Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for the
Pirates Bay?

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for
the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/


Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you can eat
Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

.... other usenet providers are available.

On 20/05/2012 09:50, Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but
for the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/


Don't know how long that will last? Maybe a more long-term solution is
to access piratebay via a 'generic' anonymous proxy server like:
http://www.hidemyass.com/

It's so trivially easy to bypass the ban that it makes a laughing stock
of those who make up these laws. I imagine that the extra publicity
generated by it - with the words "pirate bay" getting into the news
headlines - could well have increased their UK user base (eg sounds like
Adam's never used it before - "Pirates Bay" )

David

Well I saw the site through the proxy on startpage, but of course you need
to work out how to route any links. the fact is though that stuff that is on
Piratebay is also on many sites not affected by the block that isps here
have been forced to put in, against their will I understand.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for
the Pirates Bay?

--
Adam

Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you
can eat Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

... other usenet providers are available.

While I agree Usenet binaries are a good way to go I see no need for
Adam to spend that money if he only or mainly wants current TV shows.
VM provide free and unlimited access to Usenet - including binary groups
with a retention of 1 to 2 weeks. And if he wants just the occasional
older episode he could always use "premium" service just as a back-up on
a PAYG basis.

And while torrents are probably the easiest way to get such things, I
don't doubt that Adam could cope with eg Binsearch and an NZB grabber
(eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrabIt)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 20/05/2012 11:31, Robin wrote:
Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you
can eat Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

... other usenet providers are available.

While I agree Usenet binaries are a good way to go I see no need for
Adam to spend that money if he only or mainly wants current TV shows.
VM provide free and unlimited access to Usenet - including binary groups
with a retention of 1 to 2 weeks. And if he wants just the occasional
older episode he could always use "premium" service just as a back-up on
a PAYG basis.

And while torrents are probably the easiest way to get such things, I
don't doubt that Adam could cope with eg Binsearch and an NZB grabber
(eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrabIt)

Is there any *benefit* of usenet binaries over bittorrents, though?

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2012 11:31, Robin wrote:
Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you
can eat Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

... other usenet providers are available.

While I agree Usenet binaries are a good way to go I see no need for
Adam to spend that money if he only or mainly wants current TV shows.
VM provide free and unlimited access to Usenet - including binary groups
with a retention of 1 to 2 weeks. And if he wants just the occasional
older episode he could always use "premium" service just as a back-up on
a PAYG basis.

And while torrents are probably the easiest way to get such things, I
don't doubt that Adam could cope with eg Binsearch and an NZB grabber
(eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrabIt)

Is there any *benefit* of usenet binaries over bittorrents, though?


1) - speed - you download at your full line rate.
2) - you are not sharing files - only downloading - so are not (legally)
infringing copyright - the usenet provider is the infringer.
3) - most usenet providers have provision for a secure connection - what you
download is between you and the provider. Your isp and any other snoopers
remain none the wiser.
4) - pretty much anything is available on bittorrent is available via
usenet - probably more.

apart from that, no.

In article , Lobster
writes
On 20/05/2012 11:31, Robin wrote:
Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you
can eat Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

... other usenet providers are available.

While I agree Usenet binaries are a good way to go I see no need for
Adam to spend that money if he only or mainly wants current TV shows.
VM provide free and unlimited access to Usenet - including binary groups
with a retention of 1 to 2 weeks. And if he wants just the occasional
older episode he could always use "premium" service just as a back-up on
a PAYG basis.

And while torrents are probably the easiest way to get such things, I
don't doubt that Adam could cope with eg Binsearch and an NZB grabber
(eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrabIt)

Is there any *benefit* of usenet binaries over bittorrents, though?

1. High speed, multi-threaded d/l
2. Longer term availability (with a premium provider)
3. Absence of casual IP based tracking by cowboy lawyers
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

In message , Andy
Burns writes
ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/


Or just use another torrent search engine.

eg.

http://isohunt.com/
--
Chris French

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2012-05-20, Andy Bartlett wrote:

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
On 20/05/2012 11:31, Robin wrote:
Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you
can eat Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

... other usenet providers are available.

