London Police Placing Anti-Piracy Warning Ads On Illegal Sites 160
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "The City of London police has started placing banner advertisements on websites believed to be offering pirated content illegally. The messages, which will appear instead of paid-for ads, will ask users to close their web browsers. The move comes as part of a continuing effort to stop piracy sites from earning money through advertising. Police said the ads would make it harder for piracy site owners to make their pages look authentic. "When adverts from well known brands appear on illegal websites, they lend them a look of legitimacy and inadvertently fool consumers into thinking the site is authentic," said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Fyfe from the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (Pipcu). "This new initiative is another step forward for the unit in tackling IP crime and disrupting criminal profits. "Copyright infringing websites are making huge sums of money though advert placement, therefore disrupting advertising on these sites is crucial and this is why it is an integral part of Operation Creative.""
uno (Score:2, Insightful)
I think piratebay is very authentic, irrelevantly of what is thought of its legality.
Re: uno (Score:2)
Of course it's ads almost certainly aren't.
What real brands are they claiming are advertised on pirate sites?
Re: uno (Score:5, Insightful)
youporn, pornhub and redtube?
Real and respected brands in their field of business.
In related news: Who is surfing to such sites without AdBlocker and NoScript shields up?
Re: uno (Score:3)
I am woefully out of touch with culture, but you get the idea.
Re: uno (Score:2)
Who is surfing to such sites without AdBlocker and NoScript shields up
I basically came here to say exactly this. Adblock Plus, NoScript, Ghostery, FlashBlock...whenever I browse the internet without them (eg, on a friend's computer, or when doing tech support, or when re-installing an OS) I have a moment of "...the heck are these abominations?" before I remember that, oh right, the internet has ads.
Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Piracy sites have found a way to get the Police to pay them money. Whatever war on copyright infringement there might have been, I think it's safe to say that it is over.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
...and the users using AdBlock will see what exactly ...?
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
Ha! That is a great question. I don't frequent that site, but now I kind of want to (but not at work...I like having a job)
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
Which employer is that? :P
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
Even if you didn't use AdBlock, HTTPS Everywhere takes care of it very nicely.
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
Disregard the above, misinformed comment. mea culpa
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Informative)
"The initiative will make use of technology provided by Project Sunblock - a firm used by major brands to stop adverts appearing alongside questionable content such as pirated material or pornography."
"Neither the police or Project Sunblock [are paying the website in question to display the police message." --
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
I should've realised that we don't live in the best of all possible universes. Or read the article. One of those.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
Without more details it's hard to say, but it sounds like the ad network should file a complaint with the UK and get these overenthusiastic corporate cops charged.
There's a battle to love - ad networks versus the 'city of london.' May they fight forever and leave the rest of us in peace.
Re:Hilarious (Score:3)
Exactly what i though reading "has started placing banner advertisements on websites" ... "which will appear instead of paid-for ads". Does that mean the City of London police - whatever that is - has taken upon themselves above the law and are essentially cybercriminals? So they con the sites as well as someone who has actually paid for the ad space?
Re:Hilarious (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they are doing it with the cooperation of the ad-providers.
It's more the 'put these ads up for us or we'll charge you for aiding criminal activity' type of cooperation.
Re:Hilarious (Score:3)
So whi gets sued when they place one of these on a site that is completely legitimate? I hear that in Europe, slander and libel cases can be won even if the information is true but the intent was to harm a reputation. Clearly this would be that.
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
Sure I do.. I mean the police would never accuse someone of something that wasn't true, they are the police after all. They fight crime and the bad guys so why wouldn't I believe that the legitimate site isn't piracy site or otherwise involved in illegal activities when I see their banner adds on it. Why wouldn't I close my browser window and never purchase anything from them or view their content again. Why wouldn't I tell all my friends that the site is illegal and the cops are busting people going to it?
All sarcasm aside, its entire purpose is to assassinate the character of the site and scare users into leaving it. If the police didn't think it would have any impact, they wouldn't be bothering with it. Instead, they know it will so when they get the wrong site involved, how is it not slander and libel- you know defamation of character?
