Italian Court Rules ISPs Must Block Access To Pirate Bay

introt writes "After first being blocked in 2008, an Italian court has once again ruled that ISPs in the nation must block access to the infamous torrent tracker The Pirate Bay, leaving millions of users without access to one of the most popular sites on the planet. In the original case, after an appeal by the Pirate Bay, the Court of Bergamo ruled that foreign websites cannot be blocked over alleged copyright infringement. Fast forward until today and the Supreme Court has ruled that ISPs can indeed be forced to block torrent sites, even if they are foreign-based."

Comments

Tech fail

[girlintraining]

On one hand, this will deter casual users. On the other, restricting access to the torrent sites does nothing to stop the use of torrents. .torrent files are small and with distributed tracking now coming into use... Piratebay can continue to function effectively even though its domain is blacklisted.

So this move has been anticipated, counter-measures deployed, and they are effective. Update the host file in the user's brain and you're good to go. ^_^

Re:Tech fail

[Opportunist]

Not even that. They will access a board of their choice and whine that TPB is no longer accessible, then they will be pointed at tor.eff.org (or a similar service) and the whole deal that took months to hash out (and probably a few bucks spent here or there...) is rendered obsolete within mere minutes.

Re:Tech fail

[girlintraining]

Not even that. They will access a board of their choice and whine that TPB is no longer accessible, then they will be pointed at tor.eff.org (or a similar service) and the whole deal that took months to hash out (and probably a few bucks spent here or there...) is rendered obsolete within mere minutes.

The only reason these measures are even attempted is because so many users don't even know to do that. They think the internet is broken when they can't login to facebook. They don't distinguish between servers, routers, clients, and all that... they know a black box in their house is connected to the internet. And sometimes the black box doesn't work and a geek-friend needs to poke it. They know ctrl+alt+del and unplugging and plugging it back in.

Average people are about habits. They don't know much more than what they're shown and they don't want to learn more than they need to. That's the only reason rulings like this happen (and have an effect)... it takes months to years for the collective knowledge to reach their ears and a new habit to be established.

Re:Tech fail

[MonsterTrimble]

On one hand, this will deter casual users.

How casual would users have to be? More like clueless. Regardless, this decision means nothing. Stopping torrent sites is whack-a-mole on an infinite sized board.

Re:Tech fail

[Bobfrankly1]

They know ctrl+alt+del and unplugging and plugging it back in.

Half the techies I work with can't remember unplugging and plugging it back in. You really think the general user remembers that much?

Re:Tech fail

[girlintraining]

Half the techies I work with can't remember unplugging and plugging it back in. You really think the general user remembers that much?

I've been using computers since not long after I could read and write. I've done several years of tech support, field work, net/sys admin work, and deployment. I can say with confidence, yes -- the average user remembers that much. What they don't think of is that wires can come loose, expansion cards can be jostled from their seats, and ports can fail because after several hundred plug/unplug cycles those little surface-mounted USB and firewire ports come loose. But it still looks the same. Average users don't think of things like that.

As to techies not remembering that... Well, just because you work in this industry doesn't mean you do well in it. *shrug* I consider 'techie' a title you earn like any other and I don't call someone that unless they've proven themselves. You shouldn't either -- we all benefit from a meritocratic culture.

Re:Tech fail

[twidarkling]

Are casual users really using TPB and torrents in general? After all, keep in mind, that'd require them to download a tiny file, then download a torrenting program, and set that up properly (checking ports and such). Then actually open the torrent in the program. The casual user you're talking about would probably think that tiny thing they downloaded was the movie/song/program they were looking for, and wondered why it didn't work.

Re:Tech fail

[bane2571]

Agreed on both counts, if a user is casual enough to not find something on an alternate site then they are probably searching for torrents on Google anyway.

Time for a judicial bank account audit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Find out who paid them for this ruling...

Censoring communication because a corp says so

[mykos]

This is getting very frightening; corporations are now able to use anti-piracy laws to decide what people can and can't communicate. It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a free fall from the edge of the mountain. What's next, banning google because you can add the word "torrent" to a search?

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[icebraining]

Actually, banning Google would be great. It would turn every internet user against those rulings. I would love to see that happen!

