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

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997341]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] Okay, and? You are still missing the point here. The courts have ruled that action unlawful. You don't seem to understand this.

Two things that I forgot to mention in my last post. 1) All this doesn't take change anything anyway, my argument is that web censorship is morally wrong, especially in cases like this where censorship is being used to benefit a company. 2) Rating someone you disagree with dumb is generally seen as a bad thing, you know its a bit ad hominem.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997368]Okay, and? You are still missing the point here. The courts have ruled that action unlawful. You don't seem to understand this.[/QUOTE] "it's illegal cause it's illegal and that's my argument and i'm sticking to it" courts are not infallible. courts are not unbuyable.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997368]Okay, and? You are still missing the point here. The courts have ruled that action unlawful. You don't seem to understand this.[/QUOTE] So courts are infallible now and we should trust their judgement without question and not question their judgements and interpretation of our laws? I hate to say it as its a massive cliché but that [B]is[/B] a slippery slope.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997372] 1) All this doesn't take change anything anyway, my argument is that web censorship is morally wrong, especially in cases like this where censorship is being used to benefit a company. [/QUOTE] Completely irrelevant when you argue about its legality. [QUOTE=Jsm;39997372] 2) Rating someone you disagree with dumb is generally seen as a bad thing, you know its a bit ad hominem.[/QUOTE] Your posts are wildly off the mark and ignoring basic facts, then jumping to arguing semantics. They have been given the ratings appropriate.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39997385]"it's illegal cause it's illegal and that's my argument and i'm sticking to it" courts are not infallible.[/QUOTE] There appears to be some sort of hivemind here..

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997386]So courts are infallible now and we should trust their judgement without question and not question their judgements and interpretation of our laws? I hate to say it as its a massive cliché but that [B]is[/B] a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] high five, we used the same word!

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997386]So courts are infallible now and we should trust their judgement without question and not question their judgements and interpretation of our laws? I hate to say it as its a massive cliché but that [B]is[/B] a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] No but it's really [I]really[/I] damn foolish to argue something isn't illegal when the courts have said it is. Which is what you have done throughout this thread. I mean you can ignore the law all you want, but it still applies to you.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997391]Completely irrelevant when you argue about its legality. Your posts are wildly off the mark and ignoring basic facts, then jumping to arguing semantics. They have been given the ratings appropriate.[/QUOTE] Please tell me then how my post suggesting that courts are in fact fallible is dumb?

[QUOTE=scout1;39997401]No but it's really [I]really[/I] damn foolish to argue something isn't illegal when the courts have said it is. Which is what you have done throughout this thread. I mean you can ignore the law all you want, but it still applies to you.[/QUOTE] Arguing that it should be illegal because it is illegal is what you're doing and is stupid. it being ruled so by the courts makes it so, but it doesn't give justification and it sure as shit does not mean it's valid, and of pure motivation for justice, there should be questioning of it, there should be doubt and resistance.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997401]No but it's really [I]really[/I] damn foolish to argue something isn't illegal when the courts have said it is. Which is what you have done throughout this thread. I mean you can ignore the law all you want, but it still applies to you.[/QUOTE] The court has ruled that accessing the material over an Internet connection is illegal, this no one argues (it is the same as publicly broadcasting a CD you just purchased). The fact is you claim that the actual torrent site is illegal, this is untrue and is commonly spread by people who do not understand the law. The judgement actually hints at this by explaining that the downloading of content is illegal and not the storing of it.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997386]So courts are infallible now and we should trust their judgement without question and not question their judgements and interpretation of our laws? I hate to say it as its a massive cliché but that [B]is[/B] a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] Like it's been said, it [i]is[/i] a legal matter that these ISPs block the websites. The problem is in that these sites should have been blocked in the first place (no in my opinion, for a number of reasons). Does anyone else think it's a bit odd the BT includes the Logo of the websites on their page?

[QUOTE=scout1;39997368]Okay, and? You are still missing the point here. The courts have ruled that action unlawful. You don't seem to understand this.[/QUOTE] You're both missing each other's points Jsm, scout is arguing based on the fact that you say that torrent sites are not illegal (they are under certain jurisdictions). That's a fact. That's a valid point. Scout, you're being a cock by disregarding jsm's main point that there exists a logical inconsistency in the fact that torrents are simply links to where one can find content yet torrent search engines are being banned and normal search engines (capable of doing the exact same thing) are not. Now hug.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997406]Please tell me then how my post suggesting that courts are in fact fallible is dumb?[/QUOTE] Because you used it in response to a post which indicated that you are on a completely different tangent, which is also completely irrelevant. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39997415]Arguing that it should be illegal because it is illegal is what you're doing and is stupid. it being ruled so by the courts makes it so, but it doesn't give justification and it sure as shit does not mean it's valid, and of pure motivation for justice, there should be questioning of it, there should be doubt and resistance.[/QUOTE] Did I say it should be illegal in this thread? I will give you a hint: I have not. I have said only that it is illegal, something that a lot of people seem to think is untrue. Which, they're free to think, but they're still wrong.

oh nevermind you clarified.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997426]The fact is you claim that the actual torrent site is illegal, this is untrue and is commonly spread by people who do not understand the law. The judgement actually hints at this by explaining that the downloading of content is illegal and not the storing of it.[/QUOTE] Please [B]continue[/B] to argue my semantics when I have given you an explanation of exactly what I mean at your own ignorant request.

Does it matter? It's not like you're entitled to piracy, just move on.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;39997465]Does it matter? It's not like you're entitled to piracy, just move on.[/QUOTE] A private entity blocked a website on the internet without the input of the general population. Does it matter?

