BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates 363
An anonymous reader sends this news from TorrentFreak:
After cutting its teeth as a domestic broadcaster, the BBC is spreading its products all around the globe. Shows like Top Gear have done extremely well overseas and the trend of exploiting other shows in multiple territories is set to continue. As a result, the BBC is now getting involved in the copyright debates of other countries, notably Australia, where it operates four subscription channels. Following submissions from Hollywood interests and local ISPs, BBC Worldwide has now presented its own to the Federal Government. Its text shows that the corporation wants new anti-piracy measures to go further than ever before.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
The BBC begins by indicating a preference for a co-operative scheme, one in which content owners and ISPs share responsibility to "reduce and eliminate" online copyright infringement. ... "Since the evolution of peer-to-peer software protocols to incorporate decentralized architectures, which has allowed users to download content from numerous host computers, the detection and prosecution of copyright violations has become a complex task. This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains.
So if I... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like the BBC is looking to piss off every IT department in the UK.
Re:So if I... (Score:5, Funny)
Thats nothing. I use a VPN everyday for my company's cloud based accounting system. My entire department is staffed by pirates.
Arrrrgh! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Arrrrgh! (Score:5, Funny)
The Crimson Permanent Assurance
Re:Arrrrgh! (Score:5, Funny)
Arrrgh, matey! Debit Left!!!, Credit Right!!!
I think that's "Debit to port, Credit to starboard" yer landlubber
Re:Arrrrgh! (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Informative)
Methinks BBC did what they did on the advise of their lawyers, and I am sure that there are still plenty of good people within BBC who can discern good from bad, right from wrong
So ... why don't all of us contact BBC and tell them what we think ?
Their website is at http://bbc.com/ [bbc.com]
You can contact them via http://www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/cont... [bbc.co.uk]
Or file a complaint at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaint... [bbc.co.uk]
Their worldservice email address is at worldservice.letters@bbc.co.uk
Their FB page is at https://www.facebook.com/bbcwo... [facebook.com]
Let them know, let BBC know how wrong they are about VPN
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
...and say what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
So lets go after the real issues and not invent new ones based on deliberate misinterpretation since the latter will result in loss of all credibility and leave the field wild open for really draconian suggestions.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The BBC has been a pretty reactionary organization overall, with some insane political correctness sprinkled over it. They are sucking up to the Middle Eastern audience so hard, they cause trade winds all by themselves. But as I said, overall the BBC is solidly right wing and in the pocket of big media. I still remember when the BBC favored the copy-protection bits added to CDs by some media conglomerates - chiefly Sony and Universal.
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were socialists, they wouldn't be paying themselves exorbitant salaries, they'd be spreading the money around.
There's also that despite their public funding, which means they could give their content away for free, then instead try to leverage it for profit as hard as they can.
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Informative)
There's also that despite their public funding, which means they could give their content away for free, then instead try to leverage it for profit as hard as they can.
Tax some (UK population) and give benefits to others (rest of the world) is not socialism, generally the rule is everybody pays and everybody gets. If the former doesn't hold, you can't expect the latter to hold either so I perfectly understand BBC Worldwide charging for their content.
As a BBC "customer" in the UK... (Score:5, Interesting)
The irony of this discussion is that as someone who lives in the UK and pays his licence fee, I still sometimes run into content on the BBC that I'm told I'm not allowed to see because I live in the wrong place.
This is why I lack much sympathy for the Beeb when people use VPNs and the like to circumvent geographical restrictions. I do understand that there are commercial agreements and licensing conditions at work here, and I do understand that the BBC Worldwide commercial arm is not the same as the BBC itself (though it is a wholly owned subsidiary).
Just to be clear, I think the BBC is a borderline national treasure. It is certainly not perfect, but the range and quality of programming it has produced over the years is so much better than the apparent norm on commercial television channels that I pay my licence fee gladly, even if it is a bizarre pseudo-tax based on archaic rules about who has to contribute.
