Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#3
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#4
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#8
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#9
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 . . . . |
#10
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#11
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#12
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#13
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#14
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#15
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#16
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#17
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#18
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#19
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#20
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#21
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#22
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#23
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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_ :-) |
#24
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#25
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#26
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#27
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#28
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#29
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#30
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#31
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#32
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#33
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#34
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#35
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#36
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 | \================================================= ================/ |
#37
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 . . . . |
#38
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#39
![]()
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Virgin media cable | UK diy | |||
(OT sorry) Virgin Media Tariff Oddity. | UK diy | |||
Virgin Media Installation Conundrum | UK diy | |||
OT; Virgin Media service. | UK diy | |||
NTL/Virgin Media broadband SNAFU | UK diy |