31 de maio de 2012
30 de maio de 2012
EU Report Reveals P2P Traffic Interference By ISPs
EU Report Reveals P2P Traffic Interference By ISPs:
Hundreds of ISPs all over the world limit and restrict BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer traffic on their networks, and Europe is no exception. A new EU report sheds light on how common these practices are.
The report was initiated in 2011 following requests from the European Commission addressed to BEREC, the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications. The aim was to gather information relating to the net neutrality debate, specifically regarding actions taken by ISPs to hinder, throttle, block or degrade Internet traffic.
A questionnaire was sent to out to ISPs across Europe and in the end responses from a total of 381 ISPs were considered, 266 ‘fixed line’ ISPs (140 million subscribers) and 115 mobile operators (200 million subscribers).
Among other things they were asked about their traffic management practices in respect of a range of objectives including preserving quality of service, contractual agreements with customers, network security, and other measures required by legal order.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the most frequently reported restrictions outside simple contractual data-capping concerned the blocking and/or throttling of peer-to-peer and VoIP traffic. A total of 49 fixed-line ISPs reported interfering with P2P, as did 41 mobile operators.
While the restrictions affect at least 20% of all subscribers, the report notes that the impact on end users can vary. Some ISPs restrict all of their users, some just a percentage. Others restrict traffic during certain times of the day, while some have contractual restrictions that are not necessarily enforced technically.
Overall, in the fixed-line broadband market at least 21% of users are affected by P2P restrictions, either technically or by clauses in their contracts. In the mobile market that figure is 36%. When it comes to VoIP related restrictions, at least 21% of the mobile market faces restrictions with the possibility of an additional 18% depending on conditions.
The findings of the study will be used in the ongoing Open Internet debate in Europe. Earlier this year the Netherlands was the first country to sign Net Neutrality principles into law, which would restrict the use of P2P-throttling by ISPs. In the European Parliament the Greens are proposing to guarantee Net Neutrality in the rest of Europe too.
The full report titled BEREC findings on traffic management practices in Europe can be downloaded here (pdf)
Source: EU Report Reveals P2P Traffic Interference By ISPs
Hundreds of ISPs all over the world limit and restrict BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer traffic on their networks, and Europe is no exception. A new EU report sheds light on how common these practices are. The report was initiated in 2011 following requests from the European Commission addressed to BEREC, the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications. The aim was to gather information relating to the net neutrality debate, specifically regarding actions taken by ISPs to hinder, throttle, block or degrade Internet traffic.
A questionnaire was sent to out to ISPs across Europe and in the end responses from a total of 381 ISPs were considered, 266 ‘fixed line’ ISPs (140 million subscribers) and 115 mobile operators (200 million subscribers).
Among other things they were asked about their traffic management practices in respect of a range of objectives including preserving quality of service, contractual agreements with customers, network security, and other measures required by legal order.
Perhaps unsurprisingly the most frequently reported restrictions outside simple contractual data-capping concerned the blocking and/or throttling of peer-to-peer and VoIP traffic. A total of 49 fixed-line ISPs reported interfering with P2P, as did 41 mobile operators.
While the restrictions affect at least 20% of all subscribers, the report notes that the impact on end users can vary. Some ISPs restrict all of their users, some just a percentage. Others restrict traffic during certain times of the day, while some have contractual restrictions that are not necessarily enforced technically.
Overall, in the fixed-line broadband market at least 21% of users are affected by P2P restrictions, either technically or by clauses in their contracts. In the mobile market that figure is 36%. When it comes to VoIP related restrictions, at least 21% of the mobile market faces restrictions with the possibility of an additional 18% depending on conditions.
The findings of the study will be used in the ongoing Open Internet debate in Europe. Earlier this year the Netherlands was the first country to sign Net Neutrality principles into law, which would restrict the use of P2P-throttling by ISPs. In the European Parliament the Greens are proposing to guarantee Net Neutrality in the rest of Europe too.
