Popular torrent site KickAssTorrents (Kat.ph) blocked by british ISP's, British Recorded Music Indus - Polidicks

[img]http://i.imgur.com/fZDc5xG.png[/img] Thought this was news worthy.

Never heard of this site.

Jesus my heart stopped for a second seeing part of that title. Thought it was gonna be blocked in the U.S. for some reason. Scared me, it's my favorite torrent site.

Can confirm this too, UK internet is pissing me off lately. [img]http://i.imgur.com/XStgfsL.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Deiru;39996117]Can confirm this too, UK internet is pissing me off lately. [img]http://i.imgur.com/XStgfsL.png[/img][/QUOTE] Have you tried going to a legal torrent site... or did they not have what you were looking for?

[QUOTE=scout1;39996127]Have you tried going to a legal torrent site... or did they not have what you were looking for?[/QUOTE] Oh look, censorship is happening, let me drown it with a shitty joke.

[QUOTE=scout1;39996127]Have you tried going to a legal torrent site... or did they not have what you were looking for?[/QUOTE] All torrent sites are legal

This is why I use a vpn

I wish someone would complain for me. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] didn't the EU rule that piracy does not harm the industry? If so that could be a very important thing to show providers.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39996253]I wish someone would complain for me. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] didn't the EU rule that piracy does not harm the industry? If so that could be a very important thing to show providers.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter what the EU rules, a British court has handed down an injunction it must be obeyed.

Glad I live in Australia where the ISPs know that it is a waste of time and money do block torrent sites. Either way, attempting to block these is a stupid Idea. People will find a way to get around the blocks anyway.

[QUOTE=areolop;39996229]All torrent sites are legal[/QUOTE] The law seems to disagree with you.

[QUOTE=nikomo;39996158]Oh look, censorship is happening, let me drown it with a shitty joke.[/QUOTE] complain about censorship when it censors important shit, not your access to free games/movies/music

glad I live in south america where they literally sell warez in brick and mortar stores

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;39996394]complain about censorship when it censors important shit, not your access to free games/movies/music[/QUOTE] no, complain about censorship when it censors anything, otherwise they will censor important shit.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;39996394]complain about censorship when it censors important shit, not your access to free games/movies/music[/QUOTE] Careful on that high horse there, it's a long way down.

[QUOTE=scout1;39996326]The law seems to disagree with you.[/QUOTE] You are misinformed, you should stop spouting things you don't understand. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=milkandcooki;39996394]complain about censorship when it censors important shit, not your access to free games/movies/music[/QUOTE] Censorship is censorship no matter what is being censored, its all as bad as each other.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39996664]You are misinformed, you should stop spouting things you don't understand. [/QUOTE] Well I'm looking at this thread right now and I see two sites blocked by court order... what avenue do you think the law operates from?

[QUOTE=MrBunneh;39996446]no, complain about censorship when it censors anything, otherwise they will censor important shit.[/QUOTE] You're saying the government preventing people from illegally pirating is censorship? [QUOTE=Kuro.;39996569]Careful on that high horse there, it's a long way down.[/QUOTE] And it's a 'high horse' to say that censorship of legal content is a far cry from censorship of pirated materials? Wow. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if someone said that police arresting a shoplifter is detainment and contributing to a police state. If a store got shut down for selling contraband you wouldn't complain about the government quashing the free market, so why is it suddenly censorship when it's a website?

[QUOTE=scout1;39996680]Well I'm looking at this thread right now and I see two sites blocked by court order... what avenue do you think the law operates from?[/QUOTE] They are blocking it because the BPI do not understand what a search engine is and has far too much power for a private organisation. Google should be blocked for the exact same reason KAT and the pirate bay have been blocked for. Of course it won't happen because again the BPI do not understand what they are dealing with.