While I agree Usenet binaries are a good way to go I see no need for
Adam to spend that money if he only or mainly wants current TV shows.
VM provide free and unlimited access to Usenet - including binary
groups
with a retention of 1 to 2 weeks. And if he wants just the occasional
older episode he could always use "premium" service just as a back-up
on
a PAYG basis.

And while torrents are probably the easiest way to get such things, I
don't doubt that Adam could cope with eg Binsearch and an NZB grabber
(eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrabIt)

Is there any *benefit* of usenet binaries over bittorrents, though?


1) - speed - you download at your full line rate.

I see the idea of binary - ASCII conversion has passed you by.


I agree it is not perfect in terms of bandwidth utilisation but that is what
we are stuck with until something else comes along -
have you ever heard of Yenc encoding? Compared with the other overheads of
TCP/IP it actually makes little difference anyway.





2) - you are not sharing files - only downloading - so are not (legally)
infringing copyright - the usenet provider is the infringer.

Yeah, right. Good luck using that one in court.



Safer than p2p where the punter is the infringer.




3) - most usenet providers have provision for a secure connection - what
you
download is between you and the provider. Your isp and any other snoopers
remain none the wiser.

Like that makes any difference when the writ flops through the letterbox
at the Usenet provider.




Not likely to happen before p2p dies and is totally outlawed. Usenet
subscribers pay for a service and this is the closest model yet for the
future of distributing media entertainment.





4) - pretty much anything is available on bittorrent is available via
usenet - probably more.

apart from that, no.

Err, apart from that, yes. You copyright thieves are ****ing usenet for
the
people who want to use it for what it was designed for. There's a good
reason most ISPs have dropped Usenet news as a service, and part of it
is bandwidth sucking copyright thieves.

I can see you live in the dark ages as far a media distribution is
concerned.

In message , Andy
Bartlett writes

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for
the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/


Alternatively splash out a fiver a month and get yourself an all you can eat
Usenet account.

http://www.newsdemon.com/

... other usenet providers are available.


Virgin has its own usenet


--
geoff

On Sun, 20 May 2012 10:09:53 +0100, Lobster wrote:

On 20/05/2012 09:50, Andy Burns wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but
for the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/


Don't know how long that will last? Maybe a more long-term solution is
to access piratebay via a 'generic' anonymous proxy server like:
http://www.hidemyass.com/

It's so trivially easy to bypass the ban that it makes a laughing stock
of those who make up these laws.

Not only that, it has exposed a massive number of people to the concepts
of VPNs, proxies, and anonymising networks.

When 1% of the population were using such things, it was easy for the
security services to (a) trawl users of such things looking for the
*really* nasty guys, and (b) persuade a jury that using such things
implied evil intent.

Now, the use of such tools has dramatically risen it's made it a lot
harder to spot real wrongdoers, and the public are less likely to accept
a line that someone was up to no good because they were using them.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for
the Pirates Bay?

Firefox as an address spoofing facility - look up "The Daily Show" and how
to get it in the UK and you'll find the way to set it up.

Paul DS

On 20/05/2012 09:44, ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but for the
Pirates Bay?

IIUC, most of the "blocking" is going on at the DNS level[1] - i.e. they
have altered the content of their name servers such that when you try
and resolve one of the censored domain names, it returns the address of
a local server which the ISP has setup to return a page saying (in
effect) "bog off".

The simple way to fix this type of misdirection is to change your name
servers. Two reliable options would be OpenDNS on 208.67.222.222, and
208.67.220.220 or Google's on 8.8.8.8, and 8.8.4.4

You can either do this in your router, in which case all the machines on
your network will automatically use the new servers, or you can do it on
a machine by machine basis.

To change servers on XP: Control Panel-Network Connections
Right click on the Local Area Connection that is in use and select
"Properties"
In the list find and select "Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)" and click
properties.
Click the "Use the following DNS server addresses" radio button, and
then enter one of those pairs of addresses above. OK your way back out.