The full report titled BEREC findings on traffic management practices in Europe can be downloaded here (pdf)
Source: EU Report Reveals P2P Traffic Interference By ISPs
29 de maio de 2012
Should Websites Charge A Fee To Process Copyright Takedowns?
Should Websites Charge A Fee To Process Copyright Takedowns?:
The publication last week of Google’s Transparency Report gave us a clearer idea of the pressures the search engine is under from copyright holders. The report revealed that in a single month Google was asked to take down an astonishing 1.2m links to allegedly infringing material.
As a US company Google must comply with the requests in order to maintain its DMCA Safe Harbor protection. The reports stops short of revealing the associated financial costs but considering the scale of the operation it’s safe to say that they’re significant. So who should pay?
This interesting issue has been raised not by Google, but anti-piracy company Takedown Piracy whose recent dispute with a torrent site spilled over into the public domain a few hours ago.
“Piracy site uses extortion with copyright holders” says the blog headline penned by Takedown Piracy owner Nate Glass.
“Recently, we sent a fully DMCA compliant notice to a large torrent site. While our notice was accurate and fully DMCA compliant, we did forget one thing. The lump of money the piracy site demanded,” Glass writes.
TorrentFreak recognized the torrent site in questions as H33T.com. It’s worth noting that H33T is outside US jurisdiction so is not required to comply with the terms of the DMCA. They will take down links but they have a set of terms and conditions.
The fee is $50 USD charged per takedown item in each request regardless of number of requests to cover reasonable administration expenses accounted to work we undertake on our network at your behest. If the list of items for takedown ever exceeds 500 total items in a single request then we will negotiate a bulk rate payment schedule
Glass is not amused by the business proposal.
“So not only does this site profit by selling ads using other people’s hard work, but in the event you want your property removed from their website, it’s going to cost you $50 for EACH instance of copyright infringement,” he continued.
Admittedly it is fairly out of the ordinary for a torrent site to attach a fee to a copyright takedown, but the admin of H33T told TorrentFreak that it’s simply a question of being practical.
“Nothing in this world is for free and where the network service provider, in this case h33t, is a third party to the rights holder’s complaint against the uploader, then it is only proper that costs are properly allocated to the party who is incurring the costs,” he explained.
Thanks to the DMCA, US service providers have had no choice but to carry these costs themselves, but what about sites not subject to US law?
H33T says it is “established practice” for rights holders and network service providers to negotiate the burden of costs. While there are indeed prominent examples of this around the world, what they all have in common is disputes over who will pay for what.
The fledgling “3 strikes”-style regime introduced in New Zealand recently was plagued with argument over money and in the end it was decided that the ISPs – the “network service providers” referenced by H33T – should be paid $25 NZD by rightsholders when they send a warning to a customer.
The UK’s now-delayed Digital Economy Act is also the center of a costs argument between ISPs and rightsholders, and negotiations in Australia aren’t going well either.
“The rightsholders want all the benefits of remedial action, but want the ISPs to foot the bill. ISPs don’t want to pay to protect the rights of third parties,” iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby said recently.
And of course this is where it all gets quite interesting. Takedown Piracy are a piracy takedown service – they get paid by rightholders to have links to infringing content taken down. Takedown Piracy’s entire business model exists on the removal of links, a service that H33T is demanding a fee for – just like Takedown Piracy does.
“How hypocritical can Takedown Piracy be?” questions H33T.
“Their business model is to charge the rights holder a fee to make takedowns happen. But when the third party, in this case h33t, responsibly engages with them to expedite the takedown they refuse to apply the funds the rights holders have given them for the purpose. It’s outrageous and clearly a major wrong against their clients.”
Aldor Nini from anti-piracy company Acromax GmbH says that in some instances sites should be able to charge for takedowns, but with conditions.
“Sites may charge if their business is not based on copyright infringements and they are not already earning money from the illegitimate usage of infringing material,” Nini told TorrentFreak.
Interestingly, H33T informs us that the site responds to all takedown requests using the emails it is supplied with, but in the 6 months since the $50 takedown policy was put in place, only in two instances has he received a response.
