Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Torrentz.eu Domain Name Suspended

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Fascist Police of London had a .com domain pulled from a Ukrainian website the other day...

    • by sa1lnr (669048) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @06:17AM (#47098029)

      Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

      Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:16AM (#47098221)

        Fascists very seldom use violence, or even direct threat of violence. They create an environment where they don't need to.
        When you say "made a request", what exactly do you mean. "Made a request" means that it was implied that the registrar somehow would be held accountable or that they otherwise would be given a hard time if they didn't comply then it is perfectly fair to claim that the police has fascist tendencies.

        With the right intonation and in the right environment "It would be unfortunate if you didn't comply" or "I would be disappointed if you didn't comply" is far more threatening than "I will hit you if you don't comply"
         

      • by Raenex (947668) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:49AM (#47098355)

        Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

        Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

        Let's say you live in an apartment. What if they "made a request" to your landlord to lock you out of your own apartment, and the landlord dutifully complied. Perhaps you might feel differently if your stuff was taken in such a manner.

        • The City of London is a defacto city state and an actual corporatocracy.

          The City of London police are their hired thugs.

      • by Megane (129182)
        "That's a very nice domain name registrar you have there, sir. It would be a real shame if... something were to happen to it. For instance, it might... break. Knowutimean, guv?"
    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:32AM (#47098281) Homepage

      As I understand it, the Police of London is a very small, mostly corporate controlled entity with much less impact than they purport to have.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

  • Now a redirect (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maquis196 (535256) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @05:12AM (#47097863)

    I got redirected to torrentz.ch and I can't tell if this is blocked by British ISPs like torrentz.eu was...

    So no service problems. Good job internet.

    • Re:Now a redirect (Score:5, Informative)

      by Maquis196 (535256) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @05:13AM (#47097865)

      hate replying to myself, but after proxying through my home server (on BT infinity), torrentz.ch is certainly not blocked. Way to go UK!

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Thank you for reporting this problem. Our engineers our still working out some implementation details. This should be fixed shortly.

        -- BT Infinity

    • by Katatsumuri (1137173) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:37AM (#47098307)

      Granted, this whack-a-mole game with individual torrent sites makes for a fun show sometimes. But I find it embarrassing that the online community has to work around these issues time after time, and that some good people get caught up in legal battles.

      Are there any good alternatives to bittorrent for private, anonymous file search and exchange? I heard about several "darknet" projects, but they never seem to gain traction for some reason. Given a huge number of hobbyist hackers who support free exchange of information, I am surprised.

      Is there a fundamental reason why we cannot have free, anonymous file exchange? Or is everyone just happy with the status quo?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ultranova (717540)

        Is there a fundamental reason why we cannot have free, anonymous file exchange?

        Most people have things they don't want to have freely available (child porn, for example) and prioritize suppressing them over free availability of other things, thus they shy away from free, anonymous file exchanges.

        That's the problem with anarchy in general: everyone's free to do what they want, including things I don't want them to do.

        • This sounds like one of plausible reasons. I imagine this would keep me from joining one of those networks where everybody must store and share a bunch of encrypted file fragments without knowing what's inside. I would not like to facilitate in distribution of certain content in any way, nor to be potentially liable.

          But is this so fundamental? Perhaps we could develop some system where everyone can self-moderate what they share. Maybe also some sort of voting and commenting system could help.

          Building su

      • by countach (534280)

        bittorrent is not a scheme for file search. It's a data transfer protocol. How you find torrents is not within the realm of bit torrent. If your aim is to suck down huge amounts of data, there is no competitor.

        • Yes, I know. I was referring to the bittorrent community in general, including the index websites, forums with links, seeders, etc.

          In fact, it makes me wonder even more. When we already have a great data transfer protocol, and even a distributed database for hashes that makes "magnet links" work, why is there still no mainstream distributed keyword search system on top of that?

          Part of the reason could be people disappointed with spammy eDonkey experience. Another part, as one poster here mentioned, is t

  • Criminal scum (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@@@world3...net> on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @05:14AM (#47097871) Homepage

    These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.

