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

[Littermate]

Way back in March it was reported that Newzbin2 was using TOR to avoid domain blocking. Sure, it isn't as straightforward as just going directly to their website but its a way around the block for those that want it. They're already ahead of the opposition in this cold war and since Newzbin2 is, AFAIK, a members only site then it isn't really going to bother anyone much. And there are lots of other indexing sites, for Usenet and other cloudy file stores. And BT said that every URL to be blocked will need a court order before they do so, so they aren't going to be all that cooperative about this. A lot of resources expended to what effect? I'm glad I dont have to make any decisions about how to handle this. Must suck being the CEO of a big media company; except for the money. I do feel sorry for individual media producers (novelists) trying to make a living in the middle of all this but when has it ever been different for them? Arthur Machen's novel "the Hill of Dreams" says it never has been different.

Sample URL http://www.dailybinarynews.com/?p=3968

[joenunya]

as much as I am bothered by the idea of this sort of thing, reading the judge's ruling it was pretty narrow in it's scope. I see this as no different than closing down a crack-house in a neighborhood. It is to everyone's benefit. Still I have very little faith in the court systems of today and what is to say this ruling is not going to be used in the future by corporations to close down sites of both potential competitors or even for companies they want to buy to force a fire sale? I know those are stretches but similar things are done today for real physical property via tactics as rezoning, surprise inspections to declare a building 'unsafe', etc. All of which had their groundwork in what everyone took to be a common sense law or ruling.

Time will tell if this sort of thing is good or bad. Man, I hope porn and weed sites are safe! Yes that is sarcasm and mild humor but I feel they could be put under the same sort of ruling if there are community laws about them. As in since it's not legal in a given area it is perfectly OK to block access at the ISP or even a higher level in the bit-stream. Heck they could drop down to block access on a region/neighborhood level if they want.

[mr ploppy]

Ploppy's Law — any law that can be abused will be abused.

[HarryT]

Do you believe that the blocking of this specific site is unjustified?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you believe that the blocking of this specific site is unjustified?

No. But at the same time, entirely futile. It is what happens now they have a precedent that worries me. Remember the anti-terror laws? I doubt many people would have expected to have their cameras confiscated and inspected for taking photos in tourist locations. For some reason they glossed over that part when they were rushing it through.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you believe that the blocking of this specific site is unjustified?

Yes.

I don't believe it's the place of any internet provider to filter out sites. I don't care what is on the site, although I'm additionally tired of OMG PIRACY being treated as an evil up there with child porn and white supremacy.

Prosecute the site owners. Prosecute the site visitors. The laws aren't written to let you do either? Tough cookies. The situation isn't cheap or easy to prosecute either? What a shame.

Going after internet providers is not the solution. And it's extremely likely that the precedent WILL be abused. Raise you hand if you think Sony wouldn't have tried this against the GeoHot root-your-playstation-site. Raise another hand if you think the judge they specifically shopped for would have given it to them. Oh, look, I'm out of hands.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No. But at the same time, entirely futile. It is what happens now they have a precedent that worries me. Remember the anti-terror laws? I doubt many people would have expected to have their cameras confiscated and inspected for taking photos in tourist locations. For some reason they glossed over that part when they were rushing it through.

What also bothers me is the vehicle they are using to do this. The technology for blocking the site is intended for child pornography. The site has already promised to break that block - and I'm sure that shortly after the tech used to break the block will be available online. I feel that the ISP's ability to block child pornography will be seriously compromised by this. If the judge wanted to block the site he should have required a different vehicle.

[HarryT]

The purpose of this block is to prevent "the man in the street" from accessing the site, not the dedicated cyber-criminal. Of course the block can be overcome - probably by something as simple as using a VPN, but the average Internet user isn't going to use such tools. There's a big difference between coming across a criminal site inadvertently and deliberately setting out to find it; this block is intended to address the former, not the latter.

[murraypaul]

As considered by the judge:

193. Mr Hutty’s opinion in summary is that users of Newzbin2 would be able to, and would, circumvent the blocking. Mr Clark’s opinion in summary is that, while some users would do this, others would not. Counsel for BT submitted that Mr Hutty’s opinion was to be preferred, because Mr Hutty took into account the level of technical expertise required by users to download infringing content using Newbzin2. Mr Hutty’s opinion is that the level of technical expertise required to circumvent the blocking is little greater. In my judgment Mr Hutty makes a valid point that, in considering the likely efficacy of the order, it is material to consider the technical expertise of those affected by it. Furthermore, his assessment of the comparative level of technical expertise required to use Newzbin2 and to circumvent the blocking appears reasonable. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that it follows that the order would be ineffective, for the following reasons.

194. First, it seems likely that circumvention will require many users to acquire additional expertise beyond that they presently possess. Even assuming that they all have the ability to acquire such expertise, it does not follow that they will all wish to expend the time and effort required.

195. Secondly, evidence filed by the Studios suggests that circumvention measures are likely to lead to slower performance and lower quality downloads, at least unless users are prepared to pay for a certain service provided by a different provider. Again, it is not necessarily the case that all users will be prepared to do this. This is not merely a question of money: there is also a potential security issue with using such services.

