An anonymous reader tips news that six ISPs in the UK are. This follows efforts from copyright holders to block access to the proxy sites themselves — which they've done to limited success through orders from the UK's High Court. [R]estricting access to proxies did not provide a silver bullet either as new ones continue to appear. This week the blocking efforts were stepped up a notch and are now targeting sites that merely provide an overview of various Pirate Bay proxies. One of the other blocked sites, piratebayproxy.co.uk, doesn’t have any direct links to infringing material. Instead, it provides an overview of short Pirate Bay news articles while listing the URLs of various proxies on the side. Apparently, providing information about Pirate Bay proxies already warrants a spot on the UK blocklist.

It is not a secret that the High Court orders give copyright holders the option to continually update the list of infringing domains. However, it’s questionable whether this should also include sites that do not link to any infringing material. Let me introduce you to the rule of law, where *intention* has very strong weighting on actions being judged. Google *intention* in their actions is completely different to The Pirate Bays *intention* in their actions. Put this particular issue, as in blocking sites proxying torrent sites, in front of a judge, and the judge is simply going to say its an acceptable action by the ISPs, as the *intentions* of the sites in question is to circumvent a legal court order. Judges dont like their orders being circumve. 'The law is designed to ensure internet providers treat all data equally' 'The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access.'

Explore 5 Mac websites and apps like The Pirate Bay, all suggested. BitTorrent network website to download and upload torrents.

It has nothing to do with copyright protection, nothing to do with blocking sites or censorship. It has to do with the practice of charging content providers on top of what they charge customers, and/or throttling some content providers to give other providers (usually themselves) a competitive advantage over the 3rd party service.

As in: 'gee customer. Youtube sure is slow (bec. Detail kusen pintu dan jendela aluminium dwg. Which doesn't change the definition of 'net neutrality', the concept of the internet as a public network, that private companies only charge access to, but don't decide content. I am also OK with takedown orders/siezures of equipment as long as there is a court ordered warrant, where probable cause has been established, and the warrant exists only for the minimum amount of equipment reasonibly suspected to be involved in the crime. This is the same burden of proof for law enforcement under all other circum. 1) Try to ban illegal downloads. That doesn't work.

2) Try to ban sites that link to illegal downloads. That doesn't work. 3) Try to ban sites that link to sites that link to illegal downloads. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this won't work either. X) Ban everybody who's ever heard the word 'download.' Shut off the internet.

Diablo 2 level 99 druid download. Everybody goes back to direct copying and it still doesn't bloody work. Three things need to be realized and acted upon if there's any hope of reducing copyright infringement: - Make legitimate viewing easy. Recent history with iTunes, Netflix, etc.

And hell older history in the form of things like 7-11. Have shown repeatedly that people are happy to pay, and even pay more if they have to, for the product they want to be on demand. - Unnnlessss you price it too high. People will not pay 20% more for a one-time stream of a movie compared to buying the DVD. Its absolutely stupid to think they would.