But is $50 per takedown good value for money? It is if the one-download-equals-one-lost-sale mantra is applied, say H33T.
“What we see here is that the MAFIAA claim that a download equals a lost sale is absolute bull crap. If it were true, using MAFIAA math, $50 for a takedown is an extremely cheap and effective price to pay for 10s of thousands of lost sales.
“The MAFIAA narrative is deceit, lies and more lies.”
Source: Should Websites Charge A Fee To Process Copyright Takedowns?
The publication last week of Google’s Transparency Report gave us a clearer idea of the pressures the search engine is under from copyright holders. The report revealed that in a single month Google was asked to take down an astonishing 1.2m links to allegedly infringing material.
As a US company Google must comply with the requests in order to maintain its DMCA Safe Harbor protection. The reports stops short of revealing the associated financial costs but considering the scale of the operation it’s safe to say that they’re significant. So who should pay?
This interesting issue has been raised not by Google, but anti-piracy company Takedown Piracy whose recent dispute with a torrent site spilled over into the public domain a few hours ago.
“Piracy site uses extortion with copyright holders” says the blog headline penned by Takedown Piracy owner Nate Glass.
“Recently, we sent a fully DMCA compliant notice to a large torrent site. While our notice was accurate and fully DMCA compliant, we did forget one thing. The lump of money the piracy site demanded,” Glass writes.
TorrentFreak recognized the torrent site in questions as H33T.com. It’s worth noting that H33T is outside US jurisdiction so is not required to comply with the terms of the DMCA. They will take down links but they have a set of terms and conditions.
The fee is $50 USD charged per takedown item in each request regardless of number of requests to cover reasonable administration expenses accounted to work we undertake on our network at your behest. If the list of items for takedown ever exceeds 500 total items in a single request then we will negotiate a bulk rate payment schedule
Glass is not amused by the business proposal.
“So not only does this site profit by selling ads using other people’s hard work, but in the event you want your property removed from their website, it’s going to cost you $50 for EACH instance of copyright infringement,” he continued.
Admittedly it is fairly out of the ordinary for a torrent site to attach a fee to a copyright takedown, but the admin of H33T told TorrentFreak that it’s simply a question of being practical.
“Nothing in this world is for free and where the network service provider, in this case h33t, is a third party to the rights holder’s complaint against the uploader, then it is only proper that costs are properly allocated to the party who is incurring the costs,” he explained.
Thanks to the DMCA, US service providers have had no choice but to carry these costs themselves, but what about sites not subject to US law?
H33T says it is “established practice” for rights holders and network service providers to negotiate the burden of costs. While there are indeed prominent examples of this around the world, what they all have in common is disputes over who will pay for what.
The fledgling “3 strikes”-style regime introduced in New Zealand recently was plagued with argument over money and in the end it was decided that the ISPs – the “network service providers” referenced by H33T – should be paid $25 NZD by rightsholders when they send a warning to a customer.
The UK’s now-delayed Digital Economy Act is also the center of a costs argument between ISPs and rightsholders, and negotiations in Australia aren’t going well either.
“The rightsholders want all the benefits of remedial action, but want the ISPs to foot the bill. ISPs don’t want to pay to protect the rights of third parties,” iiNet chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby said recently.
And of course this is where it all gets quite interesting. Takedown Piracy are a piracy takedown service – they get paid by rightholders to have links to infringing content taken down. Takedown Piracy’s entire business model exists on the removal of links, a service that H33T is demanding a fee for – just like Takedown Piracy does.
“How hypocritical can Takedown Piracy be?” questions H33T.
“Their business model is to charge the rights holder a fee to make takedowns happen. But when the third party, in this case h33t, responsibly engages with them to expedite the takedown they refuse to apply the funds the rights holders have given them for the purpose. It’s outrageous and clearly a major wrong against their clients.”
Aldor Nini from anti-piracy company Acromax GmbH says that in some instances sites should be able to charge for takedowns, but with conditions.