However, if you're going to take primarily public funding, with only a relatively small amount coming from BBC Worldwide's commercial activities, then not sharing the results with those members of the public who are paying your bills is not on, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with them charging worldwide for their content, but using geolocation as your only means of authenticating whether the user has already paid is rather braindead.
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were socialists, they wouldn't be paying themselves exorbitant salaries, they'd be spreading the money around.
Socialists do not spread their own money around...
Re: (Score:3)
I gladly pay a bit more so those less well off can have it better.
Oddly enough, so do most capitalists. The difference between socialism and capitalism (politically) lies not in whether you personally choose to "spread the wealth around", but in whether you advocate forcing others to do so.
Most capitalists don't. Otherwise, poverty would be far less of an issue. Look at all the companies that pay minimum wage; they do not like to pay a bit more so those less well off can have it better. I'm not advocating force, I'm advocating sharing, which clearly isn't happening. In fact, capitalists have a history of using force to preserve the inequality.
Re: (Score:3)
I mostly agree, the BBC is actually very centrist (in fact if anything leaning left on some issues such as Gaza/Israel).
But I can most definitely give you an example of one area where the BBC is right wing leaning, not just right wing leaning but hard right leaning - it's website comments section. Now, I believe moderation of this is outsource IIRC so that might be the source of the problem, but there are regularly any number of people on there spouting far-right rhetoric about immigrants that go untouched,
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
Gentlemen, gentlemen... please calm down! You are talking past one another. The terms "left" and "right" are archaic, dating back to the French National Assembly of 1789. At that time "left" meant progressive, radical, secular, revolutionary; while "right" meant conservative, monarchic, religious. All of that is so far behind us that it's pretty much irrelevant nowadays.
The BBC is *pro-establishment*. Partly because it had a nasty near-death experience when it tried to tell the truth about Tony Blair and the Dodgy Dossier: the director-general had to resign, heads rolled, and since then everyone has known that the only thing to do is parrot the government line. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_... [bbc.co.uk]
The BBC is also pro-establishment because of its membership. It leans very heavily towards well-educated, middle-class, liberals who (rightly or wrongly) try very hard to be politically correct at all times.
These facts confuse anyone who tries to apply old-fashioned categories like "left" and "right". The BBC seems to be "right" because it's pro-establishment; but it also looks "left" because it's politically correct. However, I find that if you assume the BBC will always speak truth to power you will be absolutely wrong. The BBC will, in fact, tell power exactly what it thinks power wants to hear. Because, to be honest, that's how you get on in life these days.
From what I hear, things aren't all that different in the US media.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-09/consumers-paying-400pc-more-for-digital-programs-choice/5729928
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is BBC worldwide, it's a law unto itself and it needs to be reigned in. It's been doing things this last decade that are unacceptable, from buying companies it really should not be buying into because they're outside it's remit, to doing a real shit job of distribution, for example, shows paid for by the BBC license fee payer are sold on commercially by BBC Worldwide yet BBC Worldwide sells them in the US but not the UK so us in the UK who pay for the content in the first fucking case can't even buy Bluray discs of the content to keep like those in other countries can. I wanted to purchased Hidden Kingdoms on Bluray for my parents but BBC Worldwide only produce a US region version on Bluray and only sell it in the US even though it's production was financed by UK license fee payers - we can't get a copy except on DVD which completely defeats the object of such a show that's so heavily focussed on visuals.
This episode shouldn't be used to shame the BBC as a whole, it's at odds with what most people in the BBC proper believe, it's those at the top of the BBC responsible for reigning in BBC worldwide that's the problem - they let it go off and do it's own thing completely independently and it's gone feral and gotten rabies as a result.
