[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Actually, the publishers did not win a landmark case. It was all just smoke and mirrors:
http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/0...s-google-next/

Your article is incorrect, Nate. You state:

Here's a key detail the FT missed: there was no need for the PA to get an order from the High Court to block those sites.

The fun thing about the UK is that the gov't maintains a list of sites to block. Originally that list was supposed to be limited to child pornography, criminal activities, and other terrible things, but now that list has grown to include sites which have even a tertiary link to piracy (see the links above) or even sites with no connection to any crime or infringement whatsoever.

The UK Publisher Association could have had those sites blocked just by getting them placed on the appropriate list. There was no need to get a court order.

This is wrong, plain and simple. The "blacklist" you refer to is that of the Internet Watch Foundation. This is specifically and solely there to block child pornography and sites which contain images which are criminally obscene under UK law. It does not block any other type of site.

Blocking other sites requires a court order; it is not (unlike DMCA takedowns) an arbitrary process. Evidence of copyright violation has to be presented to the court.