196. Thirdly, it is important not to overlook the question of economics. As I have explained above, Newzbin2 members have to pay a subscription to use it to access content. They will also need to have a Usenet service. For the reasons Mr Hutty himself explains, they will commonly need to use a paid service. Thus they are not getting infringing content for free even as matters stand. If, in addition to paying for (a) a Usenet service and (b) Newzbin2, the users have to pay for (c) an additional service for circumvention purposes, then the cost differential between using Newzbin2 and using a lawful service (such as a DVD rental service) will narrow still further. This is particularly true for less active users. The smaller the cost differential, the more likely it is that at least some users will be prepared to pay a little extra to obtain material from a legitimate service.

197. Fourthly, I agree with counsel for the Studios that the words of Kenneth Parker J in R (on the application of British Telecommunications plc) v Secretary of State 20C Fox v BT Business, Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 1021 (Admin) at [232] are equally applicable here:

As it happens, the Studios’ evidence is that when a similar kind of order was made by an Italian court blocking access to the Pirate Bay, use of the site appears to have been markedly reduced. It is fair to observe that, as BT’s evidence points out, diverted traffic may not have been picked up by the monitoring results relied on; but there is no hard evidence of a substantial quantity of diverted traffic.

198. Finally, I agree with counsel for the Studios that the order would be justified even if it only prevented access to Newzbin2 by a minority of users.

[HarryT]

Thanks, Murray - very interesting!

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The purpose of this block is to prevent "the man in the street" from accessing the site, not the dedicated cyber-criminal. Of course the block can be overcome - probably by something as simple as using a VPN, but the average Internet user isn't going to use such tools. There's a big difference between coming across a criminal site inadvertently and deliberately setting out to find it; this block is intended to address the former, not the latter.

My understanding is that nzb2 was a private subscription site by invite only. Usenet has never really been a "man in the street" proposition, certainly not now that most ISPs have switched off their news servers. And nzb files didn't change that.

The big torrent sites are where man in the street types will go for their downloads, and it wasn't until they came online that you started to see people at car boots selling dodgy DVDs. That's why so far most of the action has been against torrent sites.

But other than a few that closed down voluntarily under threat, they haven't had much luck against those. So setting a precedent linking some tiny site hardly anyone cares about with child porn is a pretty big scalp.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

As considered by the judge:

194. First, it seems likely that circumvention will require many users to acquire additional expertise beyond that they presently possess. Even assuming that they all have the ability to acquire such expertise, it does not follow that they will all wish to expend the time and effort required.

Only until they release a one-click widget, like they have said they will.

195. Secondly, evidence filed by the Studios suggests that circumvention measures are likely to lead to slower performance and lower quality downloads,

NZB files are tiny (they're just text files). Once you have the NZB you can switch off the anti-filter and download the files at full speed.

I'm surprised nobody explained to the judge how they work.

[nonanon]

I confess so haul me away. In the 80s I used my VCR to record movies and tv shows without paying the copyright holder. Even before that I used cassettes to record music from the radio without making any payment. The only differences between that piracy and what occurs today is that the copies are much better because of much better tech. If I liked the movie or tv show, I bought it on VHS, the same with music, first on LPs, then on cassette, then on CD and now digital copies.

When did being a judicious consumer make me a pirate? I don't want to pay for crap but I often do when I take a chance on a movie at the theater, I'm out $8.50 plus concession items for a 2-hour-long movie that is too often awful, disgusting or just plain stupid. I don't make any other purchases this way, if I buy a product and it's worthless I get my money back in every other arena but the "creative" types think they should get special treatment and I should be forced to pay for low-brow crap. I disagree.

When it comes to music I can sample tunes on iTunes, Amazon and other places or just download a free copy elsewhere. That only means if I find it worthless I don't buy it, if I like it I do. You can't judge a movie based solely on previews or IMDB or word-of-mouth, which is why I'm still laying out good money for a poor movie. As for books, am I a pirate if I buy a used book? The author gets no money from the resell so isn't that piracy too?

The greater threat to "creative types" is the biggest source of piracy ever known - the public library, where I first committed piracy back in the 60s. Reading books without paying for them, checking out magazines and later CDs and movies, all for free. If I liked it back then I spent my hard-earned allowance and bought it. Some things never change. The music industry feared LPs would ruin concert ticket sales and they've been wrong ever since.

[sabredog]

The incumbent labor government in power federally here in Australia have long been proposing a mandatory filter. This was supposedly to deal with child pornography and other such extreme sites. The filter was across the board, meaning you could not opt out and would have slowed browsing at the ISP customer end.

The huge outcry here in Australia including accusations from Senator Conroy - Minister for Communications and Broadband, that opponents of the filter were pedophiles.His stupid gafe about wanting to stop "scams coming through the portal" showed the Australian public just how detached he actually was.

The debate has gone quiet and I assume that it probably been quietly shelved as it would be extremely easy to circumvent using an easy to install and use VPN service, a major flaw that that makes any global filter a waste of time.

Blocking a website at ISP level is done frequently here by ISP's themselves, but it does NOT stop those determined to get to that site in any way.

[Dulin's Books]

if you go to amovie theater and you hate the movie, you can choose to walk out and ask fo ryou money back. i have done it . people do it all the time.

borrowing from a library is not pirating. borrowing from a library and making a copy to keep, or mulitple copies to give away, before returning the original is pirating.