Why Did Italian ISPs Redirect Pirate Bay Traffic To IFPI Site?
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
We’ve already talked about how Italy’s plan to have ISPs block all access to The Pirate Bay has failed by getting more people to visit the site. However, TorrentFreak points out another oddity in this whole ordeal. For the sites that did redirect The Pirate Bay, they pointed people to an IFPI-owned website. That seems highly questionable. Why should ISPs direct traffic intended for one private site to another private site — allowing that second private organization to collect IP address info from folks intending to go to The Pirate Bay? If they really had to block the site, why not point them to a gov’t explanation or, at the very least, a neutral site. Handing The Pirate Bay’s traffic over to music industry lobbyists makes very little sense.
Filed Under: ban, isps, italy, promotion, redirect
Companies: ifpi, pirate bay
Comments on “Why Did Italian ISPs Redirect Pirate Bay Traffic To IFPI Site?”
I guess people will have to settle for mininova, torrentreactor, btmon, and the countless other bit torrent sites that usually host most of the same torrent files you can find on TPB. This accomplishes nothing.
A simple question that I hope admits to a yes/no answer.
Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong? Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download.
Re: Re:
Simple answer: yes
Longer answer: yet but not the government’s responsibility to enforce
Re: Re:
It’s not as simple as yes or no actually. There are people on P2P sites that use it to distribute material they wish to be downloaded freely. Linux and open source content comes to mind. Bands and video makers also use it for such, and actually, they benefit from the architecture of a distributed model. I would ask a yes or no question of you. Is it fair that people who WANT to move their content take advantage of this technology ?
Re: Re: Re:
Also please remember that all my examples including open source ARE copyright protected. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080814141638469
Re: Re:
No. A person’s access to art/culture should not be determined by class or income.
A person’s right to own art, however, is.
Should I have to pay to view a movie? No, and there are plenty of free ways to get to it, even legally (borrow from a friend, use free theater passes, check it out from the public library, etc.) Downloading is a different means, but the same result, and I do not believe it is wrong.
I do think it is in a person’s best interest to support what they enjoy by buying it. I buy DVDs and CDs that I really like for this reason.
Re: Re:
Simple answer: Yes
You do not have the right to view things for free just because it is considered an art. Those who produce a product should be able to protect it against those who believe it is theirs to take for free. They have the right to set it’s price and charge for access to it, just as those who produce physical goods such as food and clothing can charge whatever price they wish. If you feel it is overpriced, then don’t buy it – note that the reason the price is high is because demand is high (and supply is low), meaning that the majority of people disagree with you.
Have I stolen music or movies? Maybe, but at least i wouldn’t try to convince myself that it’s right.
Re: Re: Re:
The act is posioning the DNS query return with a false address on the request of a private company. Do you want to give ISPs the right to decide what websites you can and cannot go based on who “pays” them enough attention? Sounds too much like China to me.
Re: Re:
Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong? Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download.
I believe that they are infringing on copyrights, which is against the law.
However, whether that’s “right” or “wrong” may depend on the specific example. You’ve got situations like open source products where their developers encourage people to upload via bittorrent.
And you have movie directors and producers who found their movies made more money after they were leaked to bittorrent. Is it “wrong” that those folks were able to make more money after fans helped promote their movies?
Personally, I don’t use any file sharing software or anything of the like, because I know it’s illegal. I’m pretty sure I end up spending a lot less money on music these days, because I don’t get to explore what’s new that’s out there, but if that’s the way the industry prefers to act, that is their problem.
Re: Re:
“A simple question that I hope admits to a yes/no answer.”
Unlikely, but we’ll see.
“Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong?”
Morally? No.
Legally? Depends on the city/county/state/province/country.
For example, in the US it is a Civil crime. A Civil crime is defined as a dispute between two private entities and its all about monetary rewards and punishments.
This is why people wonder why jail time is getting tacked on and Federal agencies being tasked with tracking this stuff down. Its not a penal crime like murder or rape.
Disclaimer: There *is* a possibility of tracker sites (flimsy argument IMO btw) being nailed for mass pirating. That *is* criminal, but again no where near as ‘bad’ a crime as murder or rape or theft.
The people that buy the pirated goods either can’t be ‘gotten’ because they didn’t know, or if they did its a CIVIL issue there and the cops stay out of it.
This is why the RIAA seems exceptionally evil as they are corrupting the government further to turn these into penal issues.
“Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download.”
Whups didn’t read that at first. Like I said, morally they are doing nothing wrong. Legally, a civil suit can be brought against them but only for the one item. So if you download photoshop they should be able to chase you down for the cost of photoshop plus legal fees. They shouldn’t be able to chase you down for 1000% damages like the RIAA gets to.
Re: Re:
“A simple question that I hope admits to a yes/no answer.”
Unlikely, but we’ll see.
“Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong?”
Morally? No.
Legally? Depends on the city/county/state/province/country.
For example, in the US it is a Civil crime. A Civil crime is defined as a dispute between two private entities and its all about monetary rewards and punishments.
This is why people wonder why jail time is getting tacked on and Federal agencies being tasked with tracking this stuff down. Its not a penal crime like murder or rape.
Disclaimer: There *is* a possibility of tracker sites (flimsy argument IMO btw) being nailed for mass pirating. That *is* criminal, but again no where near as ‘bad’ a crime as murder or rape or theft.
