Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Mar 2012 16:43 UTC
Internet & Networking "The Pirate Bay is not only the most visited BitTorrent site on the Internet, but arguably the most censored too. Many ISPs have been ordered to block their customers’ access to the website, and recently Microsoft joined in on the action by stopping people sharing its location with others. Microsoft's Windows Live Messenger now refuses to pass on links to The Pirate Bay website, claiming they are unsafe." They refuse links to The Pirate Bay. In that light, here are a bunch of completely and utterly useless links to The Pirate Bay. And some more. And then some. Update: We have some more links to The Pirate Bay.
Thread beginning with comment 511822
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Link ?
by snowbender on Sun 25th Mar 2012 10:43 UTC in reply to "Link ?"
snowbender
Member since:
2006-05-04

Well, more correctly, it is only blocked if you are using the dns servers from your isp. It is not blocked for anyone who is using other dns servers. And I think it is as of this moment (still?) not illegal in Belgium to use other dns servers.

Btw, I do not agree with those blockings. In Belgium, everyone already pays a special tax every month because supposedly everyone is actually illegally downloading stuff. Whenever we buy empty audio cds, we already pay a special tax because everyone is supposedly using those cds to illegally copy music. In Belgium you have to pay SABAM if you want to switch on the radio in a company office, because that is considered a public performance. (Note that the radio station itself already have to pay SABAM a huge fee) Construction workers that wanna play music during work, have to pay SABAM. People opening a child care centre and want to play music for the children, have to pay SABAM. A public library that organises a reading hour (someone reads from a book and people listen), has to pay SABAM. Also keep in mind that when we buy the originals, we already pay the artists and all. I think within a couple of years, we'll have to pay SABAM when we like to watch a movie with the whole family.

Honestly, I don't understand how an organization like SABAM gets away with all those things. They even try to charge people for artists that are not even registered with SABAM, but with another organisation (Eskeep). They are not very clean themselves. Why does the government listen to them and just start to 'censor' the internet, and allow all those taxes?

I am not saying that piracy is ok or that piracy should be tolerated, but... either piracy is forbidden, but then we shouldn't be paying a tax every month on our tv or internet subscription, or either they insist on the extra tax, but then they cannot claim it is forbidden, since we already have to pay for it. Or is the idea that everyone sticks to the rules, but has to pay for the neighbour that is illegally downloading stuff?

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Link ?
by silix on Sun 25th Mar 2012 15:41 in reply to "RE: Link ?"
silix Member since:
2006-03-01

Whenever we buy empty audio cds, we already pay a special tax because everyone is supposedly using those cds to illegally copy music.
there's something like that in italy, too - here it's called "equo compenso" (fair compensation or something like that)

I am not saying that piracy is ok or that piracy should be tolerated, but... either piracy is forbidden, but then we shouldn't be paying a tax every month on our tv or internet subscription, or either they insist on the extra tax, but then they cannot claim it is forbidden, since we already have to pay for it. Or is the idea that everyone sticks to the rules, but has to pay for the neighbour that is illegally downloading stuff?
look at it this way: if you commit a criminal act - eg a robbery - causing a damage to someone, it's no more just "between you and the law"
your crime shall be punished on its own (and you get likely sentenced to jail)
but otoh, the ones you've damaged also deserve to be compensated / refunded (and afaik you often lose or have to sell your belongings to repay them)

in the same perspective, taxes on internet connections and blank media serves to repay (in a forfait, by making everyone pay - not that i agree with draconian methods and this presumption of guilt... - with the side intention btw of turning the honest against the pirates, as someone once admitted) those (allegedly or actually) damaged by piracy
they're monetary compensation, not punishment, thus they dont make you less liable in front of the law for the civil (or penal, in some cases) violation...

Edited 2012-03-25 15:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Link ?
by chripun on Sun 25th Mar 2012 17:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Link ?"
chripun Member since:
2008-08-25

"Whenever we buy empty audio cds, we already pay a special tax because everyone is supposedly using those cds to illegally copy music.
there's something like that in italy, too - here it's called "equo compenso" (fair compensation or something like that)

I am not saying that piracy is ok or that piracy should be tolerated, but... either piracy is forbidden, but then we shouldn't be paying a tax every month on our tv or internet subscription, or either they insist on the extra tax, but then they cannot claim it is forbidden, since we already have to pay for it. Or is the idea that everyone sticks to the rules, but has to pay for the neighbour that is illegally downloading stuff?
look at it this way: if you commit a criminal act - eg a robbery - causing a damage to someone, it's no more just "between you and the law"
your crime shall be punished on its own (and you get likely sentenced to jail)
but otoh, the ones you've damaged also deserve to be compensated / refunded (and afaik you often lose or have to sell your belongings to repay them)

in the same perspective, taxes on internet connections and blank media serves to repay (in a forfait, by making everyone pay - not that i agree with draconian methods and this presumption of guilt... - with the side intention btw of turning the honest against the pirates, as someone once admitted) those (allegedly or actually) damaged by piracy
they're monetary compensation, not punishment, thus they dont make you less liable in front of the law for the civil (or penal, in some cases) violation...
"

This analogy is false. The robber is sentenced after the fact whereas you pay this so called "tax" regardless of your actual usage of the blank media.

This is crazy! People in the US argue against public health-care and object to paying for somebody else's health costs (even though it likely will save lives) yet it makes perfect sense to pay the rich producers of Hollywood? I'm truly amazed by the logic here.

This reminds me how MS charged PC manufactures license fees per chip even if the PC wasn't even sold with Windows. This is clearly an act of a monopoly and should be tightly regulated as such by the government.
The EU forced MS to un-bundle windows from other software and in the same vein it should force restrictions on the copyright organizations.

It's unthinkable to me that these organizations want to force payment on libraries for public reading of books to children by volunteers (My mom is a librarian and I'm personally offended by this notion). The government's job here, its purpose, is to protect the citizens by preventing this nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Link ?
by zittergie on Sun 25th Mar 2012 17:57 in reply to "RE: Link ?"
zittergie Member since:
2008-01-24

That Auvibel Tax is something I can not understand. You pay a tax (that is intended for for every blanc media like CD, DVD, USB-Stick, and so on) even when you use these for free data like Linux images, pictures and movies you made yourself.

BTW: Changed the DNS to Googles Public DNS. Restriction gone ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2