The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK ISPs, court rules

[GibbonBlack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17894176


ruh roh

[frankie teardrop]

not for nothing, but it wasn't the wisest business decision to call it the pirate bay... "AIM HERE," says the site admin.

[GibbonBlack]

I can't imagine shutting it down will make any significant difference anyway. Remember when Suprnova shut down and nothing changed? I just don't like the idea of having websites blocked

[frankie teardrop]

well, the megaupload business (akin to the napster/limewire thing) has caused similar sites to tighten their grip a bit (of which my blog was a casualty), but overall, piracy will find a way to continue, whether anyone likes it or not. shutting down a site isn't going to do much once the dust settles.

[aggroculture]

The market needs to adapt to this, instead of constantly running to the law. Charge people a decent price for products, and they will pay for them. Keep trying to rip them off, and they will go get them for free.

[sukey]

Wow, well I already can't get on it. Bloody annoying actually although it's not going to stop me downloading anything - I'll just go elsewhere.

[GibbonBlack]

http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/


try that

[coolguy]

The market needs to adapt to this, instead of constantly running to the law. Charge people a decent price for products, and they will pay for them. Keep trying to rip them off, and they will go get them for free.
I think Radiohead proved this wrong.

For me, if I REALLY like the band, like love them, like I want to listen to their album when I am sleeping, reading, taking a shit sort of thing, then I will buy their cd's, t-shirts, come to their shows etc etc, no matter what the price. I'm glad musicians and labels are losing money to people downloading. This should raise the bar for musicians so they can't keep making a living on half-ass 'can-live-without-it' bullshit, and the labels need to spend more on the packaging and overall presentation of the releases. I guess what I'm saying is, it isn't the price that's the problem, it's the quality of the product.
Although, I'd prefer musicians to not be able to make a living off their music anyways. 99.999999% of all music sucks when the musicians begin to earn more than the average McDonalds employee.

[Conan The Barbarian]

I think Radiohead proved this wrong.

For me, if I REALLY like the band, like love them, like I want to listen to their album when I am sleeping, reading, taking a shit sort of thing, then I will buy their cd's, t-shirts, come to their shows etc etc, no matter what the price. I'm glad musicians and labels are losing money to people downloading. This should raise the bar for musicians so they can't keep making a living on half-ass 'can-live-without-it' bullshit, and the labels need to spend more on the packaging and overall presentation of the releases. I guess what I'm saying is, it isn't the price that's the problem, it's the quality of the product.
Although, I'd prefer musicians to not be able to make a living off their music anyways. 99.999999% of all music sucks when the musicians begin to earn more than the average McDonalds employee.


This has got to be the most ridiculous post I have read and you are part of the problem that real artists suffer. Especially up and coming bands.

[coolguy]

This has got to be the most ridiculous post I have read and you are part of the problem that real artists suffer. Especially up and coming bands.

Haha, whatever man.

[GibbonBlack]

Although, I'd prefer musicians to not be able to make a living off their music anyways. 99.999999% of all music sucks when the musicians begin to earn more than the average McDonalds employee.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you try and make "art" but no one buys it so you believe things like "real artists don't make money". Because that's the only reason I can think of for someone believing that.

[aggroculture]

I don't understand the point you made about Radiohead.
A new DVD is $29.95. Blu Ray is $39.95. Obvious why people download for free.
Music has been getting better. $8.99 seems entirely reasonable to me for an album. I've always maintained albums should be under $10. CDs in stores for $18 or higher is just ridiculous, but you still see them.

[MrSlfDstruct]

Who pays 30 bucks for a DVD or 40 for Blu-ray!? New Blu-rays are like 18 bucks, 23 usually at most. You'll find the occasional exception as you will with everything, but $40 for a single film release is extremely uncommon.

With the economies of scale that have to be in effect on CD's, five, six bucks seems reasonable. I'd buy a hell of a lot more if they were in that price range.

[coolguy]

I don't understand the point you made about Radiohead.
A new DVD is $29.95. Blu Ray is $39.95. Obvious why people download for free.
Music has been getting better. $8.99 seems entirely reasonable to me for an album. I've always maintained albums should be under $10. CDs in stores for $18 or higher is just ridiculous, but you still see them.
When they released their album online and they let people pick their own price, or was that Nine Inch Nails?. Nevertheless the point is, a very high % didn't pay anything.

As for my previous post, I guess the idea of over exaggerating in order to prove a point is lost here. The way I see it, my personal favorite bands are the ones who make music for the love of making music. Most of these bands don't make a living off their music and have day jobs, just like the rest of us. Just because they don't rake in tons of cash, have huge record labels, or even make enough from their craft to support themselves doesn't make them suffering. The fact they are free of a big record labels obvious influence allows them complete artistic freedom, which for the most part doesn't exist when bands become "successful." It's when these genuinely good bands get sucked up by these big record labels and become restricted is when they become shit, and I can list plenty of examples.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you try and make "art" but no one buys it so you believe things like "real artists don't make money". Because that's the only reason I can think of for someone believing that.
Wow, not even close. Nice try dumbass. Would you like to play again?

[GibbonBlack]

Wow, not even close. Nice try dumbass. Would you like to play again?

no, no. You've really put me in my place. I'm just glad you didn't put "Haha, whatever'". Then I'd never get any sleep

[Gray Grimez]

I find it funny when people outside of the music industry comment on things like money, the vast majority of bands including many you would think to be super rich never made much money off their music. The whole drum & bass genre as thats where I work is an example, very few artists/djs whatever from the scene have ever been able to support themselves solely on the music. Famous names such as optical that were completely synomonous with drum & bass now have jobs again to support themselves as they were unable to live off their music. So yea, crappy opinion is crappy.

[aggroculture]

I'm not advocating bands let people decide how much they want to pay. I'm asking bands, and labels, and film companies, to lower their prices, make them more acceptable, adapt to the reality of the market. Amazon/itunes have finally begun to understand this: not only is it easy for me to buy an album with one click for $9, but it's the right thing to do.

[owinn]

unsurprisingly a pointless ban (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/24/the-proxy-bay)

[Fixer808]

What'd they call it, "thepiratebay.f.u"?

Also, the people running these sites have never known a world without personal computers. Legislators still have trouble wrapping their heads around these "DVD players?!". Someone's got a technological advantage.

[owinn]

The legislators are metaphorically speaking throwing rocks at tanks