[1] Blocking at the IP level is problematical since the hosts can so
easily shift the site around different physical addresses, coupled with
the fact you frequently end up censoring completely unrelated sites that
just happen to be served from the same machine - and that tends to get
their owners upset.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 20/05/2012 17:50, chris French wrote:
In message , Andy
Burns writes
ARWadsworth wrote:

Well I have Virgin Media so what do I need to get the other two?

Something to alter the ip address should be ok for the US shows, but
for the
Pirates Bay?

http://www.thepiratebayproxy.co.uk/


Or just use another torrent search engine.

eg.

http://isohunt.com/

for TV shows eztv.it is pretty good I am told...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

IIUC, most of the "blocking" is going on at the DNS level[1] - i.e.
they have altered the content of their name servers such that when
you try and resolve one of the censored domain names, it returns the
address of a local server which the ISP has setup to return a page
saying (in effect) "bog off".

FWIW (bearing in mind you are not (usually) a VM user) I don't think it
is DNS. Two reasons: (i) switching to another DNS does not allow HTML
access; and (ii) tracerts to TPB are not blocked or diverted whatever
DNS is used.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 21/05/2012 13:35, Robin wrote:
IIUC, most of the "blocking" is going on at the DNS level[1] - i.e.
they have altered the content of their name servers such that when
you try and resolve one of the censored domain names, it returns the
address of a local server which the ISP has setup to return a page
saying (in effect) "bog off".

FWIW (bearing in mind you are not (usually) a VM user) I don't think it
is DNS. Two reasons: (i) switching to another DNS does not allow HTML
access; and (ii) tracerts to TPB are not blocked or diverted whatever
DNS is used.

You may well be right - I don't have a way of testing on VM, however I
was going from reports of what BT etc seem to have done.

A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the site
using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the normal URL
(that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing at least).

Another obvious workaround is to simply do a search on google for a
site's URL with the word "cache:" appended to the front - getting a copy
of the most recent cached copy from google's own cache rather than
direct from the site (although note this is not as well suited to access
to database driven "dynamic" sites like TPB)



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the site
using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the normal URL
(that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing at least).


Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours seem
to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand that at
present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk


--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 21/05/2012 16:46, Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the site
using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the normal URL
(that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing at least).


Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

If they have layered their block on top of cleanfeed, then they
internally route any http requests that match a blacklist of IP
addresses through the IWF filtering proxy server. Which in theory can
match on a page by page basis. Even https connections can terminate at
the proxy and allow it to see the content.

Out of interest, I wonder what happens if one creates your own hosts
file entry for a target site, but with a different name, say:

mypbay 194.71.107.15

http://mypbay/browse

That ought not match on a full URL comparison...

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours seem
to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand that at
present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the
site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the
normal URL (that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing
at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours
seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand
that at present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

--
Adam

Out of interest, I wonder what happens if one creates your own hosts
file entry for a target site, but with a different name, say:

mypbay 194.71.107.15

http://mypbay/browse

That ought not match on a full URL comparison...

OK, I'll display my ignorance and ask how using the hosts file could
work when we have already established that VM are not relying on DNS and
are blocking html traffic from 194.71.107.15?

As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP "194.71.107.15
mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about the High Court
order
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the
site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the
normal URL (that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing
at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours
seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand
that at present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_
:-)

On 21/05/2012 19:40, Robin wrote:
Out of interest, I wonder what happens if one creates your own hosts
file entry for a target site, but with a different name, say:

mypbay 194.71.107.15

http://mypbay/browse

That ought not match on a full URL comparison...

OK, I'll display my ignorance and ask how using the hosts file could
work when we have already established that VM are not relying on DNS and
are blocking html traffic from 194.71.107.15?

Well there was the suggestion that the block was done using cleenfeed,
which is supposed to be a little more subtle than a simple IP block.