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[lgw]

Corporation can't buy votes - at least as long as you can't prove who you voted for. Your vote is only influenced by the media if you believe the media. People on the whole are remarkably savvy about stuff that actually affects their daily lives - media buys to influence elections works well for stuff that people only care about in the abstract, but not for stuff that affects us directly. And with the rise of blogging, traditional media buys are becoming less influential over time anyhow.

In any case, a corporation is not an evil demon summoned from the blackest depths, but a group of people, and last I checked people in the US have a right to assemble and speak out on political matters. Whether incorporated or not, you can't just just decide that a group of peope can't get together and give money to a cause they support.

Re:Censoring communication because a corp says so

[bill_mcgonigle]

Maybe the problem is the powers given to the government fictions called 'corporations' and not free speech?

Remember, non-limited non-public-benefit corporations were effectively banned in the US until the 1860's when John D. Rockefeller lobbied to get Standard Oil a permanent charter. Then a footnote in Santa Clara gave them personhood.

None of these things were designed into the Republic - they are vestiges of later corruption. SCOTUS took the right first step, we need to demand the rest.

Not to be a dick, but . . .

[SlappyBastard]

"leaving millions of users without access to one of the most popular sites on the planet" is a bullshit plea. Don't give me this "would somebody think of the children!" argument. It's bullshit.

It isn't that hard to understand why a court might not be fans of a website whose content is at least 95% links to stuff that is illegal!

Nothing is going to make illegal downloading go away. I think it's fair to say some folks have spent a good portion of the last two decades trying. But, let's not act like it's a travesty that a court didn't side with the downloaders.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[camperdave]

I was under the impression that torrent sites do not hold anything illegal, but merely pointers to it. Or does TPB seed as well?

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

But, let's not act like it's a travesty that a court didn't side with the downloaders.

What is the Law? An arbitrary sequence of rules which must be followed come what may? A code which it is always and everywhere immoral to to disobey, even in spirit? An elaborate ritual which those skilled in the art can obtain whatever outcome they please?

The function of the court system is to interpret the law in such a way that justice is served. When billions across the world withdraw their moral support fro copyrighted works and see nothing wrong with filesharing, are they wrong simply because the law says they are wrong? Or is it rather the law that is wrong, for unjustly imposing outdated or undemocratic views upon the population?

The law and the legal system gets too much of a free pass by too many people. It is as fallible and flawed a system as any other designed by human beings and its decisions are not always morally right, or even ethically so. You'll understand the fantasy when you finally have your day in court.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[pdxp]

It's not a matter of what is on the website as much as it is this: many of us see a bleak future when law dictates what sites we can and cannot visit on the internet.

This ruling means that rather than only taking down websites that cause direct harm to a person or a group of people, access to sites can be removed even if they fall within copyright gray areas, where laws and ideas are different all over the world, or where they possibly threaten financial harm (no matter how [un]justified) to large organizations.

It's like taking a magazine off the stands in just one country because it says anti-patriotic things about its leader. or, if you want to go into the realm of content legality, a magazine that tells you how to exploit DNS vulnerabilites (3 cheers for the 2600 periodical).

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[srussia]

Nothing is going to make illegal downloading go away.

Yes there is, repealing copyright.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[starfliz]

It doesn't matter what the court 'thinks'. The issue is (no matter how it is stated) that this is an attack on 3rd parties instead of the people 'responsible'. Either:
Go after distributors (insanely difficult = costly) which do something 'bad'
Go after the thieves (people at home = costly) which do something 'bad'
Go after the ISPs (easy to shut off the 'valve') which do absolutely nothing wrong.

I don't want to know what the court is a 'fan' of. This is in italy so they can set up whatever asinine freedom destroying laws they want, but its obviously idiotic to go after people and cost them money that have nothing to do with the problem.

I wish the commercial organization would realize people love to buy their products.... if only they would make it more easy to access.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[lgw]

Don't buy a game unless you know it's good. Simple as that. You don't have a fundamental right to try before you buy - if the demo isn't enough to know, just don't buy it. It's a feeble excuse.

