Courts forcing ISPs to block anything now

One

One

One

Soldato
Joined
24 Aug 2011
Posts
6,162
Location
ABQ, NM
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-new-bid-to-combat-online-piracy-8912890.html

The latest measures to combat digital piracy in the UK come into force today with a court order from BPI asking ISPs to block 21 sites that link to infringing material.

"We asked the sites to stop infringing copyright but unfortunately they did not and we were left with little choice but to apply to the court, where the judge considered the evidence and declared that ISPs should not serve access to them," said BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor.

The list of sites includes the likes of 1337x, Monova, and Rapidlibrary. Some sites being blocked such as Torrentz.eu and FilesTube host neither infringing material nor .torrent files but act as search catalogues for other sites.
Click to expand...

Quite unbelievable. For those that don't know, 'torrentz' is essentially google.

Look at this google link

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...8#es_sm=122&espv=210&q=music+filetype:torrent

Basically the courts have blocked a website because it has the functionality of google but doesn't pretend to be legitimate. How is this legally being done?

Where does this stop? It seems the courts can be duped into blocking any website so long as it's interfering with a big organisation's business interests. I give it 10 years before the internet is simply an online mall and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
Hikari Kisugi said:
Well what might you sesrch for legally on torrentz?
I am unaware of the site, so what legitimate purpose does it serve?
Click to expand...

It has no legitimate purpose but at the same time it isn't breaking any laws, it's just an indexing site. Also what is your point here? If they had a tiny bit of legitimate use (which actually they do if I wanted to bring up linux distros :rolleyes:) then it would be a problem it was blocked? Google can link to torrent hosting websites and get away with it because they also link to gmail? If a charity worker robs a shop he still gets a criminal record, no?

It's basically like standing on a street pavement and when people walk past I point and tell them that down the allyway there is a drug dealer with some good crack. Obviously the police will want to stop this, except rather than doing some actual leg-work and either arresting the people smuggling the crack into the country or even putting the drug dealer out of business they're simply cutting off my tongue, even though there is no legal ground to do so.

www.homedistiller.org is a website devoted to distilling your own alcohol, something which is illegal in this country, should ISPs be forced to block this website?
 
Last edited:
If you are advertising the places to buy drugs then you are an accomplice I would have thought.
If it serves no legitimate purpose, then surely it should be blocked, the big book of where to learn to make bombs as a terrorist indexing aite I would expect to be blocked also.
 
desires said:
So did torrentz :)
Click to expand...

"We asked the sites to stop infringing copyright but unfortunately they did not and we were left with little choice but to apply to the court, where the judge considered the evidence and declared that ISPs should not serve access to them," said BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor.
Click to expand...

Isn't that a lie then?
 
Luckily my ISP is my old place of work, a non-commercial, business based ISP\hosting company, IE they dont block ****

I gave a few online paid services a try a month or so ago (one being love film) how crap, the content on there was ridiculous.
 
Smart people will just use VPN's to tunnel out to countries which don't enforce the blocks.

The more and more sites that get blocked the more and more people will start using VPN's etc (which aren't exactly difficult or expensive). This will result in ISPs/governments not having any idea what people are doing online unless they block VPN's too (assuming people switch DNS servers too).. where does it stop? :o
 
Last edited:
muon said:
Isn't that a lie then?
Click to expand...

4-25-2012+8-51-22+AM.jpg


I would suggest they were lying, yes. Also, having a hyperlink to a site that has a torrent file is not infringing upon a copyright anyway, I'm highly surprised they even bothered complying with the DMCA requests whatsoever.
 
muon said:
If that's true then it's shame they got lumped in with other sites.

Doesn't matter anyway, the BPI will lose a fight against the internet. No one beats the internet.
Click to expand...

Unless ISPs simply blanket ban anything remotely controversial. This is kind of the point of the thread. If a court can be duped into forcing ISPs into blocking a completely legal website then how long will it be before the BPI petition the courts to block somewhere like imdb because there happens to be a message board filled with negative reviews about their latest blockbuster?

It's a shame the article on the independent hasn't had a bit more research done into it. I'd love to know what technical qualifications or experience the judge had that decided about this rather technical case.
 
Last edited:
This is just the beginning. Very few people will complain when all torrent sites are blacklisted, and maybe even all sites with the word torrent in them filtered. Very few. Of those few, a tiny, tiny amount will have been using torrents legitimately.

If people think this isn't the path we are all headed down, wake up, smell the coffee. The legislation is there, more legislation is on its way, the internet won't be the wild west for very much longer.

Yes, you can fight the internet. Yes, you can win. China does a very good job of that already.

And when *all countries* get together on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA, other lobbying groups, then a system can and will be invented to restrict the internet and remove all infringing content. And no proxies will help you then.

Give it a few years...
 
Lol, bit cluless arent you. Not illegal?

Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act
[F197AInjunctions against service providers

(1)The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright.

(2)In determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge for the purpose of this section, a court shall take into account all matters which appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, amongst other things, shall have regard to—

(a)whether a service provider has received a notice through a means of contact made available in accordance with regulation 6(1)(c) of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013); and

(b)the extent to which any notice includes—

(i)the full name and address of the sender of the notice;

(ii)details of the infringement in question.

(3)In this section “service provider” has the meaning given to it by regulation 2 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.]
Click to expand...

Nothing like the stupid irrelvent comparions you describe, which arent legislated against.


Ultimately pointless, but lol at uneducated rant.
 
muon said:
Google respond to DMCA requests though.
Click to expand...

The worst part is that they respond by lowering websites which get a lot of requests in their rankings, apart from youtube, which just happens to be the number one copyright-offending website in the world (and coincidentally they also own). :mad:

I stopped using google a long time ago. Big bullies. Try https://duckduckgo.com/
 
Glaucus said:
Lol, bit cluless arent you. Not illegal?

Section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act


Nothing like the stupid irrelvent comparions you describe, which arent legislated against.


Ultimately pointless, but lol at uneducated rant.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm saying the court doesn't have the power to tell ISPs which sites to block, I'm just saying it's told them to block sites which don't impede copyrights because they've been duped by a big organisation.
 
desires said:
I don't think I'm saying the court doesn't have the power to tell ISPs which sites to block, I'm just saying it's told them to block sites which don't impede copyrights because they've been duped by a big organisation.
Click to expand...

Stll trying to defend your rant.

Its legislate against end of. You were wrong.
Lol, duped? How have they been dupped. Lol. Read the legilation.

Hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom