View Single Post
Old 07-29-2011, 02:51 PM   #37
mr ploppy
Feral Underclass
mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.mr ploppy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
mr ploppy's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,622
Karma: 26821535
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Yorkshire, tha noz
Device: 2nd hand paperback
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
As has already been stated, it's not "technologically infeasible"; the mechanism for doing so already exists and is already used to block certain sites.

Who is it unfair towards? The owners of the criminal web sites involved?
It will be unfair to the owners of innocent websites that large corporations want to get rid of.

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/36748...-UK-web-impact

"Now that this test case establishes that an injunction can be granted, intermediaries are likely to adopt a notice-and-takedown approach which has operated for many years in relation to defamation claims,"
mr ploppy is offline   Reply With Quote