UK Court Upholds Its First Web Censorship Order: BT Has 14 Days To Block Access To Newzbin2 & Gets To Pay For The Privelege
from the that's-one-slippery-slope dept
Back in July, we noted that a UK court ordered ISP BT to begin censoring the web, beginning with a blockade of Newzbin2, which the MPAA has been trying to destroy. After a user petitioned the court to seek alternatives to censorship, the court rejected that request and has issued a ruling giving BT just 14 days to figure out how to block users from accessing Newzbin. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry is thrilled. Any new opportunity to put the entire burden on ISPs is one that it celebrates. Why should the entertainment industry have to adapt to a changing world when it can run to court, and have the court force tech companies to pretend that new technologies don't exist.A few scary specifics in the full ruling, starting with this: the expense to implement the blocking is entirely dumped on BT. The judge seems to say that since BT is a commercial enterprise, and profits from people using its services to infringe, it must pay. That's ridiculous. Just because people use BT's service to break the law, shouldn't make BT responsible for the costs of stopping user activities.
Next up, rather than just block URLs, BT has to block the URLs using intrusive, privacy-destroying deep packet inspecting... and "re-route" IP addresses. The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist. And, at Hollywood's urging, the judge left that expansive, such that even if a URL or IP address point to other legal content, along with Newzbin, those URLs and IPs can be censored.
Finally, and most amazingly, the judge seems to admit the court's technological cluelessness in admitting that it did not realize that a full on IP block (rather than re-routing) might lead to overblocking of innocent sites. And yet it still went forward, despite this rather blatant admission of ignorance.
And with this, the UK goes one step closer to more blatant web censorship.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, newzbin, uk
Companies: bt, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Huh?
"This move means that we can invest more in our own digital offerings, delivering higher quality and more variety of products to the consumer."
And for some reason you could not do that before?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
It's complete bullshit, just a way to pretend they're not trying to kill all sorts of legal activity in a way that fits into their false "download = lost sale" mentality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
The MPAA can adapt to modern technology, just like I can win the lottery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. At some point, either a higher court or the legislature will see this as the technological cluelessness that it is and over rule this judge
2. The entertainment industry will not see any improvement in revenue and may experience an economic or political backlash
3. Anyone who wants to spend 10 minutes on their favorite search engine bypassing the block will get around it anyway
:popcorn:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only if they're willing to pay an extra monthly fee. I've tried a bunch of those free, anonymous web proxy services and they all crash and burn at the slightest bit of Javascript required to use the site. Pure HTML works fine, but any fancy tricks the site uses will fail.
A true proxy server that you enter directly into your browser will work, the only problem is that you have to go through about a hundred of them to find a free one that actually works, and then it's only good for a day, if that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Possibly, I've never used it myself. However, when the various internet censorship laws take effect (when, not if), there will be lots of sites that you can't access directly. And unfortunately, many web sites today use JS for things that plain HTML would handle just fine. For example, most picture galleries require JS to view the large versions of images. All cyberlocker sites require JS to show the count-down timer and redirect to the file. Many streaming video sites use JS to handle the gallery-like functions of presenting the various videos and to activate the Flash player. Some web sites won't even display any content if you don't have JS enabled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The NZB files themselves contain no infringing content, simply a list of links that a newsreader can understand in order to download the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
I think this story broke and mentioned four different 'major' ISP's that are to be targeted:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/hollywoods-legal-victory-over-uk-is p-bt-threatens-illegal-filesharing-16029494.html
Also, this story tells of the 'porn blocking' ruling that the government was trying to bring in against the big four, so although this ruling may be used as a catalyst to go for other ISP's it won't stop them yet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like this judge is leading the pack......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if they managed to block all the nzb sites you can just fall back on browsing the groups through the download client anyway.
Pointless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's the next step...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bt Should go nuclear on this.
The threat should be enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bt Should go nuclear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bt Should go nuclear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bt Should go nuclear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BT should shut down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BT should shut down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: BT should shut down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh and hotels. Hotels profit from all the prostitution that takes place in their buildings. They need to monitor all activity in every guest room and evict people who are engaged in any deviant activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sounds like a job for the TSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slightly off-topic, but can we come up for a name for the big movie, tv and music companies other than "the entertainment industry"? That term encompasses thousands of decent companies that have no interest at all in this ruling or any kind of net censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(see a few posts up)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> tv and music companies other than "the
> entertainment industry"?
Big Copy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Source Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
BT may be against this, but they were guilty of trying to implementing Phorm (spyware) on their networks back in 2009 which used DPI for targeted ad's.
This ruling will hopefully be over ruled by a judge with at least an IQ in the high double digits.
A decent VPN is all you really need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:178:0001:0001:EN:PDF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder, isn't encryption enough to fuck up dpi? I wonder when we'll have to add https to each and every site we use lmao.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
"The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
Yes, I do. Do you grasp what this means?
"he studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist."
IF a VPN can be /discovered/ as funneling to Newzbin, then it can be added. Now, discovering a /public/ VPN is easy. That's what I meant, pardon me for not nailing down every last possibility for knowledgeable persons resolved to pirate. Set that aside.
If you're in IT and talking about setting up a really "private" one, yot, that'll work for /you/ and a small bunch of pals. Not a general solution. And it may be vulnerable to DPI, eventually. IF it's somehow discovered that your company's network is dodging around the Newzbin block, that'll probably annoy responsible persons. At worst, by blocking, er, "public" VPNs, they'll still stymy many pirates.
Back at ya, AC: see any flaw in my argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
I bet they could monetize that power... Hey Microsoft, want to kick all of Googles telecommuters out of there network?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
i dont really see the argument in your flaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
When exactly did it become illegal to "annoy responsible persons"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
boingboing.net/2011/09/21/newzbin2-releases-censorware-busting-client.html
their most recent efforts will result in more of the same, probably even more effective permanent fixtures. Put up walls and tunnels will be dug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Well, someone has to pay. I'd guess the expenses are small, and in any case, will be "passed along" to users. But taking your notion to logical extreme: we shouldn't jail any criminals because the public only has to pay for that.
>>> "Next up, rather than just block URLs, BT has to block the URLs using intrusive, privacy-destroying deep packet inspecting... and "re-route" IP addresses."
YOT, the deep-packet inspection gadgetry and or software has been put in place, just as I've been saying and many here don't want to acknowledge.
>>> "The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist."
This too is a logical step. As I've /tried/ to get across to you who think you'll have an easy time dodging and continuing to pirate, they're WAY ahead of you, already know the holes and will plug them up.
Now, most lamentably lame solution ever is:
"Bt Should go nuclear on this.
Richard (profile), Oct 26th, 2011 @ 5:16am
Simply pull the plug on it's whole operation - and refuse to put it back until the ruling is reversed.
The threat should be enough."
BT is NOT going to do that, not least because not actually much burdened, and in /any/ event gov't can just nationalize the operation, I've no doubt would because considered a vital part of operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Of course it's in place. Not every ISP has it, but certainly the government does. That doesn't mean that encryption and/or proxies cannot bypass it. Luckily, here in the good ol US of A