[QUOTE=danharibo;39997466]A private entity blocked a website on the internet without the input of the general population. Does it matter?[/QUOTE] Please note that a court was involved at some point in this exercise, and the courts do represent the people.

Going to completely disregard every other unread post just to reply to this one as my battery is about to die. [QUOTE=scout1;39997475]Please note that a court was involved at some point in this exercise, and the courts do represent the people.[/QUOTE] A court does not represent the people, especially in this situation. They hand down judgements based on previous judgements and arguments given in court. Strangely enough the multi-million pound record labels and bodies have very very good legal teams which can argue much better than some site ran by a guy out of his bedroom. It is wrong, no matter what your stance on piracy is that a private entity is allowed to demand that blocks are put in place to prevent people accessing stuff purely for their benefit. A few years ago this sort of thing was laughed out of the courts because it just didn't happen here. Something changed in the last couple of years.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997513] A court does not represent the people, especially in this situation. They hand down judgements based on previous judgements and arguments given in court. Strangely enough the multi-million pound record labels and bodies have very very good legal teams which can argue much better than some site ran by a guy out of his bedroom. [/QUOTE] Unless of course you like its ruling, right? In which case it represents the people and justice is done and hoorah. Like it or not, the courts are the method in which the people receive justice. They do represent us. This is enshrined in law, precedence, hundreds of years more trial and error than you or I will ever do, and learned experience. [QUOTE=Jsm;39997513] It is wrong, no matter what your stance on piracy is that a private entity is allowed to demand that blocks are put in place to prevent people accessing stuff purely for their benefit. A few years ago this sort of thing was laughed out of the courts because it just didn't happen here. Something changed in the last couple of years.[/QUOTE] No, it's really not. When the potential for harm exists - or usually after, but since it's an injuction etc etc - the bereaved party has a right to relief through the legal system. This is a basic civil liberty. The rightsholders have given the BPI an agreement to police their rights, and this is the result. It's very logical, it's very legal, and it's very moral. They have a right to protect their rights. You do not have a right to violate them.

[QUOTE=The freeman;39995916]Never heard of this site.[/QUOTE] You don't need to act, the government knows what you're doing, you filthy little grog drinker

[QUOTE=scout1;39997567]Unless of course you like its ruling, right? In which case it represents the people and justice is done and hoorah. Like it or not, the courts are the method in which the people receive justice. They do represent us. This is enshrined in law, precedence, hundreds of years more trial and error than you or I will ever do, and learned experience. No, it's really not. When the potential for harm exists - or usually after, but since it's an injuction etc etc - the bereaved party has a right to relief through the legal system. This is a basic civil liberty. The rightsholders have given the BPI an agreement to police their rights, and this is the result. It's very logical, it's very legal, and it's very moral. They have a right to protect their rights. You do not have a right to violate them.[/QUOTE] Do they represent you and only you? Are you sure there's not more in it for them to be more partisan to private and powerful groups? I'm just asking because you seem to believe there's no corruption anywhere here.

[QUOTE=Hullu V3;39997667]the government knows what you're doingr[/QUOTE] I get the joke, that's hilarious. :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39997684]Do they represent you and only you? Are you sure there's not more in it for them to be more partisan to private and powerful groups? I'm just asking because you seem to believe there's no corruption anywhere here.[/QUOTE] Please prove the alleged corruption then come back.

[QUOTE=scout1;39997696]Please prove the alleged corruption then come back.[/QUOTE] I'm questioning if it's there, which is right and sensible to do why do you not think there's a chance of fallibility?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39997699]I'm questioning if it's there, which is right and sensible to do why do you not think there's a chance of fallibility?[/QUOTE] Everything is fallible, for example you or me. I do not know if my car will explode in the morning when I start it. It's possible. Some people don't like me. The manufacturer doesn't have a great track record. But I do not fear a bomb exploding in my car unless I know there is one there or have reasonable doubt to suspect one. The fact that there is negligibly small chance that my car will explode does not paralyze me with fear, nor does it make me suspect the car is going to explode each and every morning I turn the key. Now if you would please show me the corruption, or the bomb, we can talk. But until you prove it, there is no bomb, and I've seen no corruption. I simply see a person who doesn't like how a court ruled. And that does not make it corrupt.

Oh well maybe you shouldn't be pirating. I'm all for a free and open internet but when people have had it so good for years pirating anything they want you can't complain when a popular site gets blocked.

[QUOTE=Jsm;39997386]So courts are infallible now and we should trust their judgement without question and not question their judgements and interpretation of our laws? I hate to say it as its a massive cliché but that [B]is[/B] a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] Dude you can't always say "but courts can be wrong too!!!" whenever they rule something you don't like That's not how society and law works. You can argue that the copyrights these rulings are based on are old and outdated and whatnot, ok, you go and change that, but you can't scream over your favourite warez site being unreachable. Furthermore you complain about the rich evil music corps keeping the man down with their court buying. Well where does the money come from? You don't buy their music? You don't go to their concerts? You don't listen to commercials on Spotify? Ok. But that's where your power as a consumer ends. Obviously millions of other people do like to pay for their music and as long as that's the case you also can't scream about the courts not representing the people or some shit. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] Summary: If you do warez at least be down with it. Nothing worse than a crook pretending to be a hero. God damn Robin Hood.

If you need an alternative, try Torrentz [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] Its like, the Google of torrents [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] I can confirm it can locate all my favorite Linux Distros