BT ordered to block pirate links

The BT ruling is worrying because it turns ISPs into censors, and of course copyright infringement isn't the only kind of content people would like to block.

We've had calls to ban sites that espouse extreme political views, sites that promote anorexia, sites that discuss ways to commit suicide. If BT can block Usenet archives, why can't it block everything that anybody thinks is unpleasant or undesirable - like WikiLeaks, or anti-Scientology sites, or anything that isn't appropriate for under-fives?

Crazy? Look at Australia, where child-protecting politicians seriously proposed an outright ban on all online content that wasn't suitable for children. If it wasn't behind an age verification system, the politicians said, ISPs should block it completely.
Click to expand...

http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/isps-are-now-the-internet-police-984628

I agree that it's a slippery slope.

Rather than trying to stop piracy, why don't they provide a service that we actually want i.e. an easy way to buy and listen to music whenever and wherever
 
DJMK4 said:
Google is the biggest illegal content search engine.
Click to expand...

Indeed and they even make money from the searches. Won't somebody think of the child...er movie industry.

Copyright infringement isn't clever but if people can't see this as the thin edge of the wedge for controlling the Internet then you must have blinkers on.
 
The first of many in my opinion. a sad day for the internet, dont get me wrong, im not a pirate i just believe in an open net.
 
simulatorman said:
Why not give us a laugh and list as many as you can?
Click to expand...

Webmasters will re-produce sites/rebrand sites

Webmaster will use possibly methods of encryption

There will be proxy servers and methods used to get to the site the original site is blocked by the ISP

There will be a huge collection of these sites on the web, if one site is blocked, find another

Google

Use someone elses connection to grab the NZB's from the content sites, then just file transfer them to your NZB grabber to download

There will be ISP's about that won't have this policy in place
 
OldCoals said:
BBC iPlayer blows that out of the water.
Click to expand...

A contributory factor. A bit like how piracy is a contributory factor to overall internet bandwidth usage.

DJMK4 said:
Really?

My £12 a month (used to be £17 a month) BE connection giving me an unlimited download throughput of 18mb/sec is hardly expensive.
Click to expand...

LLU area? Some of us live in barren wastelands, with antiquated bits of copper that can't support anywhere near 18Mb/s.

However, the point is still valid - *some* people pay more so they can pirate more. The cost of 1x £12 DVD offsets the monthly internet bill a long way.

Morba said:
How many people have super fast broadband purely for downloading illegal content, as a percentage of total users?
I would bet it is quite low tbh...
Click to expand...

I suspect 'pure' pirating 'net connections are quite low, but this is difficult/impossible to measure. Most connections are used for a wide range of reasons, piracy must feature in a lot of them - given the amount of % traffic bittorrent is overall!
 
LordSplodge said:
Oh two words: Common carrier.
Click to expand...

Not that simple...

Wikipedia said:
A common carrier in common-law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in civil-law systems, usually called simply a carrier) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and that is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body. The regulatory body has usually been granted “ministerial authority” by the legislation which created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality, as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.
Click to expand...

The issue to look into would be whether the enabling legislation that allows telecoms companies and, by extension, ISPs to exist includes provisions for this sort of restriction. If the enabling legislation does, then there is no issue in having the regulatory body restrict what the common carrier in question does.
 
Double posting from another thread//sorry

Doesn't anyone else think that this is an indirect attack on the software Newsbin Pro as opposed to the site itself ?

It would have made much better sense to have claimed against nzbmatrix instead
 
Westyfield2 said:
Shame this, as yesterday if BT suddenly made Infinity available in my road I'd have taken it up. But now following this I would not.
Click to expand...

Why? What difference does it make?

This was a test case, BT didnt want to block the site the MPA did. MPA picked on BT as they are the largest ISP in the country and probably had the most resources to fight against it, a win against them means the next request will be for all ISP's to block a site. Changing ISP's isnt going to make any difference, you cant hide from this :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom