchant services, you would hope.

---

The operative words being "you would hope".

Newzbin2 (the subject of recent court order for BT to "block") do charge.

Why they haven't been traced and sued, in the way you suggest, I don't know.

---

It most certainly can be done and if not yet in law, then that is perhaps an area for the meaningful legislation Narcoman is suggesting. Maybe Steve Hill has an explanation as to why my simple logic is flawed?

Going back to the advertisers, has anybody thought of a campaign vehicle that names and shames them? Or has it been deemed that this would simply generate more advertising for them at zero cost?

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

It most certainly can be done and if not yet in law, then that is perhaps an area for the meaningful legislation Narcoman is suggesting. Maybe Steve Hill has an explanation as to why my simple logic is flawed?

---

Why would new legislation be needed ? Newzbin have already been found in breach of existing copyright laws. And as you say, in this case, as they charge, there's a money trail. So why haven't they been sued ?

Quote Frisonic:

---

Going back to the advertisers, has anybody thought of a campaign vehicle that names and shames them? Or has it been deemed that this would simply generate more advertising for them at zero cost?

---

I like this idea.
After all, they are the ones that fund the pirate sites..........apart from the gang dude with 8 tons of narks and 50 babes working for him.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote Zukan:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

Going back to the advertisers, has anybody thought of a campaign vehicle that names and shames them? Or has it been deemed that this would simply generate more advertising for them at zero cost?

---

I like this idea.
After all, they are the ones that fund the pirate sites..........apart from the gang dude with 8 tons of narks and 50 babes working for him.

---

It would be something the industry could so immediately, without having to work around the courts, never mind the confusion of cross border legislation and I doubt it would even need to cost that much in the great scheme of things. It would really only be an extension of the awareness campaigns that have been going on for years already, but more targeted at the funders rather than the 'consumer'. Of course how successful it would be might depend upon the nature of the advertisers, some of whom might even feel they are gaining credibility by being 'outed' (such as the 'front ends' of the kind of businesses Zukan eludes to). I don't know as I have never seen them. But equally I can imagine there are plenty of legitimate businesses that are investing in on line campaigns and not really even knowing where their advertisements are showing up, who might unwittingly be finding themselves front and center of pirate sites, with unscrupulous media companies working unethically in the middle. I can easily imagine that scenario. If that were the case it would be fairly easy to cause a big fuss within the advertising industry.

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote chris...:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

It most certainly can be done and if not yet in law, then that is perhaps an area for the meaningful legislation Narcoman is suggesting. Maybe Steve Hill has an explanation as to why my simple logic is flawed?

---

Why would new legislation be needed ? Newzbin have already been found in breach of existing copyright laws. And as you say, in this case, as they charge, there's a money trail. So why haven't they been sued ?

---

Because you'd need book legislation outlining what you can do. so far there is none. Being in breach does not give you a course of action. Legislation for immediate blocking, or raids, or bank asset seizure etc .... Being sued takes a LONG time (my company has been involved in many many copyright breech cases for out of territory use of material - we deal with those breaches as part of the overall licensing work we do.)

Naming and shaming - whilst looking like a proper thing to do - is a dangerous game. Word it wrong and find yourself on the back end of a libel claim. bummer init?

Right - interesting.

Quote narcoman:

---

Naming and shaming - whilst looking like a proper thing to do - is a dangerous game. Word it wrong and find yourself on the back end of a libel claim. bummer init?

---

I guess its down to risk management. But surely, in that scenario, the libel claim would descend into a counter suing blame game, in which the record company would be able to fairly easily demonstrate the moral high ground, provided prof was evident that the cited advertisement did indeed appear on said pirate site at given time on given date. I don't know how you would do that to the satisfaction of a court but assuming one could, its pretty black and white. In which case the advertiser would then be left with burden of proving their innocence against the 'bad' of either the pirate site or their advertising agency. I guess you end up with a war between the IP owners (record companies etc) and advertising agencies. But the IP owners didn't start it in the courts, they only named and shamed... My guess is that it would soon become obvious that it was to the advantage of all legitimate parties that it was better settled in the bar rather than at the Bar. It would certainly be the recording industry taking on their risk downside more aggressively than they have been able to do thus far.

Always been a great believe in that old adage about fortune smiling on the brave. This is why I am probably being a wide eyed innocent rather than a practicing lawyer...

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work. Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Don't get me wrong I'm all for any legitimate efforts.
As a newsgroups user for legitimate uses I can assure you no one will ever stop binsearch and newsgroups where files get shared with frightening ease.
They are fragmented so someone like BT will not know what your downloading.
Encrypted downloads also take care of this big brother action.
So no Nacroman it won't work I'm afraid.
And for the record why should porn take it in the neck?
There's nothing wrong with legal erotica.

Quote narcoman:

---

Naming and shaming - whilst looking like a proper thing to do - is a dangerous game. Word it wrong and find yourself on the back end of a libel claim. bummer init?

---

Oh, missed that bit. Presumably you'd contact the company first, to ask for their response. Some/most may well not be aware this is happening.

(e.g they pay some ad network, without being fully aware where their ads are being placed...)

As for going public, I'd like to think a screenshot of the company's ad at the top of thepiratebay.com would be quite a good libel defence. But perhaps not sufficient.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this stuff has been looked at, and it would be good to read some papers. (Will do when time permits).

The ubiquitous GoogleAds will place context sensitive ads wherever anyone has subscribed to the service so it's quite possible/likely that a (for example) Native Instruments ad could appear on a dodgy site which has subscribed to GoogleAds and making cracks of Kontakt or Kontakt library available.

As well as being a legal nightmare in the 'naming and shaming' thing, it also causes a lot of confusion for those not 'in the know' (i.e. most people) who get to a dodgy site to get a crack of Kontakt and see an ad from NI on the site which somehow adds credibility to the site....

"Oh - it's ok to download these warez as the site's endorsed by the manufacturer"

Ermmmm ... no - it's the randomness of GoogleAds.

I run a few forums that get their revenue from GoogleAds. They're all kosher (obviously) but as soon as someone mentions Kontakt or Komplete or Reaktor - whatever - in a post, an ad for NI appears.

Now, extrapolate....

You're running a dodgy pirate site using GoogleAds for revenue to support it....

Someone posts a link to a crack of Kontakt or my Kontakt library and presto - a context sensitive GoogleAd for NI appears!

Can't exactly name and shame NI for 'advertising' via GoogleAds on a warez site providing links to cracks of their own product because of the random, context sensitive nature of GoogleAds.

Google have a lot to answer for!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote hollowsun:

---

Can't exactly name and shame [whoever] for 'advertising' via GoogleAds on a warez site

---

No and yes. Any legit company buying ad space via Google AdSense (then washing their hands) ought to be fully aware what this actually means.

Google would share any blame - they shouldn't be giving ad revenue to pirate sites. But I guess a problem is many of the sites will *claim* they host legit content (and deal with anything infringing...) so therefore they qualify to host the ads.

Note that Google is being used completely hypothetically in my post (and I think Hollowsun's). The Pirate Bay ads appear to be from some other ad network, and NOT Google AdSense.

I'm getting this now... So, the 'nightmare' is the music industry suing Google! Yes, well, that would indeed take balls of steel. My immediate thought would be a 'music industry' vehicle to take forward the name and shame action, perhaps supported discreetly by the bona fide music industry but one that has absolutely nothing by way of assets that Google, or whoever, could go for in the event of losing. A sort of silver torpedo...

The more I understand this the more I begin to realise it's Silicone Valley relentlessly pushing through their own smash and grab agenda that offer's the pirates cover. I couldn't help noticing another thread started by forum regular Dubman earlier this evening, that brought our attention to a Rolling Stone article that seemed to indicate that Silicone Valley are currently coining most of the music industry's revenues...

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote Frisonic:

---

I'm getting this now... So, the 'nightmare' is the music industry suing Google!

---

Other pirate sites exist, but as I said, the ads on the Pirate Bay site are *not* placed by Google AdSense.

A quick look suggests TPB get their ads from a company who's website's "Contact Us" page gives a postal address in Israel.

Where's Steve Hill when we need him!

Yes an no Frisonic (great posts BTW). I don't think the music industry, as we might qualify it, is really a player in this act. What we have are various digital services - either ISPs, search providers, ad-revenue-based start-ups, digital evangelists, bloggers et al etc. all of whom rely on traffic and traffic-based-revenue as income. And, unfortunately for music producers, songwriters and musicians, music is the lowest hanging fruit - the most readily available, abundant and un-legislatable ubiquitous content - music is the easiest traffic/content in the digital ecosystem. It seems like a sad coinidence to me. Otherwise why wouldn't the Pirate Party and the other freetards be out there campaigning against agri-pharma and the real evil in this world?

Quote MC Deli:

---

music is the lowest hanging fruit

---

Ain't that the truth!

--------------------
Strictly project and just for fun

Quote chris...:

---

Quote Frisonic:

---

I'm getting this now... So, the 'nightmare' is the music industry suing Google!

---

Other pirate sites exist, but as I said, the ads on the Pirate Bay site are *not* placed by Google AdSense.

A quick look suggests TPB get their ads from a company who's website's "Contact Us" page gives a postal address in Israel.

Where's Steve Hill when we need him!

---

Busy moving house, since you ask! But back online now.