Re:City of London (Score:2)
The City of London is a semi-autonomous part of London which has special rules, and a separate government. https://www.google.com/url?sa=... [google.com]
Re:Hilarious (Score:2, Redundant)
Really, it's not necessary.
Re:Hilarious (Score:2)
Nope. Just slightly annoying.
Re:Hilarious (Score:3)
So it's a MITM attack essentially ... similar to this one [ex-parrot.com] ... and works on all pirates visiting websites when users are not using SSL?
Re:Hilarious (Score:4, Insightful)
Property Rights? Trespass to Chattels? No abuse of state powers for private gain? How easily the mask slips when a few cold pounds are involved.
But the people I feel really sorry for are the victims of crime in London, whose cases go unsolved due to precious police resources being wasted on internet nonsense like this.
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
So what they're doing is infringing the copyright of the allegedly-copyright-infringing website by modifying and redistributing it.
The hypocrisy is think with this one!
pre-crime (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently the rule "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to "websites", as evidenced by the city of london police.
This police bunch, it is worth noting, is the police force of the "square mile", which is pretty much run by private corporations, making this essentially a private police force in government-backed livery. It is not strange that it would be acting "proactive" and "innovative" and whatnot in furtherance of private corporate goals.
Re:pre-crime (Score:5, Informative)
This police bunch, it is worth noting, is the police force of the "square mile"
Indeed. To clarify, this is specifically the police force of the small area confusingly titled the "City of London" [wikipedia.org] (AKA the "square mile"), i.e. the historic, tiny core of London, long-dominated by financial businesses, and not the police force of London as a whole.
In fact, the rest of London is served by the Metropolitan Police Service [slashdot.org]. Why would The City need its own special police force? Hmm...
which is pretty much run by private corporations, making this essentially a private police force in government-backed livery. It is not strange that it would be acting "proactive" and "innovative" and whatnot in furtherance of private corporate goals.
This article [theguardian.com] may also be of interest.
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
This nonsense again. No conspiracy theory here, and the police force is not run by corporations.
Re:pre-crime (Score:3, Informative)
Wow so wrong it hurts.
Please check the official documents - the City of London Police force is run by the voting wards .... 21 of 25 wards are run by corporate voters .... 4 of 21 wards are run by actual residents. Oh and the 32,000 corporate voters out number the 7,000 residential voters.
PS In the UK it is the only local council that has a dedicated officer in parliment to remind parliment not to infringe upon the City of London and the only local council since 1969 that still allows for corporations to be considered voters.
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
No, they are governed by the law. Corporations have more sway in elections, that isn't the same as governing the police force.
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
Sounds like you don't understand the difference between the executive branch and legislative branch.
Of course, cites might help.
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
Re:pre-crime (Score:3)
London ... it sucks the life (jobs, investment, infrastructure) out of the rest of the country, which is only partly compensated for by the large tax revenue it provides
Not really. Tax revenue from London subsidises the rest of the country. But, it's a load of bankers stealing money -- it would be more accurate to say they suck money out of the whole world. Perhaps the City of London should investigate the numerous tax-avoiding companies headquartered there...
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
This police bunch, it is worth noting, is the police force of the "square mile"
Indeed. This is specifically the police force of the City of London [wikipedia.org] "square mile", i.e. the historic, tiny core of London, long-dominated by financial businesses, and not the police force of London as a whole.
In fact, the rest of London is served by the Metropolitan Police Service [slashdot.org]. Why would the City need its own special police force? Hmm...
which is pretty much run by private corporations, making this essentially a private police force in government-backed livery. It is not strange that it would be acting "proactive" and "innovative" and whatnot in furtherance of private corporate goals.
This article [theguardian.com] may also be of interest.
Re:pre-crime (Score:2)
Re:pre-crime (Score:3)
You could even say copyright enforcement is mutually exclusive with justice and proportionality.
Police sponsoring piracy now? (Score:2)
Unless they have some special powers, I suppose the police will have to pay for those ads, just like the regular advertisers do. This would result in the police actively sponsoring these allegedly illegal sites. Can have interesting political repercussions.
Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (Score:2)
Unless they have some special powers, I suppose the police will have to pay for those ads, just like the regular advertisers do. This would result in the police actively sponsoring these allegedly illegal sites. Can have interesting political repercussions.
You used the word "unless" correctly. So the police isn't going to pay. And who would be suing them?
Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (Score:1)
Don't think that will be the case as they would just go down the route of getting it blocked. I think from reading a couple of articles about this is that they are trying to get as many add networks on-board to blacklist these sites and only pass on their logos etc - without paying for them. They are putting the pressure on the ad networks rather than the sites...
I still see a problem with it though - sites will just move to other ad networks who aren't being blackmailed by the city of London Police.
Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (Score:2)
No, like so-called "pirates." Modifying the content of the site and redistributing it is copyright infringement.
Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (Score:2)
Close. It's a voluntary agreement with the ad wholesaler, with a veiled threat of finding a way to hold them liable if they don't cooperate.
Well known brands? (Score:3)
I think the take home message here is that in London internet users somehow ended up receiving relevant ads from well known brands.
I seem to have nothing but crap. Right now I'm staring at an advert for a phone from a brand which is virtually unheard of (though quite prevailent, Huawei), and some company called Brocade who have something to do with bridges from what I can tell?
Where do I get these mythical well known brands?
Re:Well known brands? (Score:2)
Huawei is one of China's main phone manufacturers. The brand is quite well known around here, and apparently they try to expand globally. Their advertising is probably to create brand awareness in other parts of the world, such as where you happen to live - and considering your comment, they're succeeding.
Re:Well known brands? (Score:2)
I know who they are, but the brand has zero recognition where I live. That is despite a large portion of the population having their products. For the most part here they produce all the 3G / 4G dongles that every other person has but they are all re-branded.
Also the advert was for their smartphone which isn't sold here so I would say they aren't succeeding even in the slightest.
what a tremendous use of police resources (Score:2, Insightful)
Giving how much tax money all these corporations are paying, with absolutely no dodging of any taxes, it's really great to see the police devote so much time and resources to protecting these companies' revenue streams. Almost all the murderers, rapists, and thieves have been locked up. There's very little to no fraud going on in any industries, especially the financial sector who has a primary hub in London. We should definitely cheer on the police in this latest endeavour of serving and protecting corporate interests.
Re:what a tremendous use of police resources (Score:3)
Legitimate Brands? (Score:1)
Head over to the pirate bay to see ads for all your favorite brands...Russian women interested in American men...brought to you by Pepsi?
Smart move (Score:2)
When adverts from well known brands appear on illegal websites, they lend them a look of legitimacy and inadvertently fool consumers into thinking the site is authentic
A smart move to place the police logo onto the site -- Users will think that when police vouches for it, it must have spying features, and leave the page.
But seriously: When they have control over the ad networks, they can simply take down the entire website: the ad networks have full access to the DOM. Why don't they try that?
Re:Smart move (Score:2)
Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:3, Interesting)
No one confuses Rapidshare for BMG's official site. People go there specifically to download pirated content, full stop. Seeing police ads might scare a few people with the paranoia of thinking "the man" has caught them, but the other 99% of visitors will just thank the police for subsidizing their favorite warez sites.
Truly pathetic, Boys in Blue (Hmm, do Bobbies wear blue?)
The move comes as part of a continuing effort to stop piracy sites from earning money through advertising.
By... Um... Buying banner ads on piracy sites? BRILLIANT!
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:2, Insightful)
No one confuses Rapidshare for BMG's official site. People go there specifically to download pirated content, full stop. Seeing police ads might scare a few people with the paranoia of thinking "the man" has caught them, but the other 99% of visitors will just thank the police for subsidizing their favorite warez sites.
I know that this is slashdot, and that you therefore feel justified in being an ignorant idiot and spouting off without RTFAing, and you're in quite a bit of company: lots of other idiots are saying the same stupid shit you're saying. But the article makes it clear that "Neither the police or Project Sunblock are paying the website in question to display the police message". They're just suppressing the banner display, and displaying a police message instead.
Truly pathetic, Boys in Blue (Hmm, do Bobbies wear blue?)
Pathetic is deciding you know how the system works without R'ing TFA, and as a result, being a F'n I.
