100M : The Pirate Bay is blocked

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

good for them, it is nice to see a company that takes pride in their service to customers and stands up for what they believe in. Love the QR code btw

BT has previously fought against a bunch of other similar legislation as well, including the DEA and various related faff. VM were involved too at one point IIRC.

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

Originally Posted by jempalmer

Were TPB supposed to be taking their servers down Sirius? I appreciate that the block is a joke but I was under the impression that they were ordered by the court to dismantle the site.

TPB already had their servers taken down by the police, they just put them back up again.

[GrimUpNorth]

There are many other sites with similar content that I'd miss more than TPB, and many sites that are no longer with us that I miss now.

Must admit I don't use TPB, usenet seems to supply me with everything I need.

Cheers

Grim

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That suit is stupid.

However, if the broadcasters don't get any money from advertising, how will they fund the programme-making?

That's there problem not the maker of this device. As for it breaking copyright it just shows how little it takes for the rights owners to see a paycheck and shout SUE.

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Except when they extradite someone...

Which they seem to be able to do any time they wish to

---------- Post added at 18:06 ---------- Previous post was at 18:05 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

There are many other sites with similar content that I'd miss more than TPB, and many sites that are no longer with us that I miss now.

Must admit I don't use TPB, usenet seems to supply me with everything I need.

Cheers

Grim

And you are far safer

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Milambar

I'm confused. How does the DISHNetworks vs Verizon/Comcast and all the others lawsuit have any bearing on how things are in the UK?

Because once they get their precedent in one country it ripples through. Do you really not think that if this gets upheld in the US it won't become 'law' in other countries? But the real point is that these people see just about everything as breaking copyright law (hence my joke about making a cuppa during adverts)

Originally Posted by Milambar

The UK does not follow US law, nor does the US judicial system have any jurdistriction over the UK.

Tell that to Richard O'Dwyer.


This is another good example of copyright law stifling innovation.

As to how content creators get paid for the TV they produce that has always been a problem with new technology and it's up to them to figure it out not get laws changed to protect the business model they alredy have.

Perhaps they should start by looking at wages. Did Charlie Sheen really need to be paid $1,000,000 per episode of Two and a Half Men (TAAHM)? At it's peak, a 30 second advert during an episode of TAAHM would cost advertisers $650,000. So, 8 minutes of adverts during each episode we are talking around $10,000.000. And before I get the obligatory that's the exception let's not forget Hugh Laurie gets $700,000 per episode of House. So Hugh Laurie earned $123,000,000 ( $123 million ) dollars for 8 years work. The sad truth is, it's more than a real person who theoretically actually had the skills of Dr. Gregory House would earn in his/her lifetime and probably a few other lifetimes.

Originally Posted by _wtf_

This should make what I posted earlier clearer. Hopefully it is a little simpler for people to understand. I do hope people read it and not just try and post some remarks they perceive as clever

Already being discussed here

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Already being discussed here

My original post (#657) was posted at 16:42 yesterday and that post at 20:32. Perhaps you should have gone all bold on that post and pointed them to my ORIGINAL post about it

Ive amended the title of this now.

Just so anyone is clear, the rule hasnt changed, but after 700 posts, Im sure everyone has got the message by now, no need for a ridiculously long title.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That suit is stupid.

However, if the broadcasters don't get any money from advertising, how will they fund the programme-making?

They dont unless they get a tv tax like the bbc or subs like sky.

With the advent of things like IPTV and easy recording via DVR then I think tv advertising has only a downward trend although it will always stay but just be less valuable because the rewards will dwindle.

Originally Posted by _wtf_

My original post (#657) was posted at 16:42 yesterday and that post at 20:32. Perhaps you should have gone all bold on that post and pointed them to my ORIGINAL post about it

Your post was off topic..so how about we return to the topic The Pirate Bay is blocked?

[_wtf_]

This lot are taking this lot to court for copyright infringement. What did they do you ask, they linked to an article about them. As linking is fundamental to the world wide web and would drive traffic to the site being linked to I would say if this became common place the web would simply cease to be.

Meanwhile in other news TPB has simply starting using one of their other IP addresses, apparently they have hundreds. It's pretty obvious that the people who pass these laws not only have no idea how the web works but have also never played whack-a-mole.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by _wtf_

This lot are taking this lot to court for copyright infringement. What did they do you ask, they linked to an article about them. As linking is fundamental to the world wide web and would drive traffic to the site being linked to I would say if this became common place the web would simply cease to be.

And I assume (as you haven't cited a source - an article or a court document for example) that it cannot be quite as black and white as you claim.

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

And I assume (as you haven't cited a source - an article or a court document for example) that it cannot be quite as black and white as you claim.

It seems some people don't know how to use Google (it was actualy proven one night).

Link*


* Hint it's the second link down.

[carlwaring]

1. No-one likes a smart-arse.
2. You could (actually should) have provided a link yourself in your original post. There is no need to make people go specifically looking.
3. That is only their response and not the original letter.

I don't have time now* to go through the whole thing, but “permission to scan clippings for 16 national titles and 90 regional newspapers plus some foreign newspapers” seems, to me, at face value, to be substantially more than them having "linked to an article".


(* I have a live show to do on the local hospital radio station.)

[Russ]

The next person to have an attitude problem with other members in this thread goes head-to-head with me - and my frack hammer is BIG.

[_wtf_]

“a licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website”.*

* Source