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

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by elcreative

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...

For further sites, yes, but as I read it it allows for the possibility of the same site trying to work around the block by changing IP addresses, for example.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

For further sites, yes, but as I read it it allows for the possibility of the same site trying to work around the block by changing IP addresses, for example.

Sorry, clarification meant even same site with new address could require new action if unable to prove same people running it (or totally out of court's jurisdiction)...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Sorry, clarification meant even same site with new address could require new action if unable to prove same people running it (or totally out of court's jurisdiction)...

The site IS out of the court's jurisdiction; that's why they've gone down the road of blocking access, having failed to get the site shut down.

[anamardoll]

I am not okay with courts ordering providers to block certain sites. It's a slippery slope -- heck, Mobile Read could be blocked because it has "copyrighted works" on it. (I'm referring to those "only download this if you're in Canada" works in the library.) I'm not in Canada -- I don't want MR blocked just because some publishing company gets a bug up their butt.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I am not okay with courts ordering providers to block certain sites. It's a slippery slope -- heck, Mobile Read could be blocked because it has "copyrighted works" on it. (I'm referring to those "only download this if you're in Canada" works in the library.) I'm not in Canada -- I don't want MR blocked just because some publishing company gets a bug up their butt.

It is blocked because they have convinced a judge it should be, rather than just they want it to be, and the entire site is only blocked because the entire site is infringing. If only a small proportion had been, then they could have blocked just that proportion.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by elcreative

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

There's lots of usenet indexing sites, not sure if this was the first of its kind or not. But setting a precedent would have been the main reason they went for such a small site over someone, shall we say, more widely known.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is blocked because they have convinced a judge it should be, rather than just they want it to be, and the entire site is only blocked because the entire site is infringing. If only a small proportion had been, then they could have blocked just that proportion.

The site blocking part of the Digital Economy Act doesn't make any distinction based on how much infringing material is made available and any other legitimate uses for that site. So unless the infringing books were moved to a completely different site, it would be all or nothing.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There's lots of usenet indexing sites, not sure if this was the first of its kind or not. But setting a precedent would have been the main reason they went for such a small site over someone, shall we say, more widely known.

The history is that the site was original hosted and run from the UK. The content owners won a UK court ruling shutting them down, but the site closed, only to reappear, but now hosted outside the UK. That is why this offshore site was chosen.

2. The application is a sequel to a successful claim for copyright infringement brought by the Studios against Newzbin Ltd, which formerly operated an almost identical website located at the same uniform resource locator or URL (“the Newzbin1 website” or just “Newzbin1”). As explained in more detail below, Newzbin Ltd was found by Kitchin J to have infringed the Studios’ copyrights on a large scale: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch), [2010] FSR 21 (“20C Fox v Newzbin”). He granted an injunction against Newzbin Ltd to restrain further infringements of the Studios’ copyrights. Subsequently the Newzbin1 website ceased operation. Shortly afterwards, however, the Newzbin2 website commenced operation at the same location. It operates in essentially the same manner as the previous website, and thus provides the means for continued large-scale infringement of the Studios’ copyrights. As described in more detail below, the operators of the Newzbin2 website are unknown, but the operation appears to have moved offshore. It is thus effectively beyond the reach of this court.
3. In these circumstances, the Studios contend that the only way in which they can obtain effective relief to prevent, or at least reduce the scale of, these infringements of their copyrights is by means of an order against BT (and thereafter the other ISPs) of the kind now sought.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The site blocking part of the Digital Economy Act doesn't make any distinction based on how much infringing material is made available and any other legitimate uses for that site. So unless the infringing books were moved to a completely different site, it would be all or nothing.

That is not the law that the content owners sued under.

By this application the Studios seek an injunction against BT pursuant to section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA 1988”)

From the ruling:

201. 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 20C Fox v BT 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.

And earlier:

55. It appears to be quite hard to find any content on Newzbin2 that is not protected by copyright. BT’s best shot was to point to a reference to the 1891 Lancashire census, but the Studios’ evidence strongly suggests that, although the underlying information is in the public domain, the item in question is likely to be protected by copyright and/or database right.

186. Finally, I recognise that the order would potentially prevent BT subscribers from making use of Newzbin2 for non-infringing uses. On the evidence, however, the incidence of such uses is de minimis

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The site blocking part of the Digital Economy Act doesn't make any distinction based on how much infringing material is made available and any other legitimate uses for that site. So unless the infringing books were moved to a completely different site, it would be all or nothing.

But this was not a prosecution under the Digital Economy Act, but under the Copyright Act. Under the Copyright Act there is a requirement to demonstrate that the site has no significant "non infringing" purpose. This was done, evidently to the Court's satisfaction.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But this was not a prosecution under the Digital Economy Act, but under the Copyright Act. Under the Copyright Act there is a requirement to demonstrate that the site has no significant "non infringing" purpose. This was done, evidently to the Court's satisfaction.

Not even a discussion forum or news type section?

[HarryT]

His Lordship appears to have felt not.

[volwrath]

Id just use a vpn and be done with it.

[TGS]

Ironically, The Pirate Bay is blocked by my ISP in Denmark and has been since 2008, but I seem to be able to get on to the site in question.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

Ironically, The Pirate Bay is blocked by my ISP in Denmark and has been since 2008, but I seem to be able to get on to the site in question.

Is there any reason you would expect not to be able to?