BRILLIANT!
Said no one about you ever.
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:2, Funny)
Bloody pirates!
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:2)
Yep, I made a mistake. I presumed that the police would know better than to enter into a conspiracy to commit outright theft of service and libel in their efforts to appease the recording industry. One crime doesn't justify another. Mea culpa.
Except, in your zeal to find something in my post to go all "princess of vitriol" over, you seem to have failed to notice my key point - No one visiting piracy sites mistakes them for legit. Would you care to respond to that, or would you prefer to latch on to a typo somewhere in this post?
Pathetic is deciding you know how the system works without R'ing TFA
"The system" has rules we can know a priori. The police can't just choose to ignore them out of expediency. "Pathetic is" accepting criminal behavior just because it carries a thin veneer of official approval.
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:2)
Would you care to respond to that, or would you prefer to latch on to a typo somewhere in this post?
Well, you're right, I was in full dick mode. I'm even sorry about it, albeit admittedly only slightly. I apologize for how, but not what I said. Yeah well, that's the best you're getting out of me this morning.
Nobody expects the piracy sites to be legit. But a lot of people think that there are so many of them that their activity can go unnoticed. Those people are about to get an awakening, if they even take the banners seriously.
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:2)
We all go "full dick" sometimes, though, so, no worries.
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:4, Informative)
No one should confuse The City of London police [wikipedia.org] for an actual police force as most people imagine them, either. They are a territorial force responsible for a tiny area of Greater London as a whole that measuring a little over square mile and consists of mostly financial institutions and only a few thousand actual residents. Still, owing to their location in The City, they have developed quite a reputation for fraud investigations and also incorporate a division dealing with Intellectual Property [wikipedia.org], so other than the jurisdictional issues of interfering with websites (or at least the ads displayed on them) that are most likely hosted outside The City they actually do have the means and backing to look into this kind of thing.
Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (Score:2)
So close on the color! Blue is the color worn by police in London... except for the CoLP, the ones responsible for this action. That's because the City (Not London, but a tiny district within it) is, for historical reasons, actually a semi-independant mini-state and as such get to have their own police force that is seperate from the rest of the UK police. Their color scheme is red, not blue.
As the City is the financial district, the CoLP have a strong focus on the type of crime that happens in a financial district. Fraud, insider trading, things like that. They also devote a lot of effort to copyright and trademark enforcement, which had lead to some accusing them of being too closely tied to the corporations that effectively own the City.
location, jurisdiction (Score:3)
Are there a lot of pirate websites located in the city of London?
Re:location, jurisdiction (Score:2)
Yeah and they've been guilty of plundering billions, websites like Barclays, CitiBank, HSBC and so on.
City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I'd like to point out is that the City of London Police are not the same thing as the British Metropolitan Police. This was something that came up in an article a few months ago where the City of London Police were fighting against piracy. They're basically an area within London that has existed for hundreds of years under corporate rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
The City of London police are basically a corporate police force with an authority that does not go beyond the corporate-controlled City of London area.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:2)
They are a police force specific to a small area, that doesn't mean they are governed by corporations.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently you failed to read the section on elections in the City of London:
So, yes, they are governed by corporations.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:2)
You're right. But the fact that it is literally governed by a corporation [wikipedia.org] does.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:2)
That means little. Corporations are often set up for bookkeeping or other reasons. It's disingenuous to use that as evidence that the City of London police force is corrupt and run by "corporations".
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:2)
I figured you'd follow the links and actually take some time to learn about the topic, so I don't think it's disingenuous of me to have left things where I did. Had you taken the time to read through the links, it would be apparent that the everyday sort of corporate management arrangement you're painting it as is not at all representative of the reality here, and that the police force is run not just by the Corporation, but also by the corporations. To quote from near the top of the page that you'd have reached with my link:
Both businesses and residents of the City, or "Square Mile", are entitled to vote in elections
Well now, that sounds interesting, doesn't it? To provide more details [wikipedia.org] from the link that the OP gave earlier:
The City has a unique electoral system. Most of its voters are representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City. Its ancient wards have very unequal numbers of voters. In elections, both the businesses based in the City and the residents of the City vote.