“Sites may charge if their business is not based on copyright infringements and they are not already earning money from the illegitimate usage of infringing material,” Nini told TorrentFreak.
Interestingly, H33T informs us that the site responds to all takedown requests using the emails it is supplied with, but in the 6 months since the $50 takedown policy was put in place, only in two instances has he received a response.
But is $50 per takedown good value for money? It is if the one-download-equals-one-lost-sale mantra is applied, say H33T.
“What we see here is that the MAFIAA claim that a download equals a lost sale is absolute bull crap. If it were true, using MAFIAA math, $50 for a takedown is an extremely cheap and effective price to pay for 10s of thousands of lost sales.
“The MAFIAA narrative is deceit, lies and more lies.”
Source: Should Websites Charge A Fee To Process Copyright Takedowns?
Megaupload Wins Crucial Evidence Disclosure Battle With US Govt.
Megaupload Wins Crucial Evidence Disclosure Battle With US Govt.:
As widely reported, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and the rest of the “Mega Conspiracy” stand accused by the US Government of running a criminal operation.
Charges in the indictment include engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering, and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.
The prosecution is hoping to have the defendants extradited to the U.S., but following a ruling by New Zealand District Court Judge David Harvey today, this will prove to be more complicated than expected.
In an 81-page decision, Judge Harvey ruled on a request from Megaupload’s legal team for the U.S. Government to reveal what evidence they have on the defendants. In other words, Megaupload wants to see the extent to which the U.S. authorities can back up their criminal charges.
The U.S. Government objected to the request arguing that Megaupload doesn’t have the right to disclosure in the extradition process, but Judge Harvey disagreed.
He ordered the disclosure of all documents related to the alleged criminal acts, not just those in the possession of New Zealand police, but all files held by the FBI and other U.S. authorities as well.
Much of today’s ruling looks into procedural issues, but Judge Harvey also makes some interesting remarks on the way the U.S. is handling this case. He notes that if the U.S. has its way the extradition process would be merely “administrative”, as opposed to “judicial”. This would interfere with the rights of the accused, who according to Judge Harvey should have the right to review the evidence so they can argue against it.
“In my view there must be fairness and the hearing and balance must be struck, otherwise the record of case becomes dominant virtually to the exclusion of everything else and places the extradition process in danger of becoming an administrative one rather than judicial,” the verdict reads.
The Judge further grants disclosure of evidence related to all the criminal charges, and notes that the allegations of the U.S. Government are rather complex. For example, the authorities are applying civil copyright concepts in a criminal context. Furthermore, he notes that the copyright infringement changes are the cornerstone, in the sense that the money laundering, wire fraud and racketeering charges are all based on the alleged copyright infringements.
“There is a complex factual matrix and justiciable issues are complicated by the fact that the United States is attempting to utilize concepts from the civil copyright context as a basis for the application of criminal copyright liability which necessitates a consideration of principles such as the dual use of technology or what they described as significant non-infringing use,” Judge Harvey writes.
“The existence of criminal copyright charges is a keystone to providing the unlawful conduct element of the racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud charges.”
Judge Harvey concludes with an order for the US Government to hand over all documents related to the charges within 21 days.
This is a significant victory for Megaupload, and not only because they can now build a better defense against the extradition as well as any U.S trial. The comments made by Judge Harvey also suggest that without proper evidence of criminal copyright infringements against the accused, there’s not much left of the case. And as Kim Dotcom revealed earlier, this evidence might not be that strong.
Source: Megaupload Wins Crucial Evidence Disclosure Battle With US Govt.
As widely reported, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom and the rest of the “Mega Conspiracy” stand accused by the US Government of running a criminal operation.Charges in the indictment include engaging in a racketeering conspiracy, conspiring to commit copyright infringement, conspiring to commit money laundering, and two substantive counts of criminal copyright infringement.
The prosecution is hoping to have the defendants extradited to the U.S., but following a ruling by New Zealand District Court Judge David Harvey today, this will prove to be more complicated than expected.
