Courts forcing ISPs to block anything now

[FoxEye]

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.

I doubt they were duped. A single look at torrentz and all the other indexing sites tells you all you need to know about their intended purpose.

They exist to link to places distributing copyrighted works. I'm not defending the MPAA/RIAA here, but really, none of these sites are innocent.

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

 

[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.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

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

Torrents etc sole purpose is to link to copyright, removing a few so they can say look we do remove stuff is not a defence. They kn ow full well 99% of the links are copyrighted.

Google etc is nothing like the same, the majority is not copyrighted, they also consider every request and act accordingly. Protecting them-self from such blocks.

 

[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.

 

[FoxEye]

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?

The infringing material on YouTube is probably vastly outnumbered by cat videos alone (ie, non-infringing content).

The reason YouTube exists is not to enable infringement. This is key.

Torrentz and co exist to enable infringement. It's obvious to most people that these sites are different in nature.

 

[Glaucus]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

This was always going to happen I.e. The legislation being leveraged to suit the politicians and/or record labels.

It starts with blocking child porn and torrents, and soon it'll be like China where non-conforming sites are blacklisted.

 

[FoxEye]

This was always going to happen I.e. The legislation being leveraged to suit the politicians and/or record labels.

It starts with blocking child porn and torrents, and soon it'll be like China where non-conforming sites are blacklisted.

Precisely. China is simply ahead of the game.

It's really quite simple: How much are you going to pay the politicians to let torrents stay? Answer: nothing.

How much are the media lobbying groups willing to pay? Answer: millions.

How much legislation will the politicians create for you? None. How much for the lobbyists? As much as they want.

This is the reality of our modern day system of government.

 

[~>Dg<~]

lol its a waste of time look at piratebay as soon as it was blocked the amount of people who went to it went up !

first line in google back you go . just a utter waste of money and time.

 

[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?

 

[Nevakonaza]

They can force the ISPs to ban as much as they want,There are far more smarter people out there who will get a new site or bypass up withing a few hours..they're never going to stop piracy.

But like mentioned in the first couple of posts,online paid services such as Netflix or Lovefilm...if they were to be MUCH better and have the latest movies/TV series and DVDS/Music be cheaper to buy in stores there wouldn't be so much need to pirate.

Of course there will still be people that would rather pay nothing. :/

 

[Glaucus]

Why would you block searches? Thats not legislated against and makes no sense. You dont need to search to connect to a site.
Google do respond to take down notices and also court orders.

Again from the very started you had no idea and still dont.
Could quote pretty much every word but lets select just a few

This is kind of the point of the thread. If a court can be duped into forcing ISPs into blocking a completely legal website

They weren't duped, and its not legal as shown by legislation.

You are the one duped, believing there was no legislation against such sites.

Its pretty basic criteria.
What is the site main purpose.
Do they comply with valid take down notices.

Unlike your first post it is in no way technical at all.
Would rather know what lack of experience you have with law, than the judges knowledge.

In america the legislation is even easier to follow. Sites have to comply with three very easy rules not to be shut down.

 

[FoxEye]

lol its a waste of time look at piratebay as soon as it was blocked the amount of people who went to it went up !

first line in google back you go . just a utter waste of money and time.

This is just the opening salvo. It has got a lot of people's attention, and made a lot of less tech savvy people stop using torrents. People I have spoken to have said "torrents are dead" since IsoHunt got blocked.

They are using the tools available to them now, and lobbying for better tools in future.

 

[D18241]

This is just the opening salvo. It has got a lot of people's attention, and made a lot of less tech savvy people stop using torrents. People I have spoken to have said "torrents are dead" since IsoHunt got blocked.

They are using the tools available to them now, and lobbying for better tools in future.

Know what you mean my step dad mentioned they had blocked the site he was using. Failed to mention to him that there is a few ways around the blocks

 

[413x]

It's the inevitable slide towards China where at some point you wont be able to get round the blocking measures

I for one cannot stream so the only way to get full hd content is physical media. However I can download a 1080p 5.1 TV episode

I'd be happy to pay for a subscription service for this but again the option for this doesn't exist. The free option is better in every way. I wish they would focus on methods to cater for this rather than pouring money into fighting. I would buy no more without torrents. Probably less. Ie. Downloading walking dead will lead me to buy the blu ray disc set. Had I not seen it I wouldn't buy it

 

[Glaucus]

Its not going to be anything like china, and those saying that are being stupid.

It is going to become more like the physical world, and come in line with existing laws.

 

[stockhausen]

... If a court can be duped into forcing ISPs into blocking a completely legal website ...

Since the ISPs aren't breaking any laws (according to you), I'm sure that they will have no problem getting the ruling overturned . . . or not.

Frankly, these sites are encouraging theft and it seems like a damned good thing that they are being slightly "inconvenienced".

 

[JonJ678]

Bit weird, but nevermind. Roughly zero increase in difficulty finding torrents. Doesn't appear to be a worthwhile use of the court's time.

 

[spoffle]

Its not going to be anything like china, and those saying that are being stupid.

It is going to become more like the physical world, and come in line with existing laws.

It's pretty obvious that they're using things like this to slowly introduce control of the internet to people.

It wouldn't surprise me if at some point they introduce an internet white list, and that you can only visit sites that are on it, along with some arbitrary fees to get your site on the white list.