Telcos can be forced to turn copyright cop, block websites – EU law man ISPs across Europe can be instructed to block websites that provide access to pirated material, an EU advocate general said in a non-binding court opinion published yesterday. Pedro Cruz Villalón said that telcos can be ordered to, in effect, operate as buffers between their subscribers and site operators who infringe …
I would assume that the majority of casual downloaders (in the general public) wouldn't be able to find them easily. I have difficulty finding them and I regard myself as fairly savvy in this area. Do the ISPs keep any record of how many 'blocks' they initiate?
@ Frank Ly "the majority of casual downloaders (in the general public) wouldn't be able to find them easily"
No, they just wait for a court order to force an ISP to announce the name of a newly banned service before using a proxy to access a site which previously they had never heard of. Well played, lawyers, well played.
Completely wrong, in my experience. After Sky etc blocked the Piratebay a while back my nephew and just about everyone else I asked about it said they were back downloading just minutes after being blocked, and none of them could be called even basically computer literate. All they had to do was bung a really basic search into a search engine and all the information to get back online was there in easily followed language.
Such as how to set up automatic proxies in their browser and how to find mirrors and proxies of the sites they wanted to reach.
nformation to get back online was there in easily followed language.
Such as how to set up automatic proxies in their browser and how to find mirrors and proxies of the sites they wanted to reach.
And they happily and blindly trust that info, no wonder they have more viruses than Porton Down. Some people really are too stupid to be allowed on the internet.
Yeah, no kidding. Its hazards r us!. Moreover, many sites topping the google rankings are mere place holders for redirection and not the actual direct torrent file ./ magnet link. The uninitiated risk being stuck in endless loops of ads and redirections... and rewarded with the occasional outright drive-by....
"have managed to destroy common carrier status for telcos..."
Not yet. That's why the ISPs have challenged block requests and will only block exactly what is described in the court order. As yet, no court order has been "open" enough to specify something which requires the ISP to look at traffic or logs or to make decisions on what might or might not be "infringing" data traffic.
The European Court of Justice should have made sure that Pedro Cruz Villalón knew how the internet worked before letting him embarrass them like this.
Using ISP's to regulate access to the internet has been tried before and it's failed spectacularly. In the case of The Pirate Bay, it caused the site to go from just a single site and a handful of mirrors into a distributed mirrored site with urls into the hundreds.
Pedro Cruz Villalón should study the problem he proposes to solve so that he doesn't make the situation worse.
Strictly speaking he said that blocks could be implemented, not necessarily that they should be implemented. A small point I know, but worth mentioning maybe especially since he was asked about this in regards to the legality, not as to whether they were a good idea.
Funny you should say that...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000002
From the entry (my emphasis):
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?
The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
I wonder who gets to decide what constitutes 'extremist'?
I completely agree.
The UK/EU appear to be moving on, in great leaps leaps and bounds, towards a system whereby accusation becomes synonymous with guilt - political and corporate mob rule, by any other name.
My thoughts are that (1) Should an ISP be required to block a site on the grounds of accusation alone, then such a block should only stand for a limited period, during which the petitioner should be required to prove, in a court, the offence. (2) Should a petitioner fail to act in accordance with (1) within a given time frame (say 3-6 months) - or fail to prove the offence - then the original petition should be deemed invalid and any links/content should be reinstated.
Of course, that will never happen.
> My thoughts are that (1) Should an ISP be required to block a site on the grounds of accusation alone, then such a block should only stand for a limited period, during which the petitioner should be required to prove, in a court, the offence.
Well here's another thought: Perhaps it could be blocked *after* the accusation has been proved in court. You know, like we do in a democracy.
Here's another thought, whilst you are collecting them. Perhaps *only* it could be blocked, rather than also taking out every other site using the same IP address, like the FA's court order did a month or two back.
Back with the original article:
“A specific blocking measure concerning a specific website is not disproportionate, in principle," the advocate general added.
In principle, "in principle" implies that it is possible. In practice, history teaches us that we need harder evidence than that. Even the supporters of this idea should be cautious at this point in time.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Well here's another thought: Perhaps it could be blocked *after* the accusation has been proved in court. You know, like we do in a democracy."
Why do you assume that a presumption of innocence is a democratic right?
It may be a human right laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, it is not a function of political democracy within the UK, which has judicial independence.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