    • by Maquis196 (535256)

      City of London top brass also in cahoots with Scientology as well from what I understand. Theyre an honest bunch

    • by radio4fan (304271)

      The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines.

      And what's really odd is that this domain is blocked in the UK by the big ISPs anyway. It was blocked along with a bunch of others back in October 2013 [independent.co.uk].

      If I try to access it on my current ISP, I get redirected here: http://assets.virginmedia.com/site-blocked.html [virginmedia.com].

      So the City Police are trying to take down a domain that you can't even access directly in the UK.

    • by Ash Vince (602485) *

      These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines. Apparently no-one is watching the watchers.

      Copyright infringement is a criminal matter, not a civil one. Our duly elected governments have passed various (albeit baddly concieved) laws making this the responsibility of the police to enforce as a criminal matter. Therefore the police are kind of forced into doing this sort of stuff. I agree with some of your sentiment, but factually you are utterly incorrect.

      If you are going to post about what a stupid move this sort of thing is, and how ineffective it will turn out to be then fine, that is correct.

    • by whoever57 (658626)

      These criminal scum need to be stopped. The City of London Police are abusing their power to enforce civil matters and shut down legitimate search engines.

      One of the residents of the City of London needs to challenge the voting arrangements (specifically, the allocation of votes) for the City of London through the EU courts. I expect that the current system would be deemed illegal.

  • Since when... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CaptainOfSpray (1229754) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @05:21AM (#47097901)
    ...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.

    I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.
    • by Pieroxy (222434) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @05:24AM (#47097907) Homepage

      ...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.

      I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.

      Voldemort? Already?

    • Re:Since when... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Grantbridge (1377621) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @05:42AM (#47097953)

      City of London Police are a very strange entity, since the Corporation of London isn't really a democratic body, and their police force should be viewed as serving the interests of their corporate masters, rather than the people at large. As such, I wouldn't obey any instruction from them without a court order.

      http://www.theguardian.com/com... [theguardian.com]

      • Re:Since when... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:12AM (#47098209) Journal

        their corporate masters

        In case anyone reading this believes this ios hyperbole or some left wing rant, it is literally true. The companies in the City get to vote in proportion to the number of employees and so vastly out vote the citizens.

        • Re:Since when... (Score:5, Informative)

          by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:47AM (#47098345) Homepage

          In case anyone reading this believes this ios hyperbole or some left wing rant, it is literally true. The companies in the City get to vote in proportion to the number of employees and so vastly out vote the citizens.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
          civilian votes: 7.000
          corporate votes: 32.000
          Basically, corporations determine what the City of London Police's policies and priorities are.

          • by keytoe (91531)
            How is this not 'voting twice'?
            1. 1) Individual votes their personal choice. Turnout is poor due to systemic disenfranchisement.
            2. 2) Individual votes again, but this time their boss chooses. Turnout is effectively mandatory and close to 100%.

            That's just madness.

    • Re:Since when... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @07:03AM (#47098177) Journal

      I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent

      IO take it you don't really know much about the City of London, then. Since I now walk through it daily I thought I'd do a bit of reading. It is a very, very strange place (and the police are an arm of it). To refer to it as "well dodgy" is a massive understatement.

      So firstly, it's older than the England you know: the administrative system (known as the Corporation of London) predates the Normal conquest of 1066, though they had their charter re issued after since it was lost at some point. The Corporation of London is some weird hybrid between a local council, an ancient government, a company and a secret society.

      This means it's embedded in the legal system in weird and woderful ways. For example, they have a representative in the house of commons (not an MP) to make sure that parliament is acting in their interests. Also, the registered voters not only include humans, but businesses too and in proportion to the number of employees within the city. This means that bisuness vastly out vote the local residents. And for part of this you're only eligible to run for office if you've already been given the freedom of the city, making it a massively closed system.

      The dodgyness continues. The manifestation of this in the dody dealings of the City of London police is only the tiniest tip of a very large iceberg. About the best thing you can say about the City of London police is they sometimes wear those rather anachronistic Policeman's capes which look kinda cool.