In an 81-page decision, Judge Harvey ruled on a request from Megaupload’s legal team for the U.S. Government to reveal what evidence they have on the defendants. In other words, Megaupload wants to see the extent to which the U.S. authorities can back up their criminal charges.
The U.S. Government objected to the request arguing that Megaupload doesn’t have the right to disclosure in the extradition process, but Judge Harvey disagreed.
He ordered the disclosure of all documents related to the alleged criminal acts, not just those in the possession of New Zealand police, but all files held by the FBI and other U.S. authorities as well.
Much of today’s ruling looks into procedural issues, but Judge Harvey also makes some interesting remarks on the way the U.S. is handling this case. He notes that if the U.S. has its way the extradition process would be merely “administrative”, as opposed to “judicial”. This would interfere with the rights of the accused, who according to Judge Harvey should have the right to review the evidence so they can argue against it.
“In my view there must be fairness and the hearing and balance must be struck, otherwise the record of case becomes dominant virtually to the exclusion of everything else and places the extradition process in danger of becoming an administrative one rather than judicial,” the verdict reads.
The Judge further grants disclosure of evidence related to all the criminal charges, and notes that the allegations of the U.S. Government are rather complex. For example, the authorities are applying civil copyright concepts in a criminal context. Furthermore, he notes that the copyright infringement changes are the cornerstone, in the sense that the money laundering, wire fraud and racketeering charges are all based on the alleged copyright infringements.
“There is a complex factual matrix and justiciable issues are complicated by the fact that the United States is attempting to utilize concepts from the civil copyright context as a basis for the application of criminal copyright liability which necessitates a consideration of principles such as the dual use of technology or what they described as significant non-infringing use,” Judge Harvey writes.
“The existence of criminal copyright charges is a keystone to providing the unlawful conduct element of the racketeering, money laundering and wire fraud charges.”
Judge Harvey concludes with an order for the US Government to hand over all documents related to the charges within 21 days.
This is a significant victory for Megaupload, and not only because they can now build a better defense against the extradition as well as any U.S trial. The comments made by Judge Harvey also suggest that without proper evidence of criminal copyright infringements against the accused, there’s not much left of the case. And as Kim Dotcom revealed earlier, this evidence might not be that strong.
Source: Megaupload Wins Crucial Evidence Disclosure Battle With US Govt.
…solution if you don’t like stairs
…solution if you don’t like stairs:
Submitted by: evilkicker
Posted at: 2012-05-29 05:06:31
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4313224
Submitted by: evilkicker
Posted at: 2012-05-29 05:06:31
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4313224
When I am motivated to do something
When I am motivated to do something:
Submitted by: rafael0diniz
Posted at: 2012-05-29 01:27:07
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4312186
Submitted by: rafael0diniz
Posted at: 2012-05-29 01:27:07
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4312186
Programming like a Sir
Programming like a Sir:
Submitted by: groben
Posted at: 2012-05-29 11:33:42
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4315263
Submitted by: groben
Posted at: 2012-05-29 11:33:42
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4315263
Trolling Rowan Atkinson!
Trolling Rowan Atkinson!:
Submitted by: lawlaw16
Posted at: 2012-05-29 11:10:22
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4315103
Submitted by: lawlaw16
Posted at: 2012-05-29 11:10:22
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4315103
28 de maio de 2012
When election comes
When election comes:
Submitted by: callmev
Posted at: 2012-05-27 20:30:19
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4299829
Submitted by: callmev
Posted at: 2012-05-27 20:30:19
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4299829
Good Idea
Good Idea:
Submitted by: hembek
Posted at: 2012-05-28 12:30:01
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4305350
Submitted by: hembek
Posted at: 2012-05-28 12:30:01
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4305350
Spanish artist faces prison over 'how to cook Christ' film | Film | guardian.co.uk
Spanish artist faces prison over 'how to cook Christ' film | Film | guardian.co.uk
A leading Spanish artist faces up to a year in prison after being prosecuted for "offending religious feelings" in relation to a short film he made more than 30 years ago that claimed to show "how to cook Jesus Christ".
