SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
The City of London Police have started putting banner ads over sites they believe are offering copyright infringing content.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
City of London Police Placing Banner Adverts on Pirate Sites
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It would save me a lot of time if you just gave up and went mad now.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday July 29 2014, @02:30PM
So, In an effort to fight piracy, the police decided it's a good idea to pay pirates for advertising space to put-in their anti-pirating materials?
It seems both Hollywood and their friends at law-enforcement haven't quite grasped the notion of a market model...
compiling...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday July 29 2014, @03:09PM
They're not financing pirates. Instead, they're stealing from alleged pirates.
They are using technology in conjunction with ISP's to strip the actual sites' paid-for ads, and REPLACE it with their ad. They are not compensating the owners of the sites in question for doing this.
In effect, they are seizing someone else's property (likely without court order), on an allegation that the owner of that property is acting illegally, and prohibiting them from earning revenue, likely again without court order.
The legality of this tactic is highly questionable, and should really scare anyone who cares about a free and open internet. But, hey, think of teh childrenz.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday July 29 2014, @03:46PM
I'm not too familiar with UK law, but isn't that unlawful assets forfeiture? Shouldn't there have been some conviction or at least a proceeding of some sort?
Funny thing is, I can imagine this being taken into court and the police using the argument that digital data isn't property... At which point the IP laws they're trying to protect would be firmly thrust against them... :)
compiling...
(Score: 2) by nukkel on Tuesday July 29 2014, @04:59PM
Yes, and santa claus exists, too
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 29 2014, @07:05PM
Hmm, on second thoughts, that might not be the wisest thing to have said.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Tuesday July 29 2014, @11:29PM
I can't help thinking that this approach is amusingly fitting:
The site owner's revenue depends on the visitors/downloaders that would choose to click on an ad; because they're not clicking (or are clicking on fake ads), the site owner is losing income.
The creator's revenue depends on audience members that would choose to purchase a copy; because they're obtaining their copies illegally, the creator is losing income.
Note: IMHO the majority of today's pirate/downloaders are just the equivalent of the folks that used second-hand shops 20 years ago (that is, students & poor people) and just like back then, they'll shift to buying legal copies once they can afford it.