ISP Ordered to block access to web site...in the UK

[TGS]

A High Court judge has ordered BT, one of the UK's largest ISPs to block access to an aggregator site - report here.

[HarryT]

A much more sensible approach than attempting to punish individual downloaders.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A much more sensible approach than attempting to punish individual downloaders.

Agreed.

[TGS]

The argument against this approach seems to be that, in order to be consistent, you would have to close down Google because sometimes it returns links to material that infringe someones copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

The argument against this approach seems to be that, in order to be consistent, you would have to close down Google because sometimes it returns links to material that infringe someones copyright.

The ruling over copyright infringement has generally been that devices, sites, etc, which have significant non-infringing uses are permissible. Most people, I think, would agree that Google is primarily a non-infringing site, whereas the primary purpose of the site against which this ruling has been made is to give people access to copyright-infringing material.

[TGS]

Which raises the interesting question of just how much copyright infringing does a site have to facilitate before it gets blocked. I don't know, but I would guess that as a proportion of overall activity linking to copyright infringing material is pretty low for Google but pretty high for the blocked site. However, in terms of absolute volume, I wonder whether Google contributes more to the facilitation of copyright infringement than does the blocked site.

[Mike L]

I agree that this is a good approach.

One reason is that the order was made by a judge after a proper court hearing. This is in contrast to the original provisions of the Digital Economy Act, which would have allowed rights-holders to force ISPs to disconnect individual alleged infringers, with no judicial review and no right of appeal. In other words, the rights holders would be their own prosecuting council, judge and executioner.

It's also more efficient to go after the pirates themselves rather than the individuals.

[rogue_librarian]

The problem is not that the site is shut down, the problem is that an ISP is ordered to "prevent access" to this site (an exercise in futility if there ever one was). It's like asking the Royal Mail to stop delivering parcels to certain "rogue" addresses.

[elcreative]

Next stop the UK "Great Wall of China" and we criticise others for blocking internet access to content that a countries government dislikes... Nothing against taking action against sites but if this is so bad why not get the site closed rather than force the ISPs to censor and block access... it always raises the question of who decides what next to ban once a precedent is set...

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The ruling over copyright infringement has generally been that devices, sites, etc, which have significant non-infringing uses are permissible. Most people, I think, would agree that Google is primarily a non-infringing site, whereas the primary purpose of the site against which this ruling has been made is to give people access to copyright-infringing material.

From the judgement:

"A specific issue which arose in this connection is that counsel for BT submitted that, if the court was minded to grant an order, the order should require the Studios to identify individual URLs corresponding to the individual NZBs files indexed by Newzbin2 which relate to infringing copies of individual copyright works.
Notwithstanding the reference in the Studios’ draft order to “and its domains and sub domains”, counsel for the Studios opposed this. In my judgment such a requirement would not be proportionate or practicable since it would require the Studios to expend considerable effort and cost in notifying long lists of URLs to BT on a daily basis.
The position might be different if Newzbin2 had a substantial proportion of noninfringing content, but that is not the case."

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Next stop the UK "Great Wall of China" and we criticise others for blocking internet access to content that a countries government dislikes... Nothing against taking action against sites but if this is so bad why not get the site closed rather than force the ISPs to censor and block access... it always raises the question of who decides what next to ban once a precedent is set...

Because the site is not in the jurisdiction of the UK courts, so they cannot close it down. (They did shut down the predecessor, so the site moved offshore)

[rogue_librarian]

Oh, I'm sure there are those who'll argue that the means are justified by the end. There always are.

[murraypaul]

<deleted, got confused as to who had said what>

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Because the site is not in the jurisdiction of the UK courts, so they cannot close it down. (They did shut down the predecessor, so the site moved offshore)

Doesn't stop the US using it's laws offshore so why should it stop anyone else... send in the SAS and Delta Force to deal with threats to the world such as this...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The ruling over copyright infringement has generally been that devices, sites, etc, which have significant non-infringing uses are permissible. Most people, I think, would agree that Google is primarily a non-infringing site, whereas the primary purpose of the site against which this ruling has been made is to give people access to copyright-infringing material.

That's laughable, Google is the biggest copyright infringer in the world, but they also have a very large team of lawyers...

Plenty of people don't believe in copyright, why should they not be allowed to read or listen or watch anything that they wish to? Because someone else does believe in copyright? That's just silly.

Although if the "governments" of the world continue along this path, the new era should be harried into existence quicker than previously imagined.