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

I fail to understand why they even bother blocking sites on the ISP level; within the space of less than 20 seconds I managed to get around this and many others can too.

katproxy.com If you really want to get onto it.

Tried to get on it earlier, I wondered why it wasn't working. Seems pointless, it's easy enough to get around.

It's working fine here, I love how my ISP just apparently doesn't give a single fuck about shit like this.

why doesn't finland get any of these website blocks

boohoooo the poor babbie facepunchers are going to whine and pretend they know law claiming this is legal

I guess they missed this huh: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720[/url] [QUOTE=Music sales are not affected by web piracy, study finds]A report published by the European Commission Joint Research Centre claims that music web piracy does not harm legitimate sales. The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies examined the online habits of 16,000 Europeans. They also found that freely streamed music provided a small boost to sales figures.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39999386]I guess they missed this huh: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720[/url][/QUOTE] This doesn't mean they are not allowed to block the sites. It's just a report.

For you guys - [url]http://come.in/[/url]

The entire basis for everyone's arguments here seems to miss the fact that they're blocking a website for talking and referencing other websites/content, not it's actual content. Regardless of your views on Piracy, how would any of you like it if FP was suddenly blocked for, say, a single user in DD posting that they smoked weed in the US? I mean, you can't be picky when it comes to morality. Either you block all websites with illegal content, or none of them. You don't get to pick and choose, and if you happen to think all websites should be blocked, add FP to the list, as well as any website you view that has advertising which outsources to a third party, as I can rent out an ad that can be illegal in other countries, but not the one of the advertiser, and get your website shut down then.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;39999425]This doesn't mean they are not allowed to block the sites. It's just a report.[/QUOTE] It means its mind numbingly stupid and shouldn't be tolerated.

[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] This. And especially when it comes to computer stuff - judges are just normal people, and some of them quite old; they generally don't know that much about the technical aspects of this kind of stuff. I imagine that'll do their best and look into, but that doesn't change that a good deal might fly over their heads.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39999386]I guess they missed this huh: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720[/url][/QUOTE] I don't think the recording industry would have the guts or the brain make a 180 turn and just say "piracy isn't that bad".

Meh, I can still get onto all the shit our goverment trys to block with [url=http://come.in/]this[/url].

[QUOTE=redhaven;40000212]I don't think the recording industry would have the guts or the brain make a 180 turn and just say "piracy isn't that bad".[/QUOTE] Who gives a shit what they think. We don't have to be dictated to by them. We just need to convince our senile old judges to stop enforcing their shit.

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;39999503]The entire basis for everyone's arguments here seems to miss the fact that they're blocking a website for talking and referencing other websites/content, not it's actual content. Regardless of your views on Piracy, how would any of you like it if FP was suddenly blocked for, say, a single user in DD posting that they smoked weed in the US? I mean, you can't be picky when it comes to morality. Either you block all websites with illegal content, or none of them. You don't get to pick and choose, and if you happen to think all websites should be blocked, add FP to the list, as well as any website you view that has advertising which outsources to a third party, as I can rent out an ad that can be illegal in other countries, but not the one of the advertiser, and get your website shut down then.[/QUOTE] If one store in a mall is selling illegal goods, then the store will be shut down without it reflecting too harshly on the mall. If multiple stores in the mall are selling illegal goods, and the practice is aided and abetted by the mall administration (who make no effort to try to shut it down), then the entire mall is likely to be shut down. There are degrees here. One illegal item popping up on a website, put there by a user or automated process, isn't an issue. But if a website makes no attempt to remove them, and derives most of its revenue (thanks to ads) from illegal content, then they are somewhat responsible.

Good luck, I'm behind 7 proxies!! ;)

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;39999503]The entire basis for everyone's arguments here seems to miss the fact that they're blocking a website for talking and referencing other websites/content, not it's actual content. Regardless of your views on Piracy, how would any of you like it if FP was suddenly blocked for, say, a single user in DD posting that they smoked weed in the US? I mean, you can't be picky when it comes to morality. Either you block all websites with illegal content, or none of them. You don't get to pick and choose, and if you happen to think all websites should be blocked, add FP to the list, as well as any website you view that has advertising which outsources to a third party, as I can rent out an ad that can be illegal in other countries, but not the one of the advertiser, and get your website shut down then.[/QUOTE] Your idealistic world doesn't apply. Of course the judges/lawyers/companies know that they can't block all sites so they try to hit the main ones. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DigitalySane;40000245]Meh, I can still get onto all the shit our goverment trys to block with [url=http://come.in/]this[/url].[/QUOTE] This is not about peoplewho know their way around. This is about your dad who always got around clicking his way through and your little sister to whom you explained how to click a .torrent file. And these are the majority. Face it.

[QUOTE=scout1;39996326]The law seems to disagree with you.[/QUOTE] The law agrees with me. A torrent website is legal. What may not be legal are specific items on the site. The site itself perfectly fine to have and run. People who use torrenting for p2p downloading (legally) are just being punished here.

[QUOTE=Worldwaker;39999503]The entire basis for everyone's arguments here seems to miss the fact that they're blocking a website for talking and referencing other websites/content, not it's actual content. Regardless of your views on Piracy, how would any of you like it if FP was suddenly blocked for, say, a single user in DD posting that they smoked weed in the US? [/QUOTE] The difference is that torrent sites aren't just people saying "Oh I pirated a game" which [B]mind you, FP itself bans for.[/B] They disseminate torrents which allow you to pirate that media. More analogous would be DD being used to organize drug shipments and garry refusing to remove that content. For some inexplicable reason he would be liable for allowing such activity to take place on his forum. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;40002104]The law agrees with me. A torrent website is legal. What may not be legal are specific items on the site. The site itself perfectly fine to have and run. People who use torrenting for p2p downloading (legally) are just being punished here.[/QUOTE] Yes, we explained this in the thread. People who use torrenting for legal p2p downloading have sites which host only legal torrents. There has been no loss.

[QUOTE=danharibo;39997466]A private entity blocked a website on the internet without the input of the general population. Does it matter?[/QUOTE] So the general population has more authority than the law? It wasn't legal to use the site for its intended purpose in Britain anyways.

[QUOTE=areolop;40002104]The law agrees with me. A torrent website is legal. What may not be legal are specific items on the site. The site itself perfectly fine to have and run. [B]People who use torrenting for p2p downloading (legally) are just being punished here[/B].[/QUOTE] Are you listening to yourself?

[QUOTE=Killuah;39998139]Dude you can't always say "but courts can be wrong too!!!" whenever they rule something you don't like [/QUOTE] Courts [B]can[/B] be wrong and should always be questioned no matter what their judgement is. Its why multiple levels of courts exist, someone should always be questioning the judgement a court passes.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40002507]Are you listening to yourself?[/QUOTE] Yea. A lot of programs use p2p as an alternative to downloading the files off their site.

[QUOTE=areolop;40002550]Yea. A lot of programs use p2p as an alternative to downloading the files off their site.[/QUOTE] Which isn't an issue, at least in the UK. ISPs are not being forced to block bittorrent itself, unlike in some places where they have considered it.

[QUOTE=prooboo;39997063]Jesus facepunch really likes Linux distros[/QUOTE] I like downloads to pretty much whatever I'd want (Yes, this includes legal things) which will never go down. Seriously, I can find shit that I still find useful, while the sites that hosted them have gone down years ago. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [url]http://katproxy.com/[/url] whelp, that was easy.

For fucks sake

[QUOTE=Jsm;40002543]Courts [B]can[/B] be wrong and should always be questioned no matter what their judgement is. Its why multiple levels of courts exist, someone should always be questioning the judgement a court passes.[/QUOTE] It's just that people tend to question it the most when it's against something they do. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;40002550]Yea. A lot of programs use p2p as an alternative to downloading the files off their site.[/QUOTE] Yes we all know about the terrabytes upon terrabytes distributed with the help of those trackers.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;39997173]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] Wow I didn't know you were all supportive for Piracy, Mr. Waters.. [editline]22nd March 2013[/editline] [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] Discerning between "It's right because the law says so" and "It's right because I reached this conclution through reasoning and logic" doesn't seem to be an ability of yours..

[QUOTE=Killuah;40003102]It's just that people tend to question it the most when it's against something they do. [/QUOTE] I agree that people do that but I honestly think a courts decision should always be questioned when the judgement is thought to be questionable by a lot of people.