Why Did Italian ISPs Redirect Pirate Bay Traffic To IFPI Site?
from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept
We've already talked about how Italy's plan to have ISPs block all access to The Pirate Bay has failed by getting more people to visit the site. However, TorrentFreak points out another oddity in this whole ordeal. For the sites that did redirect The Pirate Bay, they pointed people to an IFPI-owned website. That seems highly questionable. Why should ISPs direct traffic intended for one private site to another private site -- allowing that second private organization to collect IP address info from folks intending to go to The Pirate Bay? If they really had to block the site, why not point them to a gov't explanation or, at the very least, a neutral site. Handing The Pirate Bay's traffic over to music industry lobbyists makes very little sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ban, isps, italy, promotion, redirect
Companies: ifpi, pirate bay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong? Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Longer answer: yet but not the government's responsibility to enforce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A person's right to own art, however, is.
Should I have to pay to view a movie? No, and there are plenty of free ways to get to it, even legally (borrow from a friend, use free theater passes, check it out from the public library, etc.) Downloading is a different means, but the same result, and I do not believe it is wrong.
I do think it is in a person's best interest to support what they enjoy by buying it. I buy DVDs and CDs that I really like for this reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do not have the right to view things for free just because it is considered an art. Those who produce a product should be able to protect it against those who believe it is theirs to take for free. They have the right to set it's price and charge for access to it, just as those who produce physical goods such as food and clothing can charge whatever price they wish. If you feel it is overpriced, then don't buy it - note that the reason the price is high is because demand is high (and supply is low), meaning that the majority of people disagree with you.
Have I stolen music or movies? Maybe, but at least i wouldn't try to convince myself that it's right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe that they are infringing on copyrights, which is against the law.
However, whether that's "right" or "wrong" may depend on the specific example. You've got situations like open source products where their developers encourage people to upload via bittorrent.
And you have movie directors and producers who found their movies made more money after they were leaked to bittorrent. Is it "wrong" that those folks were able to make more money after fans helped promote their movies?
Personally, I don't use any file sharing software or anything of the like, because I know it's illegal. I'm pretty sure I end up spending a lot less money on music these days, because I don't get to explore what's new that's out there, but if that's the way the industry prefers to act, that is their problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unlikely, but we'll see.
"Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong?"
Morally? No.
Legally? Depends on the city/county/state/province/country.
For example, in the US it is a Civil crime. A Civil crime is defined as a dispute between two private entities and its all about monetary rewards and punishments.
This is why people wonder why jail time is getting tacked on and Federal agencies being tasked with tracking this stuff down. Its not a penal crime like murder or rape.
Disclaimer: There *is* a possibility of tracker sites (flimsy argument IMO btw) being nailed for mass pirating. That *is* criminal, but again no where near as 'bad' a crime as murder or rape or theft.
The people that buy the pirated goods either can't be 'gotten' because they didn't know, or if they did its a CIVIL issue there and the cops stay out of it.
This is why the RIAA seems exceptionally evil as they are corrupting the government further to turn these into penal issues.
"Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download."
Whups didn't read that at first. Like I said, morally they are doing nothing wrong. Legally, a civil suit can be brought against them but only for the one item. So if you download photoshop they should be able to chase you down for the cost of photoshop plus legal fees. They shouldn't be able to chase you down for 1000% damages like the RIAA gets to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unlikely, but we'll see.
"Do you believe that people who use P2P to upload/download copyright protected content are doing something wrong?"
Morally? No.
Legally? Depends on the city/county/state/province/country.
For example, in the US it is a Civil crime. A Civil crime is defined as a dispute between two private entities and its all about monetary rewards and punishments.
This is why people wonder why jail time is getting tacked on and Federal agencies being tasked with tracking this stuff down. Its not a penal crime like murder or rape.
Disclaimer: There *is* a possibility of tracker sites (flimsy argument IMO btw) being nailed for mass pirating. That *is* criminal, but again no where near as 'bad' a crime as murder or rape or theft.
The people that buy the pirated goods either can't be 'gotten' because they didn't know, or if they did its a CIVIL issue there and the cops stay out of it.
This is why the RIAA seems exceptionally evil as they are corrupting the government further to turn these into penal issues.
"Please note I am not talking about ISPs, search engines, etc.; just about actual users who upload and/or download."
Whups didn't read that at first. Like I said, morally they are doing nothing wrong. Legally, a civil suit can be brought against them but only for the one item. So if you download photoshop they should be able to chase you down for the cost of photoshop plus legal fees. They shouldn't be able to chase you down for 1000% damages like the RIAA gets to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With the amount of product placement in music, tv shows, and movies, mass distribution over the internet can increase the value of these placements. Chevy, Patron, Bacardi, Hennessy and Cristal should pay more if the rap track becomes a mega hits on torrent sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes perfect sense.
That's why every office needs term limits and the people need to understand that political mobs (aka: "party" in some locales) are not healthy to the system overall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redirects to the wrong site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the ISP does not have a legal right to provide false information on the DNS query. Do we want ISPs, like in China, to restrict access based on private policy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Majority of people are dumb sheep and just don't know any better.
A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P is, of course, a useful way to transfer digital files. My only concern, however, is when people who should know better take liberties with content of the kind I note above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"P2P is, of course, a useful way to transfer digital files."
can I take that as a YES ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironically the block resulted in a 5% increase in traffic from Italy to Pirate Bay.
"If they really had to block the site, why not point them to a gov't explanation"
In case they decide to do this in the future I hope they will choose some neutral message. Here in Sweden this site with logos that encourage copying was once blocked by the police. Users were redirected to a page saying that the site had been blocked because of child pornography crimes. But there was no illegal material on the site, just a humorous and innocent dance performed by the site owner's son on the welcome page, and after they filed complaints they were finally unblocked. However, at this point visitors to the site had already been informed by the police that the site was involved in criminal activity even though this was incorrect and no trial had ever taken place. You can imagine the PR damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality is a Pipe Dream
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do not believe ISP's have or should have the right to restrict Internnet traffic based on an agreement they achieve with another private company.
Do we want the ISP to always direct web queries to Microsoft's Live instead of Google because the signed an agreement with MS? Regardless of the "motive", the power for an ISP to do this is the question. Leave addressing Pirate Bay issues to other legal means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the IFPI site
If the music industry wants to go after someone, they should only be able to target individual downloaders. PirateBay, among others, does give users access to legally and even encouraged downloads as mentioned above. Every time I format one of my machines I can usually download new versions of X Y or Z faster using torrents than finding an actual bandwidth starved site. They use legal means to distribute files determined by individuals. They have done nothing wrong.
The music industry knows it will have to change, and instead of using this to their advantage they choose to fight it every step of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the IFPI site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in china and i want tpb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]