There's certainly an argument to be made in the case of a movie that simply cannot be obtained otherwise, but the catalog of places like NetFlix is pretty huge. What you really seem to be saying (and the reason I think most people torrent movies) is that you're willing to pay, but you're not willing for it to be inconvenient, so the owners had better make it convenient or they get nothing. Again, that's a right you don't have (but if I were a movie studio, I'd know that was my new business model!).

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, you don't have the right to test a game to see if it's shit before buying it.

You. Don't. Have. That. Right.

You can buy it, or not, or the game company can provide a reasonable demo. Or you can break the law. Which isn't an enormous ethical violation in my book, but at the same time, don't be surprised when the court doesn't side with you for willfully disregarding the law because you want to try out a video game.

I'm a lot more favourable to the stupidly-hard-to-find content where you can't figure out how to give people your money for their stuff, particularly if you already DO have the right to it.

So no, it isn't true that "The only reason someone would go to TPB would be to obtain copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material."

Both examples you gave were examples of you obtaining copyrighted material without the need to pay for the material. Particularly the try-before-you-buy video game one, that was the entire point of you doing that. At least with the hard-to-find one, it wasn't the point, just how it works out. You can justify it, and we may or may not agree that your justifications are reasonable, but just because it's justified doesn't mean he's factually incorrect.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Merls the Sneaky]

Or how about when you buy the game and it's fucked out of the box due to DRM. But it's ok that those fuckers steal our money. And it is stealing if the "product" doesn't work.

Re:Not to be a dick, but . . .

[Lord_Dweomer]

"You don't have a fundamental right to try before you buy"

Well, you used to actually--it was called "returning it if it sucks." Unfortunately publishers did everything they could to tie each purchase to a one-time online account and put pressure on retailers to no longer accept opened game returns, so if a game sucks, you are stuck with it. Thus, I have no pity these companies when they whine about piracy--I have downloaded many games that have sucked and am glad I didn't waste my money. I have also downloaded many games that rocked and then proceeded to pay full price for it and recommend it to my friends.

Re:Obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they'll just ban THAT system/software.
Next Idea.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[parodyca]

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

This is more like thinking a ban on the sale of hunting knives will prevent murder. Actually it is a little more like telling the transit company that they can't have transit routes that pass by one store that sells knives, but doing nothing about people walking there or taking a taxi, or even the other stores.

Totally lame.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[Opportunist]

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

Interesting comparison. It's also approaching a similar punishment.

one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

So what if it is popular!? We block Nazi sites and other sites we deem are culturally or economically hazardous. Bottom line is that - today - distributing files your don't have permission to access or share is illegal. This is not an argument whether or not copyright laws are just or unjust. Simply, this is blocking illegal content. It is not the same as China censoring sites the government approve of. (I am sure the US gov is blocking sites, too.)

I think the bigger argument against blocking Pirate Bay is that they are an index, not a a distributor.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

This is not an argument whether or not copyright laws are just or unjust. Simply, this is blocking illegal content. It is not the same as China censoring sites the government approve of

Since it's illegal for the Chinese to see the sites China blocks, what's the difference? In either case, the government is blocking sites it doesn't want you to see. To Quote Mr. Blues, "I hate Illinois Nazis" but I will defend their right to spew their obnoxious garbage in Germany as vehemently as I will defend the Chinese people's right to see crap their government doesn't want them to see.

We block Nazi sites

WE don't. My government doesn't. Your "we" is a bit too inclusive, and your post is a bit to parochial. For someone who agrees that it's OK to block Nazi sites while denying China's right to block certain cults' sites is a bit hypocritical.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

there is a fundamental difference between the Chinese government using censorship to suppress the fundamental human rights of its people

I don't agreee; freedom of speech IS a fundamental right. One of the US founding fathers pointed out that unpopular speech is the speech that most needs to be protected.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[KharmaWidow]

Whats the difference? Whats the difference between your hat and a bucket!? You can put them both over your head - except one blinds you.

Chinese are blocking rights of free speech, the right to organize, and and the right collaborate. Obtaining and using entertainment media that someone else created and owns - without their permission - is theft.

Stay away from buckets.