The principal justification for the non-resident vote is that about 330,000 non-residents constitute the day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering residents, who number around 7,000. Nevertheless, the system has long been controversial. The business vote was abolished in all other UK local council elections in 1969.
A private Act of Parliament in 2002 reformed the voting system for electing Members to the Corporation of London and received the Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. Under the new system, the number of non-resident voters has doubled from 16,000 to 32,000.
Which is to say that businesses control about 32,000 votes compared to the residents' 7,000, with the larger businesses getting more votes on account of their having more employees. Those elections dictate who gets elected to the Common Council [wikipedia.org], and the Common Council is the body that has authority over the police force.
So, in a very real sense, the entrenched corporations have direct control over the elections, allowing them to put the people they want in power. Suggesting otherwise is to deny the obvious.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:2)
I admit I did not read your links, because I have seen this same nonsense theory pop up on /. numerous times before, and have read those links in the past.
The link and explanation RE the Common Council is interesting, thank you. Still, I only see evidence that this allows the corporations to have more influence over the City of London Police, it still is not the same thing as governing them.
When people make that claim, they make it seem like rest of laws in the country have no influence on the CoL police, and that simply isn't true. They are still accountable to higher powers and laws.
Do you have any information on arrestable offenses or crimes in The City of London that could not be made by the Metropolitan Police Force?
Any practical evidence of the corporations influence on the City of London police force benefiting corporations over people?
I think it's a terrible thing that corporations have this much influence on any police force, but I don't think it's fair to say they govern the police force. They are different things.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:2)
Do you have any information on arrestable offenses or crimes in The City of London that could not be made by the Metropolitan Police Force?
I do not. I have no firsthand info. I've heard some off-hand comments from Londoners and looked into the topic yesterday before I started posting here, so it's likely you have a broader knowledge than I do on the subject. Even so, I'll point out that the arrestable offenses in the City don't need to be different for a corporate influence to be at play.
Because they control the vote, they can dictate public policy, but, as you mentioned, they must do so within the bounds of the laws of the country. As such, while they may not be able to make up a slew of new crimes to arrest people for, they can still choose to selectively enforce the laws they have, or spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on preventing illegal activity that most other police forces wouldn't bother with. The latter is what's at play here, which is to say, they spend more time and energy focusing on crimes that harm the corporations than is common in police forces elsewhere. There's nothing illegal about that (nor would I necessarily assert that it is corrupt of them to do so), but it is out of alignment with what the general population wants and expects.
As for influencing vs. governing, I agree that they are different. I think it's apparent that the corporations have a strong influence, at the very least. Whether or not they are governing seems to me to be a question of whether or not you consider a voting bloc who always wins to be governing. If the voters are consistent in showing up to vote as a bloc and are putting their hand-picked people into power each time, they aren't governing directly, but their influence would be so strong at that point that the difference is really just semantic, not practical.
Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (Score:3)
That's not true in practice, their authority seems definitely national, possibly even global in practice.
They've been engaged in raids well outside of the City of London including in my jurisdiction up here in Yorkshire. In fact, I took advantage of the fact we now have police crime commissioners to ask why my local tax payment via council tax to the police was being used to fund the interests of the City of London when the whole point of having police crime commissioners was to give local residents more of a say. I asked that if police forces now all have nationwide jurisdiction and that there's no localism at all on that front if they wouldn't mind returning the favour by sending our police down to the City of London to arrest some corrupt bankers and executives.
Of course, I never heard back.
Surely Adblock and Noscript will... (Score:3, Informative)
...take care of this nuisance. Who in their right mind allows third party sites to run in their browser anyway?
There's no such thing as "Illegal" sites (Score:5, Interesting)
Websites by themselves aren't "illegal". Using those terms gives undue legitimacy to copyright maximalists. What is meant here by "illegal" is that they host content which may be infringing on copyright.
Re:There's no such thing as "Illegal" sites (Score:2)
Misleading title (Score:4, Informative)
Hey editors, the City of London Police is NOT the same as the London Police. To get a good understanding of the difference, please view The (secret) City of London, Part 1: History [youtube.com] (less than 5 min) and then The (secret) City of London, Part 2: Government [youtube.com] (less than 6 min).
