https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=8642

"Peer-to-peer traffic returned to normal levels only a week after the Pirate Bay block was put in place, according to a report from a major UK ISP. [...]

Meanwhile, Dutch ISP XS4All has published figures indicating that BitTorrent traffic over their network actually increased following a Dutch ban on the site. [...]"


What are the chances of that...?

Quote chris...:

---

https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=8642

"Peer-to-peer traffic returned to normal levels only a week after the Pirate Bay block was put in place, according to a report from a major UK ISP. [...]

Meanwhile, Dutch ISP XS4All has published figures indicating that BitTorrent traffic over their network actually increased following a Dutch ban on the site. [...]"


What are the chances of that...?

---

Sure.

Its just the glee I don't get.

People with clue long ago pointed out the "ban" wouldn't work. So why bother, given that attempting to implement it makes the Intertubes that bit slower and less reliable ?

I don't believe ANY report citing Techdirt. Had to check it out on BBC before I could give it any credibility because tech dirt has absolutely none. Watch the argument logic though - extra activity doesn't mean anything. Could be more searches as the favoured routes are shut. It is a pointless solution though - you can't ban single sites. If you're going to go down that route it has to be far more ruthless.

Quote narcoman:

---

Could be more searches as the favoured routes are shut.

---

I suspect they mean traffic volume, as in Mb/s of actual transfers involving P2P traffic, not the web (http) searches that often precede said.

Quote:

---

you can't ban single sites. If you're going to go down that route it has to be far more ruthless.

---

You can filter a few sites technically (as has been done), but it's ineffective in addressing the problem.

You can't filter a huge number of sites / URLs, as the technology simply doesn't scale (see my earlier comments wrt performance and reliability).

Governments and regulations are always well behind so whatever ban they impose will most likely have no effects. The only way to get these bastards is to hack their sites everytime they come back:))

And no I don't give a [ ****** ] about the fact that might be illegal, why bother about that kind of moral since those thieving ***** don't......

Too much talk and not enough action is costing us all money! Time for a change I think:)

Quote chris...:

---

People with clue long ago pointed out the "ban" wouldn't work. So why bother, given that attempting to implement it makes the Intertubes that bit slower and less reliable ?

---

Because it clearly demonstrate that piracy is wrong, and effort is being made to stop it. For some people, they will decide that they want no part of it. Like how, back in the day, even though it was cheaper to buy pirate videos down the pub, some people preferred to buy them new anyway. It won't stop people who know all the technical details and have no care for the legal / moral implications of stealing intellectual properly.

Total inaction sends the message that its completely socially acceptable to steal on the internet.

The thing though, Johnny is (as the article mentioned) the 'Streisand Factor'. All the publicity afforded to the banning/closure of Pirate Bay possibly brought them more interest. I, for one, was barely aware of Pirate Bay before all the hoo-haa. Just here alone (as I recall) it received several pages of publicity through the discussion of it all. Who knows if that didn't steer some people there. The case had MASSIVE media coverage - more free advertising and publicity than PB could ever afford!

I am reminded of Frankie's 'Relax' when the BBC banned it - went straight to #1 (mind you, that was a bloody great track)!! That ban (instigated by Mike Reid) and the controversy surrounding it gave the record more publicity than ZTT could ever afford!

Just my mentioning this point has given PB some free publicity!

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

Quote johnny h:

---

Because it clearly demonstrate that piracy is wrong

---

Ah the old "something must be done" (regardless of how ineffective, and the negative side-effects).

Quote:

---

Total inaction sends the message that its completely socially acceptable to steal on the internet.

---

Perhaps suing some pirates might send a message - without impacting smooth running of things for the rest of us.

Quote hollowsun:

---

am reminded of Frankie's 'Relax' when the BBC banned it

---

Yep - people would do well to remember how effective that "ban" was.

Everybody on the planet ended up hearing "Relax", *not* just the select few who knew some "technical details" (as Johnny H puts it).

Quote chris...:

---

Quote hollowsun:

---

am reminded of Frankie's 'Relax' when the BBC banned it

---

Yep - people would do well to remember how effective that "ban" was.

Everybody on the planet ended up hearing "Relax", *not* just the select few who knew some "technical details" (as Johnny H puts it).

---

That's totally unrelated. There are no 'technical details' relating to a 30 year old ban of a record.

It requires a small effort to install a torrent program and with it comes the fear of viruses, spam, illegality and the feeling of being a cheapskate. For some this outweighs the advantage of free content. In Germany its common to hear of people being fined for downloading torrents. These stories are a good way to discourage downloading and do so amongst people I've talked to out there.

But its ridiculous why pirate bay is so easy to find. They are making loads of money out of it, and so are Google, and so are the ISPs. Why should these companies be allowed to make money out of stolen goods?

Maybe because they have such a cosy relationship with the government.
Tories and Google

Quote johnny h:

---

That's totally unrelated. There are no 'technical details' relating to a 30 year old ban of a record.

---

I'm not so sure. OK, it's a while back now, and the details are somewhat hazy, but presumably, in the early days of the ban, you had to "know what you were doing" to access / tune-in to some obscure radio station, in order to hear the track all your friends were talking about.

That everyone ended up hearing it, goes to show the futility of attempting to ban stuff.

Or at least, the futility of attempting to ban stuff people want to get at. We need to arrange that people don't want to get at the stuff in question (illicit music files).

Quote chris...:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

That's totally unrelated. There are no 'technical details' relating to a 30 year old ban of a record.

---

I'm not so sure. OK, it's a while back now, and the details are somewhat hazy, but presumably, in the early days of the ban, you had to "know what you were doing" to access / tune-in to some obscure radio station, in order to hear the track all your friends were talking about.

---

Or you had to buy it, which is how it become so successful. (being a very good track hardly hindered it).

Quote:

---

That everyone ended up hearing it, goes to show the futility of attempting to ban stuff.

Or at least, the futility of attempting to ban stuff people want to get at. We need to arrange that people don't want to get at the stuff in question (illicit music files).

---

That's a very wooly statement. How would you propose to "arrange that people don't want" to get at "illicit music files"? Complete inaction seems, as a strategy, not so much hopeful but hopeless.

Quote johnny h:

---

That's totally unrelated. There are no 'technical details' relating to a 30 year old ban of a record.

---

Maybe - but the fact of the matter is that banning the record with all the media circus hooplas actually PROMOTED it helping it to get to #1 ... and ZTT played on that, selling t-shirts ("Frankie says 'Relax'") and so on. The rest is history.

And so (as I understand it) was the case with Pirate Bay - the banning and publicity almost promoted sympathy for them and 'the cause' with some (a lot of ignorant) loons thinking that PB was democratising music and software. Bollocks (as I am sure you will agree). But the media publicity brought PB to the attention of people who might have otherwise not known about them or torrents or illegal downloads and maybe (in their ignorance) interpreted the whole thing as 'corporate oppression' and so signed up to maybe 'stick it to the man'.

The 'banning' of PB possibly/probably did more harm than good!

Quote johnny h:

---

Maybe because they have such a cosy relationship with the government.

---

Oh, for goodness' sake. Are you really so naive to assume that Blair and Brown and New Labour weren't in with Google as well? They shouldered up to everyone else (the bankers, big business and so forth - not so much 'New Labour' as 'Red Tories' IYSWIM).

This was a party that wanted (and legislated for) more and more surveillance, ID cards, extended detention times without arrest, etc..

They also invested £billions (of OUR money) in (failed) IT to file us all on databases. Sounds a lot like Google to me (but at least Google aren't incompetent enough to leave that data on a train or the back seat of a taxi or put a CD of it in the post)

But that's off topic (even though you raised it).

The (sad) fact is that the media circus raised the profile of PB to people who'd probably never heard of it and might even have encouraged piracy. Good move!

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

Yes, the only way a ban will work is if the ban includes an effective cessation of production/supply, otherwise you just make it cool. Clockwork Orange, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Drugs, Speeding, smoking behind the bike sheds, ASBOs, 80s TV shock Heroin warnings, the list goes on.

In fact if you really wan't to promote something beyond it's nich use then ban it.

Interesting watching the Homa Affairs Select Committee chaired by Keith Vaz yesterday discussing UK narcotics policy. Exactly the same effect as the above.