The way the cleanfeed system works (from what is actually published
about it - so this may of course be completely wrong or missing vital
details) suggests that the ISP's router first compares the result of the
target URLs DNS lookup, with an IP blacklist. If it matches, it does not
use that as a reason alone to filter it then and there, but instead
routes the traffic to a web proxy for closer scrutiny. This can then
block individual items based on their URL. Hence it should be possible
to silently block either a single page of a site, or even a single image
on a page etc without knobbling the whole site.

So if www.asite.com resolves to a IP that is blacklisted, it goes to the
proxy, and there the filter may be set to match say
www.asite.com/images/dodgyimage.jpg but no other pages on the site.
Leaving most of it retrievable, other than that image. Hence requests
for www.asite.com/images/okimage.jpg should still be visible even though
the IP of the site as a whole is flagged as "in need of closer checking".

Based on that analysis, a new DNS entry that points bsite.com at the IP
of asite.com could mean that a request for
www.bsite.com/images/dodgyimage.jpg still triggers the routing via the
proxy, but that the actual URL comparison at the proxy stage would not
see it as the same image. (since there may be a legitimate image with
the same name on the alternate site that it should not block)

(this being similar to the way for example apache running virtual
hosting will use the URL in the GET request to work out which sites
pages to serve when its hosting multiple sites on the same server)

As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP "194.71.107.15
mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about the High Court
order

Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on it?

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

However it could be a fairly crude IP based (or IP address and TCP port
number) block and not anything subtle. (possibly understandable since
the site in question is large enough to need dedicated hosting and not
shared hosting)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the
site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the
normal URL (that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing
at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours
seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand
that at present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order

Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

However it could be a fairly crude IP based (or IP address and TCP
port number) block and not anything subtle. (possibly understandable
since the site in question is large enough to need dedicated hosting
and not shared hosting)

and also possibly not too surprising given the High Court reportedly
ordered the ISPs to block the site (ie the whole site).

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

Robin wrote:
snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order
Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

Not for me.


However it could be a fairly crude IP based (or IP address and TCP
port number) block and not anything subtle. (possibly understandable
since the site in question is large enough to need dedicated hosting
and not shared hosting)

and also possibly not too surprising given the High Court reportedly
ordered the ISPs to block the site (ie the whole site).



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On 2012-05-21, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the
site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the
normal URL (that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing
at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours
seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand
that at present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

OK, _Carry On Wiring_ then.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...



The way the cleanfeed system works (from what is actually published about
it - so this may of course be completely wrong or missing vital details)
suggests that the ISP's router first compares the result of the target
URLs DNS lookup, with an IP blacklist. If it matches, it does not use that
as a reason alone to filter it then and there, but instead routes the
traffic to a web proxy for closer scrutiny.


I think virgin run all http traffic through their proxy, they did when I was
with them.

On 22/05/2012 07:33, Robin wrote:
snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order

Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

However it could be a fairly crude IP based (or IP address and TCP
port number) block and not anything subtle. (possibly understandable
since the site in question is large enough to need dedicated hosting
and not shared hosting)

and also possibly not too surprising given the High Court reportedly
ordered the ISPs to block the site (ie the whole site).

Yup, my point really being that blocking an IP alone does not always
equate to blocking the whole site. Depending on the scale of the hosting
arrangements for the site in question, it can do anything from blocking
it and hundreds of unrelated sites at the same time, to blocking just
one machine from a whole cluster of servers that ultimately has little
effect on general accessibility.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 22/05/2012 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Robin wrote:
snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order
Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

Not for me.

No, well its fine for me as well... its only a few of the larger ISPs at
the mo that are implementing a block.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
On 22/05/2012 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Robin wrote:
snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order
Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

Not for me.

No, well its fine for me as well... its only a few of the larger ISPs at
the mo that are implementing a block.


Mind ypu its covered in adware, so I gave up as soon as it told me my
windows system was slow and probably infected.

Odd, since I have Linux...