JigJag
Do they mean www.projectsunblock.com (Score:1)
Do they mean http://www.projectsunblock.com... [projectsunblock.com] ?
Seems likely, and if so the ad serving network would have to cooperate in allowing sunblocks JS to be served to client browsers. I can only home the Met's and Cities finest have a 100% accurate blocklist, because it only takes one high profile false-positive and a suit for loss of earnings due to illegal seizure of assets to drain sunblock dry.
Ad block (Score:2)
Waste of time (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure this will work as well as the unskippable FBI warning on DVD movies.
Re:Waste of time (Score:2)
Only thing unskippable are the ads on Disney DVDs ...
Waste of time (Score:2)
ie as with the first gen flash cookies you get a a unique ID and can be tracked online for a while.
What was once online marketing activities in 100KB deep in a browser is now todays police work.
Pretty neat ... (Score:2)
While there's an opportunity to debate the good and bad of it, tapping into the advertising thread of web sites is novel to me. The legality question is similar to what WOT [mywot.com] does, right? The plugin warns me about a site's reputation but I do have the option to proceed.
I wonder if any sites have filed suit against WOT?
Such good use of our taxes (Score:2)
Re:Such good use of our taxes (Score:2)
Er... is there a UK tax on blank CD's and media?
I'm not sure there is.
Re:Such good use of our taxes (Score:2)
Need copies ASAP! (Score:2)
I think I need copies of these banner-ads, and pay Google/whoever to put them on legit sites!
why do they even care? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's silly for the state to jump in and spend so much time, effort, and money on what is essentially a failure of business to demonstrate to people that their content is worth purchasing. free market rules, y'all
why do they even care? (Score:2)
You pay for months of pay tv to enjoy a new show per season. You dont get to enjoy each show from another nations computer company in near real time.
So expect to see a lot of pay tv efforts locally and internationally to protect each networked thiefdom .
London Police (Score:2)
They should have evey right to do so for sites located in London. The London police have no legal authority to enforce laws outside their jurisdiction.
It was about time, darn swaschbucklers! (Score:2)
Re:City of London Police not eq Met Police (Score:2)
It is worth stressing that: The City of London is not equal to A city called London, capital of the UK. The City of London Police is not equal to Metropolitan Police, the police force for London.
The City of London is a square mile of land governed by a plutocracy. The actions of their police force does not surprise me.
Re:IP Crime? (Score:3)
Re:IP Crime? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't believe me? Just ask anyone who has been hit over the head with a computer.
Re:IP Crime? (Score:3)
Re:IP Crime? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the crime of intercepting data involving the Internet Protocol and modifying or blocking data. Because we as a civilized world finally came to realize one of the greatest crimes against humanity was manipulating or censoring what others say or think and the Internet is clearly a global medium that represents humanity's great communication, inter-connectivity breakthrough.
Sorry, I'm just kidding. This is all about money. And fictitious, government-created property. "Intellectual" property: because it's only marginally important to protect the intellectuals work in academia--plagiarism is the higher crime there--and we care so very much about the barely intellectual multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. Oh and advancing the arts and the sciences. Because fuck knows the study of material sciences, development of new technology, etc aren't inherently spurred by the competition inherent in capitalism. Or that there's such a low barrier to entry that merely knowing this stuff is enough to fundamentally undermine the big players that are responsible for such advances.
Get back to me when we all have nano printers and as a society actually respect academia or art at more than the most superficial level.
Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (Score:3)
Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (Score:3)
Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (Score:2)
Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (Score:2)
That is fucking stealing and you know it. Whether or not a physical object was stolen is useless in 2014.
* Citation needed
Also could you explain why no pirate has ever been charged with theft? As I recall, most pirates that get caught have been subject to civil lawsuits, not criminal complaints.
Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (Score:2)
Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (Score:2)
I'm scared to ask what they are planning on doing with the other 10 %
Re:More biased than bulgaria (Score:2)
Re:Authentic? (Score:2)
Changing The Controversy (Score:2)