Thus, if anyone does complain to the BBC about this I strongly advise you to lean towards making the point that enough is enough, BBC Worldwide needs to be reigned in and as it's whole owned by the BBC it needs to be pulled towards the views of license fee payers and not be allowed to continue to run amock doing it's own thing. BBC Worldwide makes a ton of profit for the BBC, but it can only do so because it's allowed to sell on content that UK TV license fee payers have paid for in the first place.
It's also worth noting that the BBC's charter is coming up for renegotiation soon too, so it's getting to the point where the BBC really can be forced to making sweeping changes or face having it's budget cut.
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's not, that's why even now it's well established that there are Russian regulars in Ukraine, the BBC still errs on the side of caution by calling those that are established as such "rebels" rather than "Russian soldiers" or similar.
The BBC may not fit your particular bias, but it's actually fairly unbiased - it takes immense caution before taking sides as in the example above. In fact, the BBC ended up in a massive fight with the government some years back precisely because it called out the then government over it's lies that led to the Iraq war once it had actual evidence so to call it a government mouthpiece is a bit of a joke. It does back up British values certainly, but that's a different thing - if you're looking for it to support Putin's or China's authoritarianism then no, it wont do that. There is certainly still some bias at the BBC in some areas - for example, coverage involving their own journalists is pretty poor, when Alan Johnson was kidnapped in Gaza they had daily coverage of it but stories about a kidnapped aid worker that were running at the same time went lightly reported which always struck me as a pretty blatant failure in objectivity but all in all it's very much a top tier news source in terms of quality and objectivity.
Likely when you say you're avoiding bias, what you really mean is that you don't like unbiased or low bias news and you're actually looking for confirmation bias and want something that will back up your own predetermined biases, and, well, have fun with that if that's what you're after, that's not what the BBC is, nor what we would ever want it to be.
Re:Contacting BBC, via VPN (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, ISP's should be regulated never to monitor their customers activities - I really think ISP looking into what I am transferring should be illegal. Just like a phone company should never listen to my conversations, ISP should never look into my data.
Re: (Score:3)
So ... why don't all of us contact BBC and tell them what we think ?
Be sure to use a VPN
Re: (Score:2)
and we should assume the entire bbc staff and UK's government personnel are pirates too!
Re:So if I... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if I want some privacy and protection against password snoopers for some features that I want to control on my home server I'm also by default a suspect by that logic.
The internet seems to be a new playground for Big Brother... Make sure that the sheep are walking as the government want.
Re:So if I... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if I want some privacy and protection against password snoopers for some features that I want to control on my home server I'm -
Home server? Forget the VPN issue, that's a banning right there.
Re:So if I... (Score:4, Insightful)
While the reason given may the true motive of the BBC, it certainly plays into the hands of GCHQ. Either way, it makes the BBC a shill [witting or unwitting] for the surveilance state being fostered by GCHQ.
I can just imagine a goodly fellow from GCHQ going over to the BBC: "You know these VPNs are difficult to spy on. But, the GCHQ can't just say that. Maybe you could help us. Just use some rubbish about copyright piracy. That'll do it"
Re:So if I... (Score:5, Funny)
Won't somebody please think of the children !
The BBC in particular seems to have been pretty good at employing people who "think of the children"...
Re:So if I... (Score:4, Informative)
Alas, that particular reference [bbc.com] might be lost on americans slashdotters.
Re:So if I... (Score:5, Insightful)
...have to VPN in to the work network to deal with switches or to check the status of an outage, I'm automatically assumed to be a pirate? Seems like the BBC is looking to piss off every IT department in the UK.
I'm sure VPNs at your place of work will be exempted from any new legislation. After all, they're never going to pass a law which will inconvenience banks and large corporations. It will be dedicated VPN services that will come under attack.
What's suprising (Score:5, Interesting)
What's surprising, based on this article, is the minimal checks that the BBC's geolocation blocking uses. It's purely DNS based. Just set your nameserver to a UK-based DNS nameserver and you can fire up and watch programs using the BBC iPlayer.
