OWN GOAL! 100s of websites blocked after UK Premier League drops ball

Presumably the affected consumers / businesses can seek redress from the judge who prevented them from going about their legitimate business...

Does someone want to volunteer to forward this article to Clare 'OMG Won't Somebody Think Of The Childrenz!!!1!one' Perry MP as a shining example of why her half-arsed porn-filtering idea is doomed to failure?

Feel free to reinforce the lesson with a length of Clue-by-Four at your discretion.

0.0.0.0/0

Hmm, I see said dodgy website uses an IP address, therefore Mr Judge, can the ISPs block 0.0.0.0/0, that should do it......

I can imagine quite a few large companies not being happy with being accused of being pirates by the FAPL. I can also easily imagine that this is quite possibly going to cost the FAPL quite a few pennies in out of court libel settlements, too.

Legitimate sites blocked

Legitimate plays by the bard blocked.

Soon the only sites you will access will be government sites. And that's only if you past the turing test, which goes a little something like this.

*website prompt - Please enter Turing's sexuality in the space provided

* you - GAY

*website prompt - you are forbidden from looking at this due to terminology that you have used, the collection team have been alerted to your address.

Seems that the courts are taking on trust whatever the complainants are telling them about the IP addresses - which I can understand in terms of expediency (they don't have the resources or knowledge to know better) but it doesn't look good from a legal point of view.

Also, it seems like the ISPs are going out on a limb a little bit by restoring access unilaterally - and fair play to them for going against the letter of the court order and implementing a bit of common sense by restoring access to the sites.

Grounds for prosecution of the Premier League

Police and Justice Act 2006, Section 36

Unauthorised acts with intent to impair operation of computer, etc

For section 3 of the 1990 Act (unauthorised modification of computer material) there is substituted—

“3 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;

(b) at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and

(c) either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.

(2) This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—

(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data; or

(d) to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.

(3) This subsection applies if the person is reckless as to whether the act will do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) above.

(4) The intention referred to in subsection (2) above, or the recklessness referred to in subsection (3) above, need not relate to—

(a) any particular computer;

(b) any particular program or data; or

(c) a program or data of any particular kind.

(5) In this section—

(a) a reference to doing an act includes a reference to causing an act to be done;

(b) “act” includes a series of acts;

(c) a reference to impairing, preventing or hindering something includes a reference to doing so temporarily.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;

(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine or to both.”

Block the premier League

As the FAPL have expressed an absence of concern about collatoral damage, I suggest that all ISPs immediately add the FAPL themselves to the list. After all, they can hardly complain...

Sue the pants off them...

FA Premier League, they're rich enough to employ proper investigators and should NOT have made this stupid mistake.

Surely the 'rights holders' can be sued

for directly causing problems for these innocent third parties?

And perhaps an offence under RIPA too.

Accountability?

So rights holders have no accountability for any fuck ups?

Can affected sites not sue the right holders for lost traffic/revenue?