ISP Censorship

debitcardmayhem

There's no news like fake news :beer:

debitcardmayhem

esuhl wrote: »

Can you (or anyone) elaborate...?

I mean, websites are only available on servers, so what is the difference between blocking a website and a server?

Does website blocking only involve blocking HTTP(S)? Or were only HTML files blocked...? And now they're blocking an IP/domain...?

And how does this work with cloud computing? As I understand it, a cloud server could be providing websites for thousands of unrelated organisations? Surely they can't just take out legitimate businesses if a single illegal stream is found?

What if someone live streams a football match on, say, YouTube, are the ISPs going to totally shut down YouTube while the match is on?!

Will the ISP's be responsible for paying compensation to businesses that are inadvertently affected by their actions?

What like TalkTalk blocking teamviewer ? As if....

esuhl

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

What like TalkTalk blocking teamviewer ? As if....

Ha! That was outrageous! But did any businesses suffer financial losses as a result...?

System

AndyPix wrote: »

Hi Guys


Has anyone else read this info with a bit of trepidation ??

(

No because I believe in paying for the content I watch, the software I use, the music I listen to. Only scum who ponce off others should be concerned by this. Personally I think its absolutely fantastic and needs to be done more, not less.

Robisere

The real problem is posed by the very few, very wealthy football clubs and film studios. Both have so much money that they can control the dissemination of their product and its content. The entertainment provided is all about the best talent they can buy in the form of players and actors. Most of that talent is discarded if it does not work for them as entertainment. Every other football club and movie studio struggles for success against the financial clout of the top few.

When the day comes that the bloated top 6 clubs no longer have the resources and the bubble bursts, maybe we will see a level playing field again. No pun intended.

onomatopoeia99

AndyPix wrote: »

It seems to me this is an initial test of real-time censorship , which is a sad day for the internet

Sadly brought about by those that want to watch things they haven't paid for.

I'm a supporter of free speech (campaigning effort and financially) but I can't support people that violate copyright simply because they don't want to pay the rights holder. If it's too expensive, go without. It's football, not food.

And yes, it would suck mightily if people that want free football ended up getting VPN services that allow those living in oppressive regimes to communicate anonymously taken offline. But it would be the fault of the people that won't pay to watch football, no-one else.

debitcardmayhem

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Sadly brought about by those that want to watch things they haven't paid for.

I'm a supporter of free speech (campaigning effort and financially) but I can't support people that violate copyright simply because they don't want to pay the rights holder. If it's too expensive, go without. It's football, not food.

And yes, it would suck mightily if people that want free football ended up getting VPN services that allow those living in oppressive regimes to communicate anonymously taken offline. But it would be the fault of the people that won't pay to watch football, no-one else.

IMHO drivel ....
OK live football i.e. fans that go to matches , and without live fans football matches will be not much
fun will they, but they pay this much for half of a season's matches without taking in travelling and pies.

The problem is down to greedy broadcasters , clubs and "sportsmen" . The real fans get less for more than the cost of Sky/BT/etc. Oh and some of the people pay to watch these players and often wonder why. Before Sky you could watch MOTD via the free services, listen free to a radio broadcast , watch the FA cup and the clubs mainly depended on their fans, don't blame those who want to circumvent the system, blame the corporate/personal greed of those involved in the "game"

AndyPix

Tarambor wrote: »

No because I believe in paying for the content I watch, the software I use, the music I listen to. Only scum who ponce off others should be concerned by this. Personally I think its absolutely fantastic and needs to be done more, not less.

Oh dear ... You are of course entitled to your opinion.
But I believe you have wildly missed the point or are simply trolling


This isn't anything to do with WHAT they are censoring
It has everything to do with the free speech.


If you cant see that then I haven't the inclination to argue that point with you.
I would simply refer you to the great firewall of China

unholyangel

esuhl wrote: »

Can you (or anyone) elaborate...?

I mean, websites are only available on servers, so what is the difference between blocking a website and a server?

Does website blocking only involve blocking HTTP(S)? Or were only HTML files blocked...? And now they're blocking an IP/domain...?

And how does this work with cloud computing? As I understand it, a cloud server could be providing websites for thousands of unrelated organisations? Surely they can't just take out legitimate businesses if a single illegal stream is found?

What if someone live streams a football match on, say, YouTube, are the ISPs going to totally shut down YouTube while the match is on?!

Will the ISP's be responsible for paying compensation to businesses that are inadvertently affected by their actions?

What I'm about to say could be entirely wrong as I don't have any kind of training or experience in the area but the way I would imagine it working would be the websites being like directions/shortcodes and the server being the address.

You can have multiple websites set up to point to the same content/server. Think of it like driving on the roads - can have several different routes to get to the same location. One is blocked off, you just take another. What they're talking about doing is blocking the location - so no matter what route you take, you cant get to it. I know websites I worked on previously would occasionally have routing problems where the website address wouldnt work but the server IP would.

However, if i'm not mistaken, it should still be a relatively easy work around - its been a while since I heard anything about them but from what I remember the pirate bay used to have a legion of back up servers waiting just in case their own servers were compromised/seized.

And here in lies the crux. No matter what they do, no matter what they spend there will always be pirates doing it better. Case & point was the ps2 - spent millions designing anti-copyright safeguards....and the hack/workaround was found & released before even the console itself was released.

esuhl

Tarambor wrote: »

No because I believe in paying for the content I watch, the software I use, the music I listen to. Only scum who ponce off others should be concerned by this. Personally I think its absolutely fantastic and needs to be done more, not less.

You seem to have (deliberately?) misunderstood the issue.