Slashdot Mirror
BT Ordered To Block Usenet Binaries Index
First time accepted submitter eyeoftheidol writes "A judge in the UK has ordered the ISP BT to block access to filesharing site Newzbin2 within 14 days. From the article: 'Wednesday's court order also allows for the blocking of any other IP or internet address that the operators of the Newzbin2 site might look to use to continue to offer copyrighted content to users. In addition the court said BT must foot the bill for the cost of implementing the web block on Newzbin2.'"
Newzbin3!
How to block "any other IP or internet address operators of the Newzbin2 site might look to use to continue to offer copyrighted content to users" ?
What if they change name? Or country? Or whatever?
Do that judge understand the meaning of this sentence?
And is it possible in the UK to head a bill in the name of someone because of a judge rule?
I definitely this is totally insane, unless this is another case of british humour!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
Looks like someone's been breaking the first two rules of Usenet!
Blocking a website is fairly trivial to get around. But if only BT were more interested in blocking all the spam phone calls they pretend they can't block.. because they make lots of money from these spamming phone calls. I can block an IP in hosts, or ads with browser plugins, but BT claim they can't block phone calls even thought THEY know the number. Hypocrites who are only after money.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Because some people OR(speed, drive dangerously, fall asleep at the wheel, road rage, drive without insurance, drive without license).
The list here is quite long. Very few people, in fact, never break any laws on the UK highways.
Shame on the judge and/or law. Understanding the problem FAIL.
There, I fixed it for you.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
The end of the internet, as I used to prophesize on Slashdot over ten years ago. It will become cable TV and a wiretapped phone, along with the history of everything we access. And with IPV6, we will get assigned personal IPs - there will be enough for every amoeba on the planet to be tracked. And don't bother telling us about how we will hack around it- that will be an international felony, and they will show us what happens to people who think they're cute. Ask Kevin Mitnick or Assange.
Four bullet point overview:
Summary (with some of my opinions...):
Background: In July, BT was injuncted to block access to the Newzbin 2 website, which had previously been held to infringe copyright. The decision today related solely to the order itself, and procedural / cost aspects.
The order requires BT to block access to the Newzbin 2 website (including at any future addresses it uses, as notified by the studios to BT (para. 10)). It applies to any downstream services which BT provides which implement - whether as an option or not - BT's CleanFeed system, which allows certain traffic management and filtering capabilities. It does not apply to BT's access services and upstream divisions.
The court heard arguments as to the differences (or similarities) between a Norwich Pharmacal order and an Art. 8(3) injunction (which is the mechanism here). Whilst Arnold J ruled in favour of the studios, that there are differences, he ruled that the "intermediary has not committed any legal wrong." (para. 30)
BT was also found to be liable for the costs of implementing the solution. At para. 32, Arnold J held that: "BT is a commercial enterprise which makes a profit from the provision of the services which the operators and users of Newzbin2 use to infringe the Studios' copyright. As such, the costs of implementing the order can be regarded as a cost of carrying on that business."
In effect, the cost of bearing the outcome of the injunction is the cost of the shield provisions of Arts. 12-14, 2000/31/EC. BT was also effectively penalised for defending itself, per para. 54, with the court holding that defending itself against an order such as this - the first of its kind in the UK - was insufficiently neutral. I struggle with this, as it would seem to hold that access providers are unable to defend themselves against threats such as this for fear of not being "neutral" on an issue which, unsurprisingly, is contentious for an ISP.
The full wording of the order appears at the end the judgment (para. 56), in the following terms:
No. The book isn't a book. It's a list of books. It has not been taken. It is not even a copy. Well, are you making a copy of this by reading and clicking about.
Ban Google please. That make lists of lists of lists.
You know damn good and well their intent is to aid you in downloading stuff you would otherwise have to pay for, for free.
To quote one of my favorite Simpson's lines, do they give the Nobel Prize out for attempted chemistry?
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
No, only the imaginary bits that go with it. The imaginary bits being the intent to facilitate copyright violation. We like to call those imaginary because in the context of legality and morality they DO in fact exist (regardless of your interpretation or perceived importance of them) however, when you sit down and look at it, the bits clearly do not exist in practicality. It's an interesting point of conflict between technical folk like us, and other people.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
And, in this case, ensure that if that particular thief never commits a crime on any other driveway.
