Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by SpareTimeBillionaire, Jul 28, 2011.
From BBC News:
Is this going to set a precedent of censorship or is it a good thing?
Well it just did set a precedent didn't it. But this is definitely not good. If i were in the UK with this ISP, i'd threaten to drop service with them if they followed through with this. Everyone else should do the same.
Unfortunately, as the historical monopoly BT owns >99% of the copper and the major switching centres. Other ISP's mostly have to go through BT at some stage, particularly to get to international sites. So even if your contract is not directly with BT, your ISP will need to have a contract with them to provide full access.
Register new domain and create a mirror on a different IP. Problem solved. If I was Newzbin I would do just that. Over and over again until BT engineers give up.
You can also use VPN to access it.
They will never win a war by blocking or shutting down individual sites.
Fortunately I receive my internet via Cable, and as far as I know Virgin Media have been pretty pro-openness when it comes to in the internet.
It sets a precedent, but I think we've reached the stage where true bottling the internet becomes almost impossible, with the availability of connection.
I also think a lot of people are blowing this situation out of proportion, almost to the point of "omg, wtf, my internetz, they gon steal it, no moar freedom". Illegal downloading, although we all do it, is technically stealing.
If you walked into a store, picked a DVD title off the shelf, and walked out without paying, the store would be able to prosecute you.
I don't condone the theft of copyright stuff. It's just that it could be the thin end of the wedge. My understanding of the site in question was that it provided links and did not hold any copyright material in its own servers. That puts all search engines in potential jeopardy if they link to sites that provide dodgy content.
The problem is the law is way behind the science and the way things work. The lawyers really need to wake up to that.
Technically but people are emotional creatures. I can't afford to spend £1500 on a copy of adobe suit. Whether I download a copy or not the end result is the same for Adobe. They are not getting my £1500. They are not losing any money. In fact, they are gaining a potential customer because I would but it the minute I could afford to throw away £1500.
Alot of their customer base comes from people that downloaded the program while they were in college. They got used to the program and liked it,so when they got a good job,or starting freelancing they bought it.
Blocking newsbin wont really stop all those flash playing movies sites. They can't block them as there are too many that serve good use to be blocked just for movies.
who cares, there are so many torrents sites
also if they want survive they should create limited communities offering hq material. If they grow big movie companies start such actions.
Also today most ppl download from file sonic oro n etc sites so who cares
Continuing on this, blocking sites draws more attention to them. I read an article on wikileaks by some guy who was involved with CP, he basically said "National blocklists/blacklists are a great way to find such sites" It's essentially a government saying "LOOK HERE IS THE BAD STUFF", particularly when you factor in computer literate users. I'm sure I can access newzbin2, infact you could probably do it through HMA (I'm talking the web based proxy not their VPN's) and how many people use that on a daily basis for other activities? It won't take them long to figure it out.
All this tells me is that the government (Or any gov) doesn't have the ability to actually take these guys down legally. So they throw up some smoke and mirrors to make it seem like they are doing something, when in reality newzbin2 is probably raking it in right now with all the free publicity!
Separate names with a comma.