Slashdot Mirror
British ISP Ordered To Block Links to Pirate Site
An anonymous reader writes "A UK High Court judge has ruled that BT must block access to a website which provides links to pirated movies. Justice Arnold ruled that BT must use its blocking technology CleanFeed — which is currently used to prevent access to websites featuring child sexual abuse — to block Newzbin 2. 'Currently CleanFeed is dealing with a small, rural road in Scotland,' ISPA council member James Blessing told BBC Radio 4's PM programme. 'Trying to put Newzbin and other sites into the same blocking technology would be a bit like shutting down the M1. It is not designed to do that.' Digital rights organisation the Open Rights Group said the result could set a "dangerous" precedent. "Website blocking is pointless and dangerous. These judgements won't work to stop infringement or boost creative industries. And there are serious risks of legitimate content being blocked and service slowdown. If the goal is boosting creators' ability to make money from their work then we need to abandon these technologically naive measures, focus on genuine market reforms, and satisfy unmet consumer demand," said ORG campaigner Peter Bradwell."
...court orders pavements(sidewalks) ripped up to prevent bank robbery.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
I love how trivial this is to get around for the pirates, too. First thing I thought was 'URL Shortener.'
But of course, anyone that really cares would use a VPN and this wouldn't affect them in the first place.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
1.) Went to court, and were granted a ruling that the actions of the site in question infringed copyright, once the judge had listened to the evidence on each side.
2.) Went to court again, seeking an order under s97A, CDPA 1988, that BT should block access to the site, and a judge granted it, having listened to the evidence on each side.
3.) Will go to court a third time, to discuss the measures in question with BT, to determine what is proportionate.
My instinctive reaction is against site blocking, but, as long as the laws on copyright stand - a debate in itself - this seems roughly the right procedure, giving multiple levels of legal scrutiny before imposing an order, rather things being done on a voluntary basis?
I've endured half a decade of being told I'm a tinfoil-hat-wearing maniac for suggesting that the IWF - already in a strange, anti-competitive position of being a private charity endorsed by government and given special legal privileges - is a slippery slope and that technology based on its list would eventually be used at a judicial level to block other sites.
It required lobby groups to step up the pressure in the courts. We've seen that over the past few years. It required an Act to consolidate the views of these lobby groups and set the legislative view of Internet censorship. That was the DEA. Next comes implementation.
Abusing children is wrong and the law has a duty to stop it.
Censoring 0s and 1s does not stop children being abused, but it does provide a framework for censorship.
The IWF list's implementation has not stopped any child abuse, but it has sat as the foundation stone for the Great Firewall of the UK.
Every one of you geeks who works for an ISP which has caved into government pressure to implement the list should be ashamed. You are the problem.
I wonder:
1. How much this will cost the ISP, especially considering the growing number of sites that provide links to warez. If you only block a few, other will pop up and it will be ineffective. Block many and it will probably have an impact on required infrastructure.
The ISPs may well wait for a court order to close each one so that they don't have a large overhead.
is available on BAILII.
(BAILII - British and Irish Legal Information Institute - is a very valuable resource indeed, for lawyers and those who simply want to understand the laws affecting their lives. legislation.gov.uk is another useful resource.)
How can I add Google, Bing and Jeeves to this list? I want to see how that works out?
It's a slippery slope though. How long before Ryan Giggs or someone like him demands that they block Twitter to protect his super injunction?
To protect their interest, they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me.
The Cleanfeed infrastructure was sold to the public on the basis that it would be used to block child abuse content and nothing else; it was specifically said time and again that this kind of thing absolutely and categorically would not happen. Even ignoring that, Newzbin simply provides links, they don't host any infringing material - blocking them seems a stretch of copyright law at best. Saying "it's the law, so it's right" is also dubious - the sites blocked by the great firewall of China are illegal under Chinese law, for example; does that make it right to censor them?
I can see a few companies getting a wee bit upset about that idea of not being able to call their IT staff at home and during holiday and 'ask' them to fix something 'quickly' even if they're a continent away.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Replying to myself has caused a temporary split-brain issue. Anyhow, more useful comment on Richard's blog:
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/
And let's not forget that this type of action tends to reduce the ISP's bandwidth usage, hence reducing its costs. A few customers will be lost also, but don't forget that those customers are probably unprofitable for the ISP (as they are high bandwidth users).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!