I never heard of Pirate Bay before the ban.

Human beings progress(?) is defined by our desire to get things that we can't have! Once you tell a human that thay can't have something you just strengthen their resolve to get it. That got us to the moon, to find the Higgs Boson, and on and on. It's built into our wiring.

Quote hollowsun:

---

The thing though, Johnny is (as the article mentioned) the 'Streisand Factor'. All the publicity afforded to the banning/closure of Pirate Bay possibly brought them more interest.

---

No such thing as bad publicity !

certainly in this case anyway..

Quote hollowsun:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

That's totally unrelated. There are no 'technical details' relating to a 30 year old ban of a record.

---

Maybe - but the fact of the matter is that banning the record with all the media circus hooplas actually PROMOTED it helping it to get to #1 ... and ZTT played on that, selling t-shirts ("Frankie says 'Relax'") and so on. The rest is history.

And so (as I understand it) was the case with Pirate Bay - the banning and publicity almost promoted sympathy for them and 'the cause' with some (a lot of ignorant) loons thinking that PB was democratising music and software. Bollocks (as I am sure you will agree). But the media publicity brought PB to the attention of people who might have otherwise not known about them or torrents or illegal downloads and maybe (in their ignorance) interpreted the whole thing as 'corporate oppression' and so signed up to maybe 'stick it to the man'.

The 'banning' of PB possibly/probably did more harm than good!

---

Well look, there are no meaningful studies of this. You have the RIAA on one side saying that a 13 year old teenager is liable for a squillian billion dollars in compensation for sharing one mp3 and on the other side freetard propaganda claiming having your whole discography available for free actually 'helps' you because it gives you 'promotion', Both arguments are so ridiculous it leaves the debate purely in the gutter.

Quote:

---

Quote johnny h:

---

Maybe because they have such a cosy relationship with the government.

---

Oh, for goodness' sake. Are you really so naive to assume that Blair and Brown and New Labour weren't in with Google as well? They shouldered up to everyone else (the bankers, big business and so forth - not so much 'New Labour' as 'Red Tories' IYSWIM).
..

But that's off topic (even though you raised it).

---

So you are saying Labour sucked up to big business too? Well thanks, captain obvious. You would hope the government would be biased towards an industry Britian has some part in (music) as opposed to one it has almost no part in (internet search).

Quote:

---

The (sad) fact is that the media circus raised the profile of PB to people who'd probably never heard of it and might even have encouraged piracy. Good move!

---

Its in the interests of pirate bay and Google to promote it. Google are at heart and advertising company. They know how to do this. Pirate bay is extremely well known amongst people who download things so I don't think it will have encouraged a significant number of extra users, but as I said before its all speculation as all the 'research' in this area is highly biased and unreliable.

The Swiss government recently conducted a study, which revealed that people's downloading habits have little or effect on their buying patterns. If people have the money to spend on entertainment, they spend it, regardless of whether they also download from Pirate Bay. So it has remained a legal activity here, as banning it would have no effect.

Quote Thomas.:

---

The Swiss government recently conducted a study, which revealed that people's downloading habits have little or effect on their buying patterns. If people have the money to spend on entertainment, they spend it, regardless of whether they also download from Pirate Bay. So it has remained a legal activity here, as banning it would have no effect.

---

That was pretty much what I thought. I never stopped buying LPs just because I could get copies on cassette. Likewise I've not stopped buying the odd BluRay CD or DVD just because it's quite possible to download the films.

Home taping didn't kill music,

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

The swiss government survey was complete and utter rubbish conducted by people who had no ability to conduct such survey or mathematically or socially interpret the results.

On a more personal view - we're a lot older than the majority of pop buyers. We are also music fans - our way of working isn't indicative of the great majority.

Piracy has affected purchase patterns - but not as heavily as the RIAA would say. It's just part of a bigger change in the way entertainment media is consumed and other areas to spend money. The difficulty is in quantifying "how much". There is a strong correlation between music sales decline and the proliferation of piracy. However - correlation is only a catalyst for interpretation. I suspect it IS largely responsible but that is purely conjecture. It is, however, conjecture from an individual with a great deal more qualification to comment on the matter than the Swiss governments ill formed "survey". For example - no acknowledgement of the lowering of desirability because "anybody can get it".

