BT, Sky, EE, TalkTalk and Virgin to appeal website blocking ruling The Court of Appeal in London must maintain the right of brand owners to obtain website blocking orders against internet service providers as a means of enforcing their trade mark rights against infringers, an expert has said. The Court is expected to hear an appeal by BT, Sky, EE, TalkTalk and Virgin in April against a 2014 …
This post has been deleted by its author
The point, I think, is that it's the ISPs job to block copyright infringement but not trademark I fringement, according to parliament. But the judge has ruled both, seemingly outside of his remit.
That makes sense in terms of legal precedence because the ISP is contributing to copyright violation by copying the bits in transit so should stop once notified. The trademark bit doesn't make sense because the ISP isn't contributing to the manufacture.
So I hope the judge is overturned. I also hope, possibly unpopularly, that the brand owners and Google/Bing form some form of voluntary "this site looks like a scam" register (or CC database) to warn people that they're buying counterfeit.
I think the problem is that this law can and likely will be misused by so many 'premium' brand owners to ban grey imports from companies who exploit market variations to offer goods at lower prices than the official supply chain and any voluntary register of scam sites is similarly likely to be abused, designer goods companies already have form in attempting to knock down people selling genuine goods by claiming they're infringing.
I'm also thinking of high tech goods like DSLR cameras, Amateur radio transceivers etc where importing from America or outside the EMEA areas can yield worthwhile savings on goods that have 'worldwide' warranties.
I agree that the sites selling cheap tat knock offs of 'designer' goods should be curtailed but I don't think this is the right way to do it.
What the rigth way is, I have no idea.
So by the same logic the Royal Mail and all couriers must block certain people from sending packages and mail.
What next ?
The Royal mail and other couriers will then be asked to open every single parcel and envelope to inspect them for copyright infringing material.
A ludicrous situation that the idiots in wigs and dressing gowns fail to grasp the absurdity of let alone the infringement of civil liberties.
> I always tell the nosey cow that it is a dildo
The ladies at my local Post Office already know that I sell Leather BDSM gear and sex toys, so they don't even bother asking :-)
(If I ever go to another Post Office I just pre-empt the question by saying "It doesn't contain batteries, perfumes, aerosols or anything explosive or illegal...)
"My local post office demands that you tell them what is inside any parcel you attempt to send."
I recently received some 300mah Ni-Mh batteries from Farnell that I wanted to return as they were not the desired form factor (my mistake). I then realised that I was almost certainly going to have a argument discussion with the Post Office counter assistant when they asked "any batteries?". I was in no mood to be a barrack room lawyer*** - so they went in the "useful bits" box.
*** The Royal Mail regulations permit batteries of that capacity as long as they are in unopened manufacturer's packaging.
From the RM website
"You are responsible for checking whether or not an item is prohibited or restricted. If you send prohibited goods or restricted goods (and you do not comply with the relevant terms and conditions), we may deal with your items as we see fit, including but not limited to, disposing of the parcels concerned (in whole or in part)."
If it was ruled prohibitive and Royal Mail found out, eg by packaging coming apart, then perhaps they might have to get rid of it.
Though at the moment restricted and prohibited is around safety rather than customs.
@readinthereg
Whilst I agree with your sentiment, your analogy breaks down.
The situation is more like the Post Office being asked to maintain a list of addresses it wont accept mail for. The package type or package contents are irrelevant.
Then the inevitable workaround for a punter is to use Tor or a VPN which is like posting using a forwarding address in a region where the post offices list is not checked.
"The situation is more like the Post Office being asked to maintain a list of addresses it wont accept mail for. The package type or package contents are irrelevant."
Either way, as long as the appeal either finds that this applies to RM / international postal services, or finds that the original judge has just proven the law is an ass and the Court admits that, I'll be happy.
Don't even say it.
MPAA and RIAA will have the roads in and out of every car boot and jumble sale closed down as some dodgy geezer has been flogging REAL bootleg copies of movies he's burned to DVD himself.
Then we'll all be in the shit.
Using this judgement,the analogy would be importers must take reasonable steps to prevent the import of illegal counterfeit goods, and being informed that a shipping container is full of the stuff should be enough to have it stopped on the docks and Customs invited to investigate the contents.
If an importer ignores a warning that a container contents is illegal, and that is then intercepted, I'm sure a judge will take a dim view of them ignoring the law.
By your analogy, the judgement is that ISPs should block all access to the whole of the internet, because it can be used to order fake goods. What it actually says is that ISPs should block access to specific illegal sites.
My first reaction is as everyone else has said:- why is it the ISP's job to block access to these sites.
On reflection though, if these sites are hosted in a country where the local government and law-enforcement have no interest in cooperating, how do you get these sites shut down at source?
Much as I hate to say it, I do see how asking the ISPs to ban access to these sites may be the only effective way of stopping them profiting from their fake merchandise.
Joe public hasn't. And that's really what this is all about - stopping Joe (or Jean, must be gender indifferent musn't we) public from getting free stuff that they would have paid for had it not been available for free - don't forget, every copy is a lost sale. (I'm sure Picasso would be having some words by now if he were alive)...
Us clever people know what VPN's are, but you mention it to Doris on the highstreet who likes to listen to Welsh Folk music on Spotify, that her 15yr old darling grandson set up for her, she'd look at you with a blank stare, much as if it were an answer on Pointless.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
