Is this the start of the end

kippy

Oat23 wrote: »

Failed miserably, hasn't it? First Row has multiple new addresses that work in the UK and even have one with 'uk' in it :pac:.

I don't think so to be honest.
Sky and others will continue to chase these and other sites through the courts until they are all put down.
There's just too much money to lose for them from what I can see.

titan18

kippy wrote: »

I don't think so to be honest.
Sky and others will continue to chase these and other sites through the courts until they are all put down.
There's just too much money to lose for them from what I can see.

It's the internet though, one goes down, two more go back up.

kippy

titan18 wrote: »

It's the internet though, one goes down, two more go back up.

Those days are not far from ending though. The rights holders have, in general far more of the law and indeed technology on their side.

batistuta9

kippy wrote: »

Those days are not far from ending though. The rights holders have, in general far more of the law and indeed technology on their side.

"technology on their side"

what do you mean by that?

dmc17

kippy wrote: »

Those days are not far from ending though. The rights holders have, in general far more of the law and indeed technology on their side.

They can have all the technology they like. All it takes is one smart kid to make them all look foolish.

kippy

batistuta9 wrote: »

"technology on their side"

what do you mean by that?

Stuff like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/uk-internet-filter-block-more-than-porn_n_3670771.html
And a tonne of other technology they themselves have and are building into their own broadcasts.

kippy

dmc17 wrote: »

They can have all the technology they like. All it takes is one smart kid to make them all look foolish.

Come back to me in about 18 - 24 months time, once the lawers have had a chance to make the best use of the laws and the technology is leveraged in a way that enforces the law......

dmc17

kippy wrote: »

Come back to me in about 18 - 24 months time, once the lawers have had a chance to make the best use of the laws and the technology is leveraged in a way that enforces the law......

Seriously though, there's only so much a lawyer can do. Even the CIA are not safe from hackers. if someone is determined to do something they'll find a way around it.

batistuta9

kippy wrote: »

Stuff like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/uk-internet-filter-block-more-than-porn_n_3670771.html
And a tonne of other technology they themselves have and are building into their own broadcasts.

that filter is totally pointless, it won't work

what are they building into their broadcasts?

kippy

dmc17 wrote: »

Seriously though, there's only so much a lawyer can do. Even the CIA are not safe from hackers. if someone is determined to do something they'll find a way around it.

I'm not talking about the "hackers".
I am talking about the guy who has now knowledge of computers etc but who, through a number of people elsewhere, online fora etc, has been given a link from where to watch various streams of sporting events - all he has to do is open the link and avoid a few adds.
Those people, ie the vast majority of those that are watching streams nowadays, are the people that sky etc, want to stop from watching matches.

If you need to "proxify" your PC, or do anything to it outside the realms of just clicking a link you instantly ensure that a lot of the audience for these types of material are instantly unable to watch it.

Lawyers have far more power than you would want to give them credit for, particularly when the laws have changed so much in the past 18-24 months, with more on the way.

The last number of years have seen an explosion in the casual person having easy enough access to streams and copyrighted material, sure the guy who knows what he is at will probably always "find a way" but those people make up a small minority at this point.

kippy

batistuta9 wrote: »

that filter is totally pointless, it won't work

what are they building into their broadcasts?

I am not specificilly talking about "that filter" - just the implementation of a technology for an entire state that has the backing of the ISP's within that state to monitor and block as appropriate whatever material the law asks it to block.

You've not been keeping up if you don't know what has changed with the broadcasts (from sky anyway) in the past 12 months.

dmc17

kippy wrote: »

I'm not talking about the "hackers".
I am talking about the guy who has now knowledge of computers etc but who, through a number of people elsewhere, online fora etc, has been given a link from where to watch various streams of sporting events - all he has to do is open the link and avoid a few adds.
Those people, ie the vast majority of those that are watching streams nowadays, are the people that sky etc, want to stop from watching matches.

If you need to "proxify" your PC, or do anything to it outside the realms of just clicking a link you instantly ensure that a lot of the audience for these types of material are instantly unable to watch it.

Lawyers have far more power than you would want to give them credit for, particularly when the laws have changed so much in the past 18-24 months, with more on the way.

The last number of years have seen an explosion in the casual person having easy enough access to streams and copyrighted material, sure the guy who knows what he is at will probably always "find a way" but those people make up a small minority at this point.

I wouldn't have too much faith in it to be honest. The original Napster was shut down in 2001 I think. Can you still download music for free 12 years on?

kippy

dmc17 wrote: »

I wouldn't have too much faith in it to be honest. The original Napster was shut down in 2001 I think. Can you still download music for free 12 years on?

Right now you can,
that scene is also changing, due mostly to the law.

dmc17

kippy wrote: »

Right now you can,
that scene is also changing, due mostly to the law.

I'm sure it will all change eventually. The difficulty is the sheer volume of users and the few that are determined to beat the system will always be around and it's difficult to make global laws.

batistuta9

kippy wrote: »

I am not specificilly talking about "that filter" - just the implementation of a technology for an entire state that has the backing of the ISP's within that state to monitor and block as appropriate whatever material the law asks it to block.

You've not been keeping up if you don't know what has changed with the broadcasts (from sky anyway) in the past 12 months.

any idiot with one finger can bypass it though, so whats the real point of it?

the law has decided to block firstrow in the UK, has it done what it intended, No.
they can 'block' whatever they want & you'll still get access to it, if you want - see china

the cardsharing stuff? how do you reckon that'll effect it?

citytillidie

kippy wrote: »

I am not specificilly talking about "that filter" - just the implementation of a technology for an entire state that has the backing of the ISP's within that state to monitor and block as appropriate whatever material the law asks it to block.

You've not been keeping up if you don't know what has changed with the broadcasts (from sky anyway) in the past 12 months.

It's no way fool proof as it just blocks ISPs and last week at the request of the premier league the radio times web site was blocked

kippy

Time will tell.
My point, the casual streaming and downloading of copyrighted material will get far more difficult for the average guy on the street in the coming years.

batistuta9

kippy wrote: »

Time will tell.
My point, the casual streaming and downloading of copyrighted material will get far more difficult for the average guy on the street in the coming years.

you probably have a small point in that some will give up at the first hurdle but would these kind of people even be looking for stuff like that in the first place?

you are vastly underestimating the intelligence of people who watch football through streams or download illegally are you not (your description of average sounds like a 70 year old who afraid of a computer tbh)

surely if someone can google looking for and click a link to watch it, why can't they keep clicking until they get a link that works?
or like you said earlier follow a link provided to them on a forum

thepiratebay is banned in ireland, what are they highest results on google for it?

speedboatchase

Everyone will figure out how much they need VPNs as they become more and more essential in the coming years.

gnfnrhead

kippy wrote: »

Right now you can,
that scene is also changing, due mostly to the law.

I reckon it's easier than ever to download music, movies etc for free now. Less than a minute on Google and you have a download link for whatever you want. Streams are getting better and easier to find, pretty much the opposite of what they wanted with this block.