Re:one of the most popular sites on the planet

[mcgrew]

I'm not comparing the great firewall of China to copyrigt infringement, I'm comparing it to Germany's blocking Nazi sites. Freedom of speech means freedom of all speech, not just speech you approve of. Quashing political speech (and the Nazis ARE political) is the worst sort of censorship, and in Germany's case I think is really dumb; the best way to fight speech is with more speech. Truth always trumps hatred and lies, and the Nazis are about as disgustingly hateful as one can get.

And, copyright infringement is no more theft than rape is murder. If I walk into Best Buy and take a CD without paying, I have stolen. Best Buy has paid for that CD and no longer has it. They have been deprived of property thay can no longer use, whether or not I would have paid for it if I couldn't have stolen it.

If I download a CD's worth of songs, those songs are still in the record company's catalog. They have been deprived of nothing, particularly if there would be no way I'd pay for that album.

I'm no pirate, but a quick googling will show you that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates. Piracy does not eat into the RIAA's revenues; the copyright infringement is not depriving them of anything. Now, if I download a CD's worth of music and burn it to Cds and sell them, then that copyright infringement IS depriving them of their property. In that case, with every CD I sell, they have indeed lost a sale and have indeed been stolen from.

But again, that bears no relation to China; germany blocking Nazi sites does.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[mcgrew]

I'm glad that comment was modded up, but I don't think it's bit funny, as it's sad but true. Take the laws against drugs, for example, which cause the problems they are said to prevent.

Insightful, but not funny in the least.

Hmmm.

[IonOtter]

Italian Government: You will BAN the web address for the Pirate Bay!

ISP: Okay. *adds thepiratebay.com and thepiratebay.org to the "ban" list.*

Italian Government: ...You did that awful fast. Are you sure it's blocked?

ISP: Try it.

Italian Government: *types in both URLs with no joy* Right. Good riddance.

ISP: Yup. Bye.

Home user: *types 194.71.107.15 into their browser*

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

From Italy it does not work.
Not so funny indeed.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Home user: get a 301 redirect and stuck.

Home user change DNS to 8.8.8.8

Home user: go to thepiratebay.org and works.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just funny, because my ISP is actively filtering TPB's IP addresses, not just DNS. Proxy browsing still works.

Only under Berlusconi's government such an idiotic measure could be passed.

But since Italy is becoming a population of idiots spoonfed by a monopoly on tv misinformation that makes Fox News pale in comparison, that is not a big surprise.

Well, idiots will get stuck with this. Smart people will not.

Berlusconi will eventually go away of old age, and then state ignorance will not be necessary to save a sociopathic corrupt liar anymore.

Re:Hmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

They blocked the Ip now, not just the name resolution. Unless you use a proxy abroad you can't connect to TPB from within Italy.

Re:Obvious solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a stream-lined solution to get a significant user-base. Integrating something like freenet, except optimized toward only .torrent files, into a BT client so all the user sees is a search bar and a list of results, each of which can be turned into a torrent download in that same client with a simple click, would be a significant step toward eliminating the current largest "weakness" in BT while actually increasing its ease of use.

It's true that all people seeding/downloading the actual torrent will still have their IPs publicly broadcasted, but this system will force targeting all of the individual users, which in all attempts so far has proved to be quite inefficient and pretty bad PR.

Re:Is tecnically feasible?

[dissy]

Copyright infringement is already illegal, like murder.

Interesting comparison. It's also approaching a similar punishment.

It's sad and interesting actually, while 'murder' is a bad example specifically, the potential crime of just 'killing a person' can actually get you a much much lighter sentence than getting caught sharing 2-3 CDs.

After all, manslaughter can be zero to just a couple years in jail. After that time you can begin to rebuild your life and carry on.

When you make minimum wage or less, a multimillion dollar fine is effectively a life sentence that you will never be out from under.

A much better comparison is the crime of 'rape'. Assuming it is not committed against a child, then you are guaranteed to get a sentence much lighter than that of file sharing.
Only a couple to a few years of time, instead of all of the remaining years of your time you have left.

Sad sad day when harming and mentally scaring someone for life is barely a punishment compared to sharing songs.