A leading Spanish artist faces up to a year in prison after being prosecuted for "offending religious feelings" in relation to a short film he made more than 30 years ago that claimed to show "how to cook Jesus Christ".
'We Already Have a Part of the Jailbreak for iOS 6': @Pod2g
'We Already Have a Part of the Jailbreak for iOS 6': @Pod2g:
Pod2g, also known as Cyril, reveals that the 'dream team' of iOS hackers already has part of the jailbreak for iOS 6 in an interview with Softpedia.
"We won't give up on jailbreaking iOS devices because this is too important for us and we already have a part of the jailbreak for iOS 6 and we will be ready right on time for it," Cyril said.
"We won't give up on jailbreaking iOS devices because this is too important for us and we already have a part of the jailbreak for iOS 6 and we will be ready right on time for it," Cyril said.
Absinthe Used To Jailbreak 1.2 Million Devices On iOS 5.1.1 Over The Weekend
Absinthe Used To Jailbreak 1.2 Million Devices On iOS 5.1.1 Over The Weekend:
On Friday, May 25th hackers from the Chronic Dev Team released Absinthe 2.0, a tool that jailbreaks iOS 5.1.1 on nearly all iOS devices, including the third-gen iPad. The untethered jailbreak can be performed on an iOS device after downloading the free Absinthe app on any Mac, Windows or Linux computer. Once again proving that jailbreaking is becoming more mainstream, impressive Absinthe download numbers have been announced from over the weekend.
Pirate Bay Ready For Perpetual IP-Address Whac-A-Mole
Pirate Bay Ready For Perpetual IP-Address Whac-A-Mole:
The Pirate Bay is arguably the most censored website on the Internet.
Courts all around the world have ordered Internet providers to block subscriber access to the torrent site, and the end is still not in sight.
Within a few days, a new deadline for five UK and five Dutch Internet providers passes. This means that millions more will be unable to access The Pirate Bay, at least, that is the plan.
Last week The Pirate Bay team responded to the blockades by adding a new IP-address. The new location was setup to make it easier for people to start their own dedicated proxy sites, but it also allows blocked Pirate Bay visitors to gain access to the site.
Instead of the normal address they simply go to 194.71.107.80, bypassing the court order – for the time being at least.
The new IP-address represents a new thorn in the side of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, who quickly asked ISPs to censor that too. Unfortunately for them the providers refused to do so, so the group had to go to court once again last week to get the added IP-address blocked as well.
Right before the weekend BREIN succeeded with the court ordering an ex-parte injunction for the new address. However, according to comments coming out of The Pirate Bay, this could just be the start of an extended game of whac-a-mole.
“Let me get the next IP-address lined up,” a Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak. “We have hundreds, so let’s see many times they will respond,” he added.
We were told that if the new IP-address is blocked again, they will simply add a new one. This means that BREIN would have to file for another ex-parte injunction, a process that may repeat itself hundreds of times.
The Pirate Bay insider did emphasize that the new IP wasn’t meant for people to bypass the blocks directly, but to make it easier and more safe to create proxy sites. In this regard, it is irrelevant whether the IP-address is blocked or not.
However, it’s well known that The Pirate Bay isn’t averse to a little dueling with anti-piracy outfits, so they’re going to play along.
“Now that I know it’s annoying to BREIN, of course we’ll add more IPs. Every time they get an order, we’ll add a new one, for the next year or so,” TorrentFreak was told.
The result is an almost endless IP-address whac-a-mole.
The Pirate Bay blockades are a good example of how hard it is to completely get a website offline. Even if all Pirate Bay domains and IP-addresses are blocked there are plenty of other ways to access the torrent site, including hundreds of proxy sites.
At the same time, the blockades make The Pirate Bay front page news. As we’ve seen before, this can result in a healthy traffic boost for the deviant torrent site. That begs the question of whether these censorship attempts aren’t doing more ‘harm’ than ‘good’ for copyright holders.