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can
reach the site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser
rather than the normal URL (that IP resolving to the site
as of the time of writing at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to
what some claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and
neighbours seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am
given to understand that at present there are still plenty of
proxies - eg https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

OK, _Carry On Wiring_ then.

It was The Time Machine.

--
Adam

On 22/05/2012 16:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
On 22/05/2012 10:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Robin wrote:
snip
Thanks for the explanation.
As for empirical evidence, adding to the hosts file in XP
"194.71.107.15 mypbay.com" leads straight o the usual VM page about
the High Court order
Using a target of just the root of the site, or a named sub page on
it?

I tried the root and an individual page ("legal" as I thought the
lawyers might want to allow access to the lawyers' missives).

e.g. what about: http://thepiratebay.se/promo

(theoretically a non infringing page on the site)

That page also hits the bloc

Not for me.

No, well its fine for me as well... its only a few of the larger ISPs
at the mo that are implementing a block.


Mind ypu its covered in adware, so I gave up as soon as it told me my
windows system was slow and probably infected.

Odd, since I have Linux...

I have AdBlock loaded in FF, so I never see ads anyway ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the
site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the
normal URL (that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing
at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours
seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand
that at present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

No, that's the joiners



--
geoff

On 22/05/2012 20:33, geoff wrote:
In message , John
Rumm writes
On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can reach the
site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser rather than the
normal URL (that IP resolving to the site as of the time of writing
at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to what some
claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and neighbours
seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am given to understand
that at present there are still plenty of proxies - eg
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

No, that's the joiners

I thought they stopped them all bouncing after the sparks had finished
cutting them beside the joists ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , ARWadsworth
writes
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can
reach the site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser
rather than the normal URL (that IP resolving to the site
as of the time of writing at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to
what some claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and
neighbours seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am
given to understand that at present there are still plenty of
proxies - eg https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

OK, _Carry On Wiring_ then.

It was The Time Machine.

Ah, Rod Taylor, a classic!
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , ARWadsworth
writes
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can
reach the site using 194.71.107.15 in their web browser
rather than the normal URL (that IP resolving to the site
as of the time of writing at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor (contrary to
what some claimed) does the use of an https connection.

But if Adam insists on using TPB (even when his CCTV and
neighbours seem to offer so much entertainment) then I am
given to understand that at present there are still plenty of
proxies - eg https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in 1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

OK, _Carry On Wiring_ then.

It was The Time Machine.

Ah, Rod Taylor, a classic!

No it isn't, the wife has to watch that **** EVERY time it's shown.
I just hit the bottle.

brass monkey wrote:
"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , ARWadsworth
writes
Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, John Rumm wrote:

On 21/05/2012 20:47, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-05-21, ARWadsworth wrote:

Robin wrote:
A quick check would be for VM users to see if they can
reach the site using 194.71.107.15 in their web
browser rather than the normal URL (that IP resolving
to the site as of the time of writing at least).

Indeed (and I can confirm it don't work). Nor
(contrary to what some claimed) does the use of an
https connection. But if Adam insists on using TPB (even
when his CCTV and
neighbours seem to offer so much entertainment) then I
am given to understand that at present there are still
plenty of proxies - eg https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk

The last thing I downloaded from TPB was a film made in
1960.

_What the Electrician Saw_

The electrician saw floorboards.... ;-)

OK, _Carry On Wiring_ then.

It was The Time Machine.

Ah, Rod Taylor, a classic!

No it isn't, the wife has to watch that **** EVERY time it's shown.
I just hit the bottle.

It's a classic, just like Flash Gordon.

But I have The Time Machine on DVD. It was just faster to download it from
The Pirates Bay than is was to phone the gf to come round and fetch the DVD
up to me from the lounge (I had a broken ankle at the time). About 15
minutes to download it vs 30 minutes for her to fetch the DVD for me and
then she would have wanted to talk to me (they call it having a
relationship)after fetching the DVD.

I was in pain and needed to see an oldie.


--
Adam