Courts forcing ISPs to block anything now

[One]

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.

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.

 

[One]

Well what might you sesrch for legally on torrentz?
I am unaware of the site, so what legitimate purpose does it serve?

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 ) 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?

 

[One]

Google respond to DMCA requests though.

So did torrentz

 

[One]

Isn't that a lie then?

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.

 

[One]

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.

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.

 

[One]

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.

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.

 

[One]

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.

Glaucus, the bit of legislation you've quoted has literally nothing to do with determining if a website that contains hyperlinks infringes upon copyrights lol. It simply states that the courts can impose sanctions on the ISPs when copyrights are being infringed upon.

 

[One]

Google's sole function isn't to link to infringing sites. If it was, Google would be blocked too.

Again then, I go back to my argument, if a charity worker robs a store once a weekend does he get a criminal record?

So google offer a lot of great services, sure, but their services also commit the same 'crimes' as these websites that have been blocked, except they do it on a much larger scale. As posted above, YouTube is the number 1 infringer of copyright, but it's okay because they also have cat videos?

 

[One]

Its got everything too do with it.
Its the legislation used to impose a ban.

I'm not disputing the courts ability to impose a ban though. They can't just ban any old website they want simply because they don't understand what they're doing though. A website that is simply text and hyperlinks does not and cannot infringe upon a copyright.

 

[One]

You're the only one who doesn't understands and have shown this in every single post in this thread. The court understands fine.

Its quite simple to avoid being blocked. You main purpose is not to share copyrighted material and respond to every take down request. Google do that, that does not mean they have to comply with every request they don't, nor should they.

Complying with a few takedown notices and trying to use it as a get out class, is not good enough for the courts.

Should google be forced to block certain web searches then to comply with our legislation? Or, simply, should our ISPs block certain google searches where the obvious aim is to infringe copyright? If I google for a torrent of a hannah montana album is it not my main purpose to obtain a copy of this album and therefore breaching copyright. Does my ISP not also realise this is an obvious search?

 

[One]

I found I can circumvent any bans by using Tor so I don't really care anymore.

 

[One]

LoL
The internet is not freedom to do what ever you want and its mind boggling people think it should be. You wouldnt want most laws removed, yet think they shouldnt't exist on the internet.

But it's international. Domestic laws shouldn't exist. Only domestic websites should be allowed, or countries that have a treaty with us to make internet laws the same across borders. Like international airports.