On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Scott Armitage <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip] > * Whilst blocking TPB does prevent users from access the torrent tracker > files it doesn't prevent the act of using bit torrent.
With the caveat that TPB no longer hosts .torrent files, nor does it operate a tracker. It's now merely a database of magnet[1] links and nfo files. > * Will this action stop widespread copyright infringement of movies and > music? No. Of course not, such activity predates TPB and will postdate it, but the issue here is where does the line get drawn? TPB's past activity aside for a second, it is now just a collection of links. > * Will this action even be successful in preventing access to TPB? Probably > not. Definitely not, given the propensity for TPB's admins to simply light up service on alternate domains and IPs. > * TPB is just one site, there are hundreds if not thousands of other sites > infringing copyright, why single out TPB. You can get exactly the same > torrent files from extratorrent. Well, you can't, since TPB don't host torrent files, but I get your point. > * the BPI et al are being given preferential treatment. If someone feels > their copyright is being infringed they should take the alleged infringer to > court. Which historically has been the duplicator and distributor (i.e. the cameraman in the cinema, the dodgy geezer with the stall full of copied DVDs, etc), so you can see where the slow-moving, dinosaur-brained industry organisations have problems keeping up. > * TPB aren't infringing on copyright, merely facilitating others to do so, > but where do you draw the line. Is the ISP complicit, the company who made > TPBs server hardware, the transit network, the electricity supplier? Ban nPower! Actually, just ban them anyway. > * My biggest worry is this is a slippery slope, once you set off down the > hill of censoring where do you stop. > * There are other more effective measures to stop copyright infringement. > Such as investing in ways to provide high quality digital media which is > reasonably priced. You will always have priacy, what you need to do is > provide as many means as possibly for people to purchase the media legally. Preaching to the choir on both counts, methinks. > Making it as easy, and cheap, as possible to buy media is the best way to > target lost revenue from copyright infringement. How many people are > currently frustrated by the provision of high quality digital media? I know > I am. Walking into Tesco or browsing Amazon and buying a Blu Ray is a relatively easy process these days, as is downloading HD content from iTunes. However, I'd steer clear of the "lost revenue" boogeyman argument, as that's been thoroughly debunked over the years. -n [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_URI_scheme
