Slashdot Mirror
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."
You can pretty much use any VPN, Proxy, TOR, etc.. maybe a DNS entry to avoid blocking. Is this like ruling against the clouds stoping the sun from warming the empirer body or something?
-Woof woof woof!
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.
This just in: A government agency simultaneously
a. reaffirms the power of the government
b. shows a lack of understanding of technical issues
News at 11pm
I think that's obvious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi
How to Be a Facist Leader:
1) Use media empire to prop up election campaign and suppress opponents ...
2) Use government to prop up media empire and bog down competitors in silly regulation (eg YouTube broadcasting license)
3)
4) Allegedly molest barely legal girl, pissing off wife
5) Profit!
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
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?
...Norway says s'ok! http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLc2Sd0IGZ0-56w-d7FAPNImTzZw
"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.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
TFA and TFS both say that ISP's are required to block access to TPB's "Tracker". TFA goes on to mention "sites offering torrent links" but doesn't seem to make a distinction between .torrent files and the notorious "tracker".
Which is it? Because TPB shut down their tracker a couple of months ago
>I was baing facetious.
Perhaps you should stick with four letter words too?
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*
[End Of Line]
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Free Martian Whores!