The ITVPlayer, in the other hand requires the actual program streams to be pulled using a UK-based IP address.
For people with the technical skills, a London, UK based virtual private server can be rented for about $10/month and perhaps less.
Re:What's suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
What's surprising, based on this article, is the minimal checks that the BBC's geolocation blocking uses
Perhaps it isn't really too surprising - BBC being a public service organisation are probably not intrinsically in favour of blocking out viewers, and they have only introduced DRM because they are under constant pressure to do so, especially from commercial channels. This is just one example of how the influence of large, private corporations are hurting the interests of ordinary people; another example would be the way even BBC have felt they have to pander to the lowest common denominator by running repetitive crap like Eastenders and "talent" shows every bloody day. The BBC used to produce high quality, cutting edge television and pioneering concepts that might not always appeal to a broad audience, but now it's mostly soap operas and "reality" shows.
Re:What's suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
just to clarify how they are under pressure from "commercial channels": they sell the shows to be shown on commercial(and publicly funded by other countries, but sell to them anyways) channels under exclusivity deals, so the drm/location limits are put in place to protect commercial interests of the BBC.
otherwise they wouldn't need to give a hoot if people worldwide were viewing their stuff, but if they let everyone in say Finland view the bbc feeds on iplayer how the fuck would they sell their content to the Finnish broadcasting company or the Finnish commercial channels? they wouldn't, so they do this to protect that revenue stream just like any other commercial company.
and the extra money generated thusly goes on for making shows nobody in UK even wants to look.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Looks like the BBC has derped a little too hard recently.
But let's be honest, the endless assault on IT has been ongoing for some time. 'Cloud services,' 'NSA firmware,' 'H1B personnel,' etc., etc. Government / business isn't done until the internet won't run.
Here's to hoping that there's a planet out there that doesn't suffer from this insanity.
Re: (Score:3)
No. As the article states it actually take two factors; IP obfuscation and high download use. VPN alone is not enough.
Such behavior may include the illegitimate use by Internet users of IP obfuscation tools in combination with high download volumes.
Re:So if I... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Read the summary? They're looking to piss off Australians here.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the issue would be reduced, if they streamed the next day to sites such as hulu or on BBC America website then the need for piracy will be reduced.
The problem is the following.
BBC/BBC America put a lot of buzz around Doctor Who 50th anniversary, and the 12/13th doctor. A lot of us bought into the buzz. However a lot of us do not have access to BBC America. and we need to wait months to see the stuff on our streaming services.
So the BBC Increased Demand, and artificially limited supply, as to rais
VPN= Pirate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not go all the way and say VPN users are terrorists? Just like all news media outlets are property of their respective government.
The news media choose candidates (Score:3)
Just like all news media outlets are property of their respective government.
It's the other way around. Government is property of the media, as the news media have power to make or break a candidate for public office. And with major movie studios owning most of the news media [pineight.com]...
Re:VPN= Pirate? (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago when BitTorrent first introduced encryption the UK security services complained that they were having a hard time separating it from other encrypted traffic. This tells us two things.
1. They think BitTorrent users aid terrorism.
2. Using encryption, e.g. a VPN, makes you a potential terrorist and of interest to them.
ORLY? (Score:2)
Lolwut? So when I connect to my corporate network to do legal stuff I get a paycheck for, I am a pirate?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aye, matey. You don't know it yet, but everytime you log into your corporate VPN, you trigger an illegal download. That's part of Ciscos evil masterplan to get rid of odd soap operas like Downtown Abbey
Re: (Score:3)
Downtown Abbey
Downton. I don't know why there's no second 'w' in there, but it is Downton.
Disclaimer: Never seen the show but am persistently irked by the missing second 'w'.
Re:ORLY? (Score:5, Funny)
Not only that, but actually you're one of the worst. You're even doing it FOR PROFIT!
Re: (Score:3)
Lolwut? So when I connect to my corporate network to do legal stuff I get a paycheck for, I am a pirate?