I don't pretent to know what the answer is to stop piracy but banning anything seems to have a fairly poor track record..... Making the alternative more attractive in some way does tend to work better.....

With that in mind, a marketing thought for the industry. Take my demographic - a 40 something working bloke with some disposable income to chuck at hobbys one of which is buying music.

I was brought up being told that sound quality was everything. I saw Michael Rod smearing a shiney disk with jam and bought them eagerly for the sound quality improvements promissed. I went for a few SACD's when they came out. As such, there is one album I've actually bought 3 times (vinyl, cd and SACD). And then the industry went in the direction of quantity and quality was forgotten.

As I spend hours on the road, the convenience of MP3 is a blessing. I would never have thought I'd have gone down the MP3 route as it has to fight the inner music snob tooth and nail but it has won. The convenience of hearing a tune and getting it for my very own within seconds is just too wonderful to not do it. However, the part of me that has been intensively marketed to for years yearns for these mp3's to be top quality. Or give me flacs so I can do it.

I am probably not unique.

Why is it that if I wish to legally buy an MP3 the best I can easily find is 256k? If I decide to download it illegally, flacs and 320k are out there.

Being a moral old fart, I give Amazon or iTunes my £7 and accept their inferior quality OR I order the actual CD and wait.

Were I a less moral old fart, I'd have CD quality music for nowt inside 5 minutes. It really gets my goat that the thing I pay for is of inferior quality to the pirated version. What on earth is that all about???

I quite accept that the industry is hurting due to piracy. But the industry should do the right thing by the people that DO still support it and insist on free choice of download format with online stores. That way, those of us that still 'do the right thing' can do so without feeling stung by needless poor quality vs if we stopped supporting the music industry and got it for nothing. Of course, there will be folks with iPod Nanos that are equally cheesed off as 256k are too big.... Again, free choice of format makes sense.

Rant over. But if someone wants to tell me where I can buy flacs or 320k mp3 from a catalogue the size of iTunes / Amazon then I'll be grateful. In some instances with Amazon, they'll actually deliver you the physical CD (paying for packaging, the post, someone to put it in the box and the product itself) CHEAPER than they will do you a 256k vbr download.

Sorry, I had said rant over. And then started again.

Quote Gary_W:

---

banning anything seems to have a fairly poor track record.....

---

"the more you tell people not to do something, the more they go at it hammer'n'tongues."

(sorry, just been watching Twenty Twelve, discussing olympic sex-education)

Quote Gary_W:

---

Rant over. But if someone wants to tell me where I can buy flacs or 320k mp3 from a catalogue the size of iTunes / Amazon then I'll be grateful. In some instances with Amazon, they'll actually deliver you the physical CD (paying for packaging, the post, someone to put it in the box and the product itself) CHEAPER than they will do you a 256k vbr download.

---

There was (is?) a question on the "Weird Al" Yankovic website FAQ, asking which format (CD or download) gave him the greater income, and the surprising (to me at least) reply was CD. Which says to me that there is some serious gouging going on by the electronic retailers.

Quote ow:

---

Yes, the only way a ban will work is if the ban includes an effective cessation of production/supply, otherwise you just make it cool. Clockwork Orange, Lady Chatterley's Lover, Drugs, Speeding, smoking behind the bike sheds, ASBOs, 80s TV shock Heroin warnings, the list goes on.

---

Agreed. Clockwork Orange wasn't 'banned' as such, Kubrick asked for it to be withdrawn after getting heartily sick of the tabloids blaming it for every incident of violence going.

While it was effective in removing it from shelves in the UK, it didn't stop me buying a Swedish subtitled version on VHS in a FNAC in Madrid while on holiday... where there's a will there's a way. Thinking about it, the only reason the FNAC stocked this VHS was to flog it to Brits who couldn't buy it in the UK (doubt the locals wanted it), and I suspect the only reason I bought it was because I couldn't see it in the UK. I probably only watched it once or twice. The moral of the tale? Was it ever thus.

--------------------
"Playing the right notes, but not neccesarily in the right order"

Three strikes rule halves piracy in New Zealand