      • Re:Since when... (Score:5, Informative)

        by coofercat (719737) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @08:22AM (#47098515) Homepage Journal

        Going on... The City of London is often also called "the square mile" because it's a really very small part of the blob of the UK called "London". All of the London councils dwarf the City in both number of people resident and square miles covered. The rest of london has somewhere between 6 and 10 million residents.

        The City has a population of something like 7000 people, yet has something like >5,000,000 visitors every working day. To some extent, it makes sense not to let 7000 people define the local government policy for so may visitors (just about all of whom work for one of the areas employers).

        However, by the same token, those employers shouldn't be defining local government (or in this case, local police) policy. The City Police have asked for things like this before, and mostly been rebuffed, as seems reasonable, given who/what they represent.

        As the GP notes, We the People have never been asked if we'd like this sort of thing to go on - but then we actually don't pay for the City Police directly, as it is really paid for by the Corporation of London, who are paid for by the businesses within it. Hence we have this fscked up setup where there's a (small) police force for hire by whomever pays the most. That wouldn't be so bad if they just stayed in the square mile, but sadly they're starting to see their remit as "the Internet" as well. We the People could argue that the actions of the City Police brings the actions of the wider police force into disrepute though, I guess (not such a bad idea actually, now I think of it).

        The moral of the story is: If you receive an "official" communication from some police force or other, politely decline to do what they ask unless they can provide a court order. This will keep you out of trouble for longer than trying to be "helpful". Our judges might not be perfect, but for the most part they won't furnish the City Police with a court order for something as flimsy as this.

    • I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit.

      Yes, you have. It's called an election.

    • by Ash Vince (602485) *

      ...does City of London police have any jurisdiction outside City of London? Registrar should not have caved in.

      I should like to point out that I, a registered voter and taxpayer, have never been asked whether I want my taxes spent on something so monumentally stupid as a Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit. And I suspect that its creation was an idea planted, bought, and paid for by You-Know-Who.

      Yes you were, just like I was. We both got the opportunity to vote in the last general election where we got to pick which bunch of toerags we wanted to rule us. The fact that not one single party that had loosening copyright law in its manifesto stood any chance of being elected simply means that most of the UK population do not give a toss about this either way unfortunately.

      • Except for the fact that the PIPCU is part of the City of London, which isn't elected really elected by citizens in a meaningful way. Also, the UK voting system is FPTP, which means that if there are strong ties with an interested group to the major political parties, the will of the people is pretty easy to ignore on all but the most important and overwhelming issues.
  • It's Back ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ellocotheinsane (3455609) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @06:15AM (#47098023)
    Torrentz.eu is back in full swing (1200 hours CET on May 27.) ...
    • by bigalzzz (2692893)
      Sure they'll benefit from all the free publicity, sometimes you can't help but think people do more harm to themselves than good
  • by bhima (46039)

    I just now went there and it looks up to me.

  • The Police are well aware of the futility of this gesture; as much as they know it will please their political masters.
  • Random video auto-plays with sound, nattering about some cellphone bullshit.

    • by Arker (91948)
      Why on earth do you allow flash to auto-run in your browser to begin with?
  • But now, thanks to the Metropolitan Police, I've been made aware of it. That's the police having the -exact- opposite effect of the one they wanted!

    Thanks, Mr Plod.

  • Is the City of London Police paid now by ProMusic, Music Matters, FindAnyFilm, TheContentMap, and by BPI, ifpi, and Publisher Association?
    I always think the first country to have a private police force would be the USA and not the UK, but here you have it.

    • by Arker (91948) on Tuesday May 27, 2014 @10:42AM (#47099341) Homepage
      It's a very old arrangement actually, dating back to the middle ages. 'The City of London' is not the city of London, it's a medieval corporation whose territory encompasses a small stretch of the most expensive property in London, and whose constituents are not the handful of people that live there, but the medieval guilds and the big corporations that own property there.
      • by devent (1627873)

        Yes, I was reading about that. Does the Police have any jurisdiction outside of the old City of London? If not, Torrentz can sue them for damages.

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion

Working...