The people that buy the pirated goods either can’t be ‘gotten’ because they didn’t know, or if they did its a CIVIL issue there and the cops stay out of it.
This is why the RIAA seems exceptionally evil as they are corrupting the government further to turn these into penal issues.
“Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download.”
Whups didn’t read that at first. Like I said, morally they are doing nothing wrong. Legally, a civil suit can be brought against them but only for the one item. So if you download photoshop they should be able to chase you down for the cost of photoshop plus legal fees. They shouldn’t be able to chase you down for 1000% damages like the RIAA gets to.
Re: Re:
Legally, yes. But IMHO, no.
With the amount of product placement in music, tv shows, and movies, mass distribution over the internet can increase the value of these placements. Chevy, Patron, Bacardi, Hennessy and Cristal should pay more if the rap track becomes a mega hits on torrent sites.
It makes perfect sense.
It makes perfect sense. It’s called ‘corruption’. Not all men are created equal. Some are actually born corrupt, some corrupted during education. Others just take longer to become corrupt. But noone is incorruptible.
That’s why every office needs term limits and the people need to understand that political mobs (aka: “party” in some locales) are not healthy to the system overall.
Redirects to the wrong site
We all know there are more movies and games being shared than music… they should have redirected to the italian verion of the MPAA instead.
as much as i don’t like there tactics, i guess thats a good deterrent to use piratebay.
Re: Re:
I would think everyone would be concern when a private company redirects another private company without law as mandate or justice ruling.
the ISP does not have a legal right to provide false information on the DNS query. Do we want ISPs, like in China, to restrict access based on private policy?
“If you feel it is overpriced, then don’t buy it – note that the reason the price is high is because demand is high (and supply is low), meaning that the majority of people disagree with you.”
Majority of people are dumb sheep and just don’t know any better.
A.
Just get over it. Anyone who creates anything they know to be easily copied should resign themselves to the fact that people are going to copy it. Not everyone, some people prefer to own the collector’s edition of something for owning it’s sake. But I’ll be d@mned if I’m paying $8 for a movie I can get for free. So maybe it’s time these organizations took a look at their business model – if I can get something for less with little to no negative impact on my life – why the f*ck not?
By using copyright protected I meant to imply that the digital files were available for upload and download without the permission of the copyright holder.
P2P is, of course, a useful way to transfer digital files. My only concern, however, is when people who should know better take liberties with content of the kind I note above.
Re: Re:
Is that your final answer?
“P2P is, of course, a useful way to transfer digital files.”
can I take that as a YES ?
Ironically the block resulted in a 5% increase in traffic from Italy to Pirate Bay.
“If they really had to block the site, why not point them to a gov’t explanation”
In case they decide to do this in the future I hope they will choose some neutral message. Here in Sweden this site with logos that encourage copying was once blocked by the police. Users were redirected to a page saying that the site had been blocked because of child pornography crimes. But there was no illegal material on the site, just a humorous and innocent dance performed by the site owner’s son on the welcome page, and after they filed complaints they were finally unblocked. However, at this point visitors to the site had already been informed by the police that the site was involved in criminal activity even though this was incorrect and no trial had ever taken place. You can imagine the PR damage.
Net Neutrality is a Pipe Dream
This makes throttling look almost innocent.
I am really intrigued by the “moral – no”/”legal – yes” dichotomy. I wonder though if the “moral – no” is in large part associated with the expanding criminalization of copyright infringement? If copyright law was amended to define a much, much smaller subset of what would be deemed criminal, would that have any effect on the “moral – no” view? Note: I am not attempting to define what would fall within the bounds of such a subset, but merely to see if scaling way back the criminal aspects of the law would have a tendency to change the moral/legal dichotomy.
Re: Re:
I don’t believe this is an issue of piryting software but the decission by the ISP to enject false DNS results to mislead a user to and send traffic to another private site previously agreed to through a private contract. this is too much like china’s virtual firewall.
I do not believe ISP’s have or should have the right to restrict Internnet traffic based on an agreement they achieve with another private company.
Do we want the ISP to always direct web queries to Microsoft’s Live instead of Google because the signed an agreement with MS? Regardless of the “motive”, the power for an ISP to do this is the question. Leave addressing Pirate Bay issues to other legal means.
Read the IFPI site
Has everyone actually gone to and read the IFPI’s articles on the redirected site? It’s like the Gestapo describing how much they enjoy their own actions. Very disgusting.
If the music industry wants to go after someone, they should only be able to target individual downloaders. PirateBay, among others, does give users access to legally and even encouraged downloads as mentioned above. Every time I format one of my machines I can usually download new versions of X Y or Z faster using torrents than finding an actual bandwidth starved site. They use legal means to distribute files determined by individuals. They have done nothing wrong.
The music industry knows it will have to change, and instead of using this to their advantage they choose to fight it every step of the way.
Re: Read the IFPI site
What if The Pirate Bay operates legally under it’s nations laws ? Then what, we should pressure their government to change their laws to meet the US industries agenda ? I hardly think that is appropriate.
in china and i want tpb
dont know much about history, slid rules, trigonomotry, dont know much about science books, dont know much about the french i took. but i do know that i liked pirates bay and if they fall so goes all the torrent folks eventualy.