I can't add a lot to all of the above. I do think BT (and other ISPs) blocking sites has a purpose, if only encouraging parents to tell their kids that some things are just wrong... ultimately that's the issue. The August riots in Britain were not some vast impulsive anti-capitalist protest movement. 75% of them had criminal records and thought "Free stuff! Let's go!!"

It's about telling right from wrong. Interestingly, my daughter's primary school has leaflets on display about illegal downloading, funded by the music business.

The discussion about advertising revenue is interesting. Could Google, Facebook etc in some way be liable for funding illegal activity, e.g. after being put on notice that they should cease and desist? They'd fight it, obviously, and it would be in court for years. You'd need a very big fighting fund.

I still quite like the US approach: take a few random downloaders to the cleaners and bankrupt them with $1.5 million jury awards for damages arising from downloading 24 songs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote chris...:

---

For example, the BT newzbin2 "block" isn't even in place yet; however, the operators of the site have already updated their client to work around it.

For everyone who's fallen for it (not just Narco), the "it'll-stop-all-but-determined-pirates" idea is naive, and I'm afraid bollox.

---

What you say may well be the case,
but you could also say the same thing about a whole raft of other illegal activities, from murder downwards.

Having gun licensing, for instance, does not stop criminals acquiring guns and murdering people. Indeed, making murder illegal does not stop murderers murdering people. But society still makes it illegal and takes a few perfunctory steps to restrict the availability of weapons, put some CCTV up, etc, rather than just shrugging its shoulders and saying "tsk, you'll never stop murderers!"

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote hollowsun:

---

Google have a lot to answer for!

---

A good question to start with would be: 'How come TPB got done in court and their owners both fined and sentenced and you still index their site?'

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

My brother tried to use Vuze,but had big problems trying to dwnload films,the download speed he was getting,made it virtually impossible to get,and watch a film ilegly(sorry spelling).

I know a few people that use Vuze,and they have had no problems in using this torrent software.
My bro,was getting very confused and frustrated,on why,people he knew could do what he was trying.
He eentually rang Sky(isp),and they,after about an hour of trying to find out the problem,(the operater stted he should read between the lines),that they where blocking him from using this download software.
I dont know how or why,but he nonetheless cannot download films using Vuze.
He did try to use other torrent sites,to no avail.
Unless...he uses"hide my ass.com",this is a program which hides your ip address,so your isp,cant find you.(i imagine this is what kiddie fiddlers use).
Alot of film,blu-ray companys,mainly Sony at the mo,use Ciniva,a program inside the film decoding,which somehow knows if the copy you are watching is illegal(yaay),and cuts the sound out,i think that will be the next step,alot easier than blocking sites,taking people to court etc..



Just my 2p.

--------------------
MMMmmmmm,why cant i get it sounding right???

colin s, is that you?
... if not one is enough...

--------------------
www.bugiolacchi.com
Songwriter/guitarist

Quote feline1:

---

Quote chris...:

---

For example, the BT newzbin2 "block" isn't even in place yet; however, the operators of the site have already updated their client to work around it.

For everyone who's fallen for it (not just Narco), the "it'll-stop-all-but-determined-pirates" idea is naive, and I'm afraid bollox.

---

What you say may well be the case,
but you could also say the same thing about a whole raft of other illegal activities, from murder downwards.

Having gun licensing, for instance, does not stop criminals acquiring guns and murdering people. Indeed, making murder illegal does not stop murderers murdering people. But society still makes it illegal and takes a few perfunctory steps to restrict the availability of weapons, put some CCTV up, etc, rather than just shrugging its shoulders and saying "tsk, you'll never stop murderers!"

---

Exactly right!!

Quote GLENN:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

it DOES work. Blocking casual easy piracy is the key. Blocking stuff by making people take weird routes, makes it harder and that is ALL that counts.

---

Don't get me wrong I'm all for any legitimate efforts.
As a newsgroups user for legitimate uses I can assure you no one will ever stop binsearch and newsgroups where files get shared with frightening ease.
They are fragmented so someone like BT will not know what your downloading.
Encrypted downloads also take care of this big brother action.
So no Nacroman it won't work I'm afraid.
And for the record why should porn take it in the neck?
There's nothing wrong with legal erotica.

---

Then you are missing the point. It's not a "source " block - it's "banned from entering an illegal ISP". It works. It just has to be maintained. BT not knowing what you're downloading? They don't need to. They just ban any sites promoting and linking to illegal material. That simple, They do it already in Denmark and it's worked very well.

Legal porn? Why would you block that?

Newsgroups? no longer the biggest source of piracy. Not by a long long way. The biggest sources are the straight in the face operational promo websites. As said above - doing nothing is stupid.