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

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Arrghus

It's a slippery slope.

Also, in effect, following this ruling ISPs WILL have to police the internet, as they will not want to have to pay the legal fees BT have undoubtedly incurred as this case went to through the courts. They will want to avoid having to be ruled over.

I think actually the opposite is the case, BT wanted a clear court ruling forcing it to do this.
Under EU law ISPs are not responsible for the information that passes through their systems provided that they are mere carriers of the information.
Defined as:

“Article 12
‘Mere conduit’
1. Where an information society service is provided that consists of the
transmission in a communication network of information provided by
a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a
communication network, Member States shall ensure that the service
provider is not liable for the information transmitted, on condition that
the provider:
(a) does not initiate the transmission;
(b) does not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c) does not select or modify the information contained in the
transmission.
[...]
3. This Article shall not affect the possibility for a court or administrative
authority, in accordance with Member States' legal systems, of
requiring the service provider to terminate or prevent an infringement.

So if they chose to block content, they would lose the protection provided by their mere conduit status. However if they are forced to do so by a court order, it does not affect their status.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So if they chose to block content, they would lose the protection provided by their mere conduit status. However if they are forced to do so by a court order, it does not affect their status.

Yes, that's the important point here. This is not BT choosing to block a site, but the result of a court order.

[stonetools]

In the USA, the ISPs are taking similar action voluntarily, in accordance with an agreement with the content providers. I expect that in both countries, there will be legislation eventually.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?

Am I the only person who read this:

Justice Arnold ruled that BT must use its blocking technology CleanFeed - which is currently used to prevent access to websites featuring child sexual abuse - to block Newzbin 2.

In an email interview before the verdict, Newzbin 2 threatened to break BT's filters.

"We would be appalled if any group were to try to sabotage this technology as it helps to protect the innocent from highly offensive and illegal content," said a spokesman for BT.

The Internet Service Providers' Association has been a fierce critic of web blocking.

It said that using blocking technology designed to protect the public from images of child abuse, was inappropriate.

"Currently CleanFeed is dealing with a small, rural road in Scotland," ISPA council member James Blessing told BBC Radio 4's PM programme.

"Trying to put Newzbin and other sites into the same blocking technology would be a bit like shutting down the M1. It is not designed to do that."

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Just like punishing the publisher of a yellow pages is so much more sensible than punishing individual pawnshops for fencing stolen goods.

It is so much easier and really, the aggregator and the yellow pages should send someone around periodically to make sure those listing are on the up and up. If they won't do that both should be shut down.

Its for the children.

yes actually the publisher of the yellow pages is certainly on the hook for ensuring that the businesses that purchase advertisements from them are actually legitimate businesses. They need to do their due diligence.

If they were alerted by authorities that an advertisement being run in their publication was from an group known to be taking part in illegal activities they should remove the ad. If the publishers of the yellow pages do not refuse/remove the ad then the authorities have the duty to stop the publishing and distribution of that yellow pages book. regardless of how many legitimate ads there are from legitmate businesses.

if you knowingly promote/support the illegal activities of others you are just as guilty.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by Arrghus

P.S. If a terrorist uses a mobile phone to communicate with other terrorists and plot an attack, is if the fault of the network carrier for not stopping them?

it is if the know its a terrorist

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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,"

[HarryT]

In all seriousness, Mr Ploppy, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You've always been a strong advocate of the idea that legal actions should stem from proper court proceedings, and that's precisely what this case is: a ruling by a judge following a proper court hearing. I'd have thought you'd be supportive of it for that reason.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In all seriousness, Mr Ploppy, I'm surprised to hear you say that. You've always been a strong advocate of the idea that legal actions should stem from proper court proceedings, and that's precisely what this case is: a ruling by a judge following a proper court hearing. I'd have thought you'd be supportive of it for that reason.

I support catching terrorists but I will never support anti-terror laws being used to catch people dropping litter.

[HarryT]

I entirely agree, but this is far from an anti-litter thing; it's a group of rights-holders taking perfectly legitimate action against a site whose sole purpose is the encouragement of mass copyright infringement, via an entirely proper legal process.

[crich70]

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)

That agrees with the point I was going to make. Site x is found to be guilty of offering material that infringes on copyright and access to it is blocked, but what is stopping them from just opening up shop again somewhere else on the web? It's not like someone can police the whole internet after all. Seems more like a feel good ruling rather than something that will make any real effect on things.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by crich70

That agrees with the point I was going to make. Site x is found to be guilty of offering material that infringes on copyright and access to it is blocked, but what is stopping them from just opening up shop again somewhere else on the web? It's not like someone can police the whole internet after all. Seems more like a feel good ruling rather than something that will make any real effect on things.

I think the ruling provides that the rights owners can continually supply BT with new blocking rules, to make it harder to evade the restrictions.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree, but this is far from an anti-litter thing; it's a group of rights-holders taking perfectly legitimate action against a site whose sole purpose is the encouragement of mass copyright infringement, via an entirely proper legal process.

It isn't this one that worries me, it is the precedent it sets. BT are unlikely to want to go to court over every frivolous take-down notice they get, so it will end up being at the sole discretion of large corporations which sites people are allowed to see.

Plus, if nzbwhatever do come up with an easy to use widget to bypass the IWF filters that will open the gates for lots of nefarious uses. I can't help feeling that's not a price worth paying just to inconvenience a few unauthorised downloaders for a few weeks.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I think the ruling provides that the rights owners can continually supply BT with new blocking rules, to make it harder to evade the restrictions.

It's not a generic ruling, get one and you can then just tell BT what to block... it's specific to that site and requires more court actions for further sites... sets a precedent but not going to make a massive difference... one estimate had them as equivalent to just 2% of TPBs file handling and they're hardly the only site around as far as I know... and it's so difficult to just set up again in another location... take your latest site backup and restore to new servers with different address...

Wish they'd do the sensible thing and make legal D/Ling more acceptable and easier than non-legal... Hollywood and the rest of the media producers really ought to try joining the 21st century... hell the 20th would be a start...

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Plus, if nzbwhatever do come up with an easy to use widget to bypass the IWF filters that will open the gates for lots of nefarious uses..

if they do then they ARE the nefarious user.