If you are using VPN for the purpose, then yes, you can be suspected to be a pirate. Not proven though.
Same deal with BitTorrent: if you are found transmitting BitTorrent traffic, there's a very high chance that you are a pirate. This despite the fact that BitTorrent is used for various legitimate purposes too.
Because fuck you BBC (Score:4, Interesting)
Think I'll be downloading my Doctor Who fix from now on.
Re:Because fuck you BBC (Score:5, Informative)
This season, in Australia, we're getting the latest Dr Who episode within 24 hours broadcast on ABC. Plus it's also available on iView. So there's no reason to pirate it.
However, the ABC doesn't run any advertising. So if you do pirate it, does anyone lose money?
Re: (Score:3)
Lucky you. We get the show half a season to a season later, butchered by atrocious dubbing.
Believe me, if I only COULD simply watch the original show half a year later, I'd already consider it a big step ahead... I'd even gladly pay for that.
Re: (Score:2)
This season, in Australia, we're getting the latest Dr Who episode within 24 hours broadcast on ABC. Plus it's also available on iView. So there's no reason to pirate it.
However, the ABC doesn't run any advertising. So if you do pirate it, does anyone lose money?
The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is primarily funded by tax dollars.
So... as a single, childless (so I pay more in tax than receive in benefits) taxpayer, how am I not paying for Doctor Who by watching it on a torrent rather than on the TV.
BTW, ABC's Iview is good but I'm 2-3 seasons behind.
Re: (Score:2)
This season, in Australia, we're getting the latest Dr Who episode within 24 hours broadcast on ABC. Plus it's also available on iView. So there's no reason to pirate it.
iView only allows Australians to view Doctor Who.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually we are getting Dr Who simultaneously with the UK if you are willing to get up at that time of the morning to watch. Or you can just record and time shift.
Sunday 7:30pm is a replay of the morning's broadcast.
Re: (Score:3)
Another reason to use VPNs... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Another reason to use VPNs... (Score:2, Informative)
Skip the vpn, just change your DNS servers to non-comcast ones:
8.8.8.8
8.8.4.4
Re: Another reason to use VPNs... (Score:3, Informative)
That's google.
Here's level 3
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2
Re: (Score:3)
OpenNIC:
OpenNIC - home [opennicproject.org]
OpenNIC - nearest servers [opennicproject.org]
OpenNIC - configure your dns [opennicproject.org]
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK ISPs are required by law to log the domain name of every site you visit. A VPN blocks them from doing that. I'm surprised that they have not been licenced yet.
That's fine (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously (Score:4, Funny)
geo-blocking (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC may want strong geo-blocking but it is completely against the interest of you and I. Geo-blocking is not a right given by law it is just a consequence of license agreements (an indirect consequence of copyright law).
Why should I as an internet user be compelled to give you accurate information about where I am located geographically?
Re:geo-blocking (Score:5, Informative)
Surely the question is rather - why should the BBC provide you with content if you're not prepared to give that information?
The BBC is funded by payments from TV licence holders in the UK. All the content it produces is available free in the UK. It also makes money from selling programmes overseas. If there was no revenue from overseas sales then people in the UK would have to pay a lot more.
So - why should you get the BBC content for free when you've not contributed to the costs of producing it in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
That's fine, BBC are in their right to give their videos only to those who pay. However, they're doing it wrong. The internet isn't designed with geo-blocking in mind. BBC started blocking by IP address as a pragmatic solution, and now they're trying to make the government turn their hack into law. [I don't get why BBC doesn't just mail all license payers or UK residents a username/password combo and calls it a day. I would hate it more than the geo-crap, now they have a big-brotherish record of where every
It also helps me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection,"
It also helps me circumvent geo-blocking technologies, ie. access GOOGLE, from China. Ooooohohhhhh....the evil!