Source: Pirate Bay Ready For Perpetual IP-Address Whac-A-Mole
The Pirate Bay is arguably the most censored website on the Internet. Courts all around the world have ordered Internet providers to block subscriber access to the torrent site, and the end is still not in sight.
Within a few days, a new deadline for five UK and five Dutch Internet providers passes. This means that millions more will be unable to access The Pirate Bay, at least, that is the plan.
Last week The Pirate Bay team responded to the blockades by adding a new IP-address. The new location was setup to make it easier for people to start their own dedicated proxy sites, but it also allows blocked Pirate Bay visitors to gain access to the site.
Instead of the normal address they simply go to 194.71.107.80, bypassing the court order – for the time being at least.
The new IP-address represents a new thorn in the side of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, who quickly asked ISPs to censor that too. Unfortunately for them the providers refused to do so, so the group had to go to court once again last week to get the added IP-address blocked as well.
Right before the weekend BREIN succeeded with the court ordering an ex-parte injunction for the new address. However, according to comments coming out of The Pirate Bay, this could just be the start of an extended game of whac-a-mole.
“Let me get the next IP-address lined up,” a Pirate Bay insider told TorrentFreak. “We have hundreds, so let’s see many times they will respond,” he added.
We were told that if the new IP-address is blocked again, they will simply add a new one. This means that BREIN would have to file for another ex-parte injunction, a process that may repeat itself hundreds of times.
The Pirate Bay insider did emphasize that the new IP wasn’t meant for people to bypass the blocks directly, but to make it easier and more safe to create proxy sites. In this regard, it is irrelevant whether the IP-address is blocked or not.
However, it’s well known that The Pirate Bay isn’t averse to a little dueling with anti-piracy outfits, so they’re going to play along.
“Now that I know it’s annoying to BREIN, of course we’ll add more IPs. Every time they get an order, we’ll add a new one, for the next year or so,” TorrentFreak was told.
The result is an almost endless IP-address whac-a-mole.
The Pirate Bay blockades are a good example of how hard it is to completely get a website offline. Even if all Pirate Bay domains and IP-addresses are blocked there are plenty of other ways to access the torrent site, including hundreds of proxy sites.
At the same time, the blockades make The Pirate Bay front page news. As we’ve seen before, this can result in a healthy traffic boost for the deviant torrent site. That begs the question of whether these censorship attempts aren’t doing more ‘harm’ than ‘good’ for copyright holders.
Source: Pirate Bay Ready For Perpetual IP-Address Whac-A-Mole
Moção de censura contra Alberto João Jardim - Expresso.pt
Moção de censura contra Alberto João Jardim - Expresso.pt
"É uma moção de censura dos madeirenses contra o seu Governo, pois já perceberam que os seus inimigos não estão em Lisboa, nem estão em Bruxelas, estão à frente dos destinos da Região", afirmou o presidente do PS-M, Vítor Freitas, citado pelo jornal "Diário da Madeira."
Ler mais: http://expresso.sapo.pt/mocao-de-censura-contra-alberto-joao-jardim=f729141#ixzz1wC7NmAYQ
"É uma moção de censura dos madeirenses contra o seu Governo, pois já perceberam que os seus inimigos não estão em Lisboa, nem estão em Bruxelas, estão à frente dos destinos da Região", afirmou o presidente do PS-M, Vítor Freitas, citado pelo jornal "Diário da Madeira."
Ler mais: http://expresso.sapo.pt/mocao-de-censura-contra-alberto-joao-jardim=f729141#ixzz1wC7NmAYQ
27 de maio de 2012
The high quality of Chinese products
The high quality of Chinese products:
Submitted by: deathkryz
Posted at: 2012-05-26 21:41:33
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4290950
Submitted by: deathkryz
Posted at: 2012-05-26 21:41:33
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4290950
Good Guy Drogba!
Good Guy Drogba!:
Submitted by: vitalis
Posted at: 2012-05-25 22:23:40
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4282630
Submitted by: vitalis
Posted at: 2012-05-25 22:23:40
See full post and comment: http://9gag.com/gag/4282630
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)