And my ISP (karoo) have not blocked it yet. Seriously my ISP hasn't blocked a single website that has been ruled illegal by the courts. I'd assume it to be something to do with it being a private company which has sole dominance and monopoly over my city.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39996806]They are blocking it because the BPI do not understand what a search engine is and has far too much power for a private organisation. Google should be blocked for the exact same reason KAT and the pirate bay have been blocked for. Of course it won't happen because again the BPI do not understand what they are dealing with.[/QUOTE] That's great. But the courts have still ruled it unlawful. BPI put forward a motion and the courts... agreed. The two in this thread are not the only two that have been blocked, either. So there appears to be more than one court here that is ruling the same way. So could you please tell me how I "don't understand" that the courts have ruled it unlawful?

Jesus facepunch really likes Linux distros

[QUOTE=Animosus;39996312]Glad I live in Australia where the ISPs know that it is a waste of time and money do block torrent sites. Either way, attempting to block these is a stupid Idea. People will find a way to get around the blocks anyway.[/QUOTE] It was mainly iiNet who had enough balls to slap Hollywood studios and copyright groups in the face telling them blocking does jack shit and actually won besides there's ton of proxy websites to get around blocks, there's VPN, ultrasurf, tor, you name it, blocking sites like these does nothing to prevent piracy

[QUOTE=scout1;39996127]Have you tried going to a legal torrent site... or did they not have what you were looking for?[/QUOTE] stop ramming your anti-piracy dick down everyone's throat in a smarmy manner you philistine and put up a cogent argument for once [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] being anti-piracy is fine, but at least go about it in a proper manner instead of just going "HA HA HA SUCK IT PIRATES"

[QUOTE=scout1;39996842]That's great. But the courts have still ruled it unlawful. BPI put forward a motion and the courts... agreed. The two in this thread are not the only two that have been blocked, either. So there appears to be more than one court here that is ruling the same way. So could you please tell me how I "don't understand" that the courts have ruled it unlawful?[/QUOTE] Torrent sites are not illegal, the site is being blocked (usually) over one file. If I put a magnet link into this post for an album the BPI would have every right to seek an injunction against the entire website. That said, something doesn't have to be illegal for an injunction to be sought. For example, the super injunctions that came out last year. Nothing illegal was happening (the newspapers can write about whatever they want, within reason) but injunctions were taken out to prevent things being published. Only once the injunction is taken out does it actually become illegal. Although in this case they are [I]kind[/I] of helping with piracy, bearing in mind one of the previous cases referenced is a dentist with background music playing. So yeah, that is a sign of how weak this stuff is. What the BPI and friends are doing is wrong, running a torrent site is not illegal under UK law. The issue is with people accessing from it, therefore the site itself is not illegal.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997279]Torrent sites are not illegal, the site is being blocked (usually) over one file. If I put a magnet link into this post for an album the BPI would have every right to seek an injunction against the entire website. That said, something doesn't have to be illegal for an injunction to be saught. For example, the super injunctions that came out last year. Nothing illegal was happening (the newspapers can write about whatever they wan't, within reason) but injunctions were taken out to prevent things being published. Only once the injunction is taken out does it actually become illegal.[/QUOTE] Oh so you want to argue semantics? Okay. Let me rephrase for you. These sites host files indiscriminate of their legality. Maybe he should have gone to a torrent site which hosts legal files and takes efforts to remove illegal ones. PS an injunction is legally binding

The Media corporations are way too powerful. They're buying the government, buying amazing+evil lawyers to crush any threats to their businesses and shovel crap content into our faces.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997317]Oh so you want to argue semantics? Okay. Let me rephrase for you. These sites host files indiscriminate of their legality. Maybe he should have gone to a torrent site which hosts legal files and takes efforts to remove illegal ones. PS an injunction is legally binding[/QUOTE] The site hosts [B]nothing[/B] even trackers (does anyone even run a tracker these days?) don't host copyrighted material. Again, Google hosts (by virtue of its caching system) a hell of a lot of [I]really[/I] illegal stuff and based on the last few cases involving the BPI the entire of Google could be blocked in the UK because they make no effort to self-censor.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997317]Oh so you want to argue semantics? Okay. Let me rephrase for you. These sites host files indiscriminate of their legality. Maybe he should have gone to a torrent site which hosts legal files and takes efforts to remove illegal ones. PS an injunction is legally binding[/QUOTE] Don't torrent sites only host torrent files?