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.'"

Comments

Fight Club

[DreadPiratePizz]

Looks like someone's been breaking the first two rules of Usenet!

Re:And next..

[P-niiice]

They already have a workaround in place.

This is it, then

[Catbeller]

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.

Re:This is it, then

[AlXtreme]

Your use of future tense surprises me.

Re:Totally insane!

[sosume]

"any other IP or internet address operators of the Newzbin2 site might look to use to continue to offer "

I'd say that covers the full 0.0.0.0/32 block. therefore, BT must terminate its ISP business.

Re:Totally insane!

[DarkOx]

I think you mean 0.0.0.0/0 as 0.0.0.0/32 would mean only the address 0 to most of us. I agree with you though considering almost any other address *might* get used to tunnel traffic or host news they must stop permitting access to the Internet.

Re:And next..

[durrr]

What they should do instead is spread some small-sized copyrighted content(or parts of larger works) in Base64 on every single website that allows posting of comments/text and to report this terrible infrignment to both the judge, studios and BT. So that if BT actually complies with the demands they end up blocking 90% of the internet.

Four bullet point overview and summary

[Neil_Brown]

Four bullet point overview:

• 1.) BT must block access to the "Newzbin 2" website, including amending the blocking rules in effect to ensure blocking, when the studios notify it of a change of IP address and similar by Newzbin 2. (No further court order required for these changes)
• 2.) The order extends to any downstream services which BT operates which incorporate CleanFeed. It does not apply to BT's access services and upstream divisions.
• 3.) BT must pay the costs of the solution.
• 4.) BT must pay the costs for defending itself in the case, since it was insufficiently neutral by virtue of opposing the order.

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:

"1. In respect of its customers to whose internet service the system known as Cleanfeed is applied whether optionally or otherwise, the Respondent shall within 14 days adopt the following technical means to block or attempt to block access by its customers to the website known as Newzbin2 currently accessible at www.newzbin.com, its domains and sub-domains and including payments.newzbin.com and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin2 website. The technical means to be adopted are:

(i) IP address re-routing in respect of each and every IP address from which the said website operates and which is notified in writing to the Respondent by the Applicants or their agents; and

(ii) DPI-based URL blocking utilising at least summary analysis in respect of each and every URL available at the said website and its domains and sub-domains and which is notified in writing to the Respondent by the Applicants or their agents.

2. For the avoidance of doubt paragraph 1 is complied with if the Respondent uses the system known as Cleanfeed and does not require the Respondent to adopt DPI-based URL blocking utilising detailed analysis.

3. The Respondent shall not be in breach of paragraph 1

Re:Four bullet point overview and summary

[cdrudge]

4.) BT must pay the costs for defending itself in the case, since it was insufficiently neutral by virtue of opposing the order.

So if BT didn't defend itself, staying sufficiently neutral, they automatically would have been ruled against and had to implement it. From BT's point of view, they were fucked from the beginning. There was no way to oppose them having to do something AND remain neutral.

Re:So BT eats the cost?

[ciderbrew]

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.

Re:The times are a-changing.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

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?

Re:And next..

[cavreader]

" stopping terrorist acts by searching people before boarding planes" When it comes to terrorist attacks the fear is not so much about the attack itself it is about who gets blamed for letting the attack succeed in the first place. We never blame the actual terrorists anymore we only blame those who didn't prevent the attack from succeeding. I have not heard of anyone filling lawsuits against Al-Qaeda or any of it's brethren. Instead the airlines get sued and any government official (local or national) any where in the vicinity gets hammered for incompetence.

Re:The times are a-changing.

[betterunixthanunix]

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?

Free Speech

[alexgieg]

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.