Copyright has no clothes. (Score:5, Insightful)
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain [thepublicdomain.org].
Re:Copyright has no clothes. (Score:5, Funny)
20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct.
Considering some fashion of Skynet will probably soon be a reality, the copyright holders can then send it a forceful cease and desist letter, and will have the option to sue it in court. That'll show Skynet.
Scaled property rights (Score:2, Interesting)
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain [thepublicdomain.org].
Yes and no. A starving artist who makes nothing from his work should continue to receive his small royalty, if he gets any; a project that hasn't earned back its costs should have copyright extended for a *long* time--maybe 40 years or the lifetime of the artist, whichever is longer. But a project that has made its producers hundreds of millions should enter the public domain within five to ten years. There is no justification for copyright beyond that term when a project has been enormously successful.
Re: (Score:2)
a project that hasn't earned back its costs should have copyright extended for a *long* time--maybe 40 years or the lifetime of the artist, whichever is longer
All you do there is encourage (and have the public subsidize) poor business models. Instead, we should be encouraging artists to succeed (not setting up incentives for them to languish - that is not kindness).
Re:Scaled property rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Easily abused. No hollywood movie ever turns a profit on paper.
Re:Scaled property rights (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt.
Let us know when somebody invents laws that cannot be made unjust by the corrupt actors of a system. Until then, while somebody restricts by force what I may write on my paper with my pen, copyright itself is an unjust affront to the notion of real property (it fails before even getting to concocted notions like 'intellectual property'). We can do better than pulling guns on people in hopes of getting
Golden Age (Score:5, Insightful)
A direct effect if copyright was reformed to reasonable terms would very likely be a golden age for our culture. All of a sudden those pent up reserves of story craft would be unleashed in a myriad of creative expression and experience. Movies, Music, Books, Interactive Entertainment, everything that copyright currently hoards. New ventures into existing universes is one thing but the ad-hoc communities that would form around the freed works would also spur a renaissance in our culture. Old computer games could be packaged up in whatever emulation needed to make them operate on modern machines, freely distributed. Legitimate torrent sites could specialize in genres and not only host the information but also a chorus of discussion that would not have existed when the works were locked away. If our culture was a tapestry then releasing the flood would weave into it vibrant colour and pattern that is currently dulled and frayed. The only reason this is all prevented right now is regulatory capture [wikipedia.org] by vested interests who choose to keep their penny rather than let a dollar fall into a collective grasp.
Not what TFA says... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Slashdot summary essentially misses the point. It's not that VPN equals pirate, but that VPN use combined with heavy bandwidth should make them suspicious. Of course this means that the ISP should be monitoring the traffic in the first place. The whole thing is objectionable because it makes one private entity responsible for enforcing the legal/equitable rights of another, at their own cost.
For my usage of bbc.co.uk.... (Score:3)
.
To me, the BBC looks to be an organization that is completely anal with regard to who can view or who can access what on their website.
It looks to me as if the BBC would rather restrict than inform. But, hey, that is their choice.
If I were a news-oriented organization, I would probably take a different approach, but that's just me.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a shitful practise, but if you are in the US then you are living in the land of Geo blocking. Just about every major service in the US uses geo blocking. I personally have to use a VPN/Smart DNS to access much of the content I SUBSCRIBE to from the US. At least the BBC is free once you get around the Geo Blocking (funded by tax dollars).
Re:For my usage of bbc.co.uk.... (Score:4, Informative)
It's not really the BBC, it's other broadcasters and news outlets. It upsets them greatly that the BBC gives away their "premium content" (news) for free. The BBC dominates radio in the UK and is pretty strong on TV too.
As such the lobbied successfully to have the BBC limit its free stuff to the UK and charge or advertise everywhere else.
Don't wear pants! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While you think taking off the pants will expose everything, many will just skirt the issues.
With nonsense like this, no wonder the Scots want to go their seperate ways!
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I prefer to go 100% naked!
iPlayer (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably this is to stop non license payers watching BBC iPlayer (it's catch-up TV and streaming service) from abroad. As a British ex-pat in South Africa (where the local TV is dire), I would happily pay a subscription to access iPlayer, but I can't. This can't be a difficult thing for them to do, but instead they want to enforce geo-blocking. Since they won't take my money, why bother enforcing the geo-blocking? This is just stupid.
Yeah right.. (Score:2)
I mean, I did at every corporate and government job I have had to date, but I'm sure I'm the exception to the rule. I mean, who would actually work from home on a consumer grade connection?
Translation (Score:2)
We're bummed that our territory protection doesn't work anymore. Global trade be damned!
Do not do geo-blocking (Score:2)
If VPN use impedes the enforcement of geo-blocking then the answer is very simple - do not try and use geo-blocking. Restricting where content may be viewed is a concept which should have passed its 'sell by date'.
What hapens to the BBC if Scotland votes yes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Add to that, some nanny is going to complain about Jeremy Clarkson and they'll be strong armed into firing him. The entire Top Gear brand will flop without him and there goes all that revenue.
This is why piracy is just and will flourish (Score:2)
Content owners only need very limited rights so they can profit of their work for a short time.
They certainly shouldn't have the right to deprive people of information, because they haven't paid, or because they didn't pay for a new media format, or because they are using a VPN!
The more ridiclous these attempts to lock people from accessing information, the more they will be circumvented. Methods to circamvent will continue to improve, becoming ever more convenient until these idiot companies die or wise up
You wanted globalization? You got it. (Score:2)
Also, I do not know a single person that uses VPN in order to access 'content'.
I am wondering when people will start realizing that Internet is dead, and has been for at least 2 years.
Circumventing geo-blocking? (Score:2)
Australians hate geo-blocking. It's a tool used to make them pay more for content simply because they live in Australia.
BBC is hateful and evil (Score:2)
They do a great job of attacking Jews too.
Nonsense of the day (Score:2)
BBC? (Score:2)
The BBC is financed primarily by mandatory TV license fees. Everything they do should be in the public domain, just like other government-financed data and media. Why the hell should they weigh in on issues related to "piracy" at all?
Read much (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement:
"This situation is further amplified by the adoption of virtual private networks (VPNs) and proxy servers by some users, allowing them to circumvent geo-blocking technologies and further evade detection," the BBC explains."
Doesn't appear to be remotely close to what the topic claims:
"BBC: ISPs Should Assume VPN Users Are Pirates"
Quite the opposite, it very clearly that "some users" use it for multiple purposes.
Yet that hasn't stopped anyone here from simply assuming the article header is correct and complaining. Which is precisely why everyone ignores nerds.
Shut up and take my money! (Score:5, Insightful)
Although its not the primary reason I use VPN, I'll admit it...yeah, BBC, I live in the US and I use it to watch your programming. Because US factual and documentary programming sucks. And BBC America is a fucking joke. Just to name a few off the top of my head, if a BBC program has David Attenborough, Monty Don, or Fred Dibnah in it, I'll watch it. Even if its a show about watching paint dry. So instead of trying to find ways to lock out people like me, why don't you turn it in to a money making opportunity...shut up, take my money, and sell me a TV license.
You, too? (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who lives and works in the U.S., I love BBC. Listen to BBC news radio on the way to work every day (free streaming on TuneIn Radio) and watch several BBC shows on cable.
In fact, BBC is something I wouldn't mind spending extra money to get a 'TV license' for, just like they force people in the UK to pay.
So offer me one. Give me a internet license for BBC online and let me stream it from whereever I am on the planet. If you want you can do it by creating your own VPN and renting that to me.
Let me buy a license (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really so outrageous that it justifies an entire Slashdot hatethread?
Yes. No-one should not have to provide "legitimate explanations" about their internet usage on such flimsy criteria.