Essentially, BT is now responsible for anything NewzBin2 does on the internet -- which demonstrates that the judge in this case doesn't understand what is being demanded.
Translation: We the court feel that the Movie Studio's position that BT is now responsible for policing any and all activities by NewzBin2 ... and when they change their name, we will find that BT is still bound to protect this information and any related information. Now that we have established precedent, we will extend this to mean that the content you are now responsible to protect form these guys, you now have to protect from everybody else.
BT now works for the movie studios as this will be indefinitely expanded. I believe that a British judge has just assigned control of the internet to the US movie studios.
This is just plain stupid.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Don't get me wrong, I like downloading copyrighted stuff for free as much as the next guy, but I find it peculiar that otherwise smart people try to argue that what The Pirate Bay or Newzbin or whoever is doing is just offering up "indexes" or "text files" or what have you. You know damn good and well their intent is to aid you in downloading stuff you would otherwise have to pay for, for free.
So where do you think the line should be drawn? How many layers of linking or indexing are required before we stop considering it to be illegal? If I post a link to a TPB page, which links to a torrent, is that a crime? What if I post a link to that link?
Palm trees and 8
It'd be interesting for the sake of spicing things up if all these services, and the groups behind them, used "free speech" and similar terms as part of their names. The mainstream media would have a field day spreading news about an UK judge banning a site called "FreeSpeechNews" by "Team Combatants of Liberty", much more so at least than about him banning something as esoteric-sounding as "newzbin" by some guys who cal themselves dogs. Just imagine the headlines!
Even pirates should lean the value of marketing. Use it for your own advantage. It might not be glamorous, but it's worth the effort.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I prefer "too damn busy to park my ass in front of the tv at a fixed time" or "You're not reshowing that episode for 4 months? Fuck you I'm downloading it." over "pirate".
I find being offended by me offensive.
They give accolades to those who aid in a Nobel recipient's research, they also prosecute those who aid primary actors in a crime. GP was wrong to point out intent as the primary indicator of guilt in a crime -- it is not -- the result of one's actions determines guilt, whereas intent determines the severity of punishment. However, in your reply, it needs to be pointed out that intended good and attempted good are not the same both legally and logically, just as intended ill and attempted ill are not the same. Your followup is mostly non-sequitur in relation to GP's error of tying intent to guilt, and I only respond because you've been so highly modded Insightful.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
To quote one of my favorite Simpson's lines, do they give the Nobel Prize out for attempted chemistry?
They will put you in jail for an attempted crime.
The failed experiment in crime.
There is no better targert for satire than the guy who isn't aware he is the butt of the joke.
DVRs are fundamentally flawed. With a DVR I have to decide I want to watch something before it runs.
With downloading I can decide afterward.
Say you have dinner with a friend and they ask you if you watched some show you didn't know exists and them recommends it when they find out you know nothing about it. How does a DVR help you there?
I find being offended by me offensive.
Hint, some cable services really insist that you use the settop box that they provided to you.
(really insist => they encrypt not only premium channels, they encrypt free to receive over the air channels)
And even if I'd be in an area where the cable provider do not encrypt free channels, that leaves the premium channels where you have to pay in effect per channel received (because the decoding smart card can be only in one device, and some smart cards are locked to do only one channel at the time no matter what).
Last but not least, it's just way more convenient, I mean the torrents are fetched automatically from a RSS feed, scripts decide how long to keep the torrent seeding, scripts unpack and transcode the videos, moving them to the multimedia filesystem, where mediatomb serves them. Little manual work, beyond watching free space, and either deleting some torrents if it runs out or adding a new n-TB disc to the volume group as needed.
Btw, Hulu is a pure US-only service, the rest of the world mostly has nothing comparable. And no premium channels do not come with on-demand service, and the general on-demand service does not carry all series.
And no, it's not really fault of the cable provider, it's the producers that still to refuse to setup a common European licensing setup, and it's just a question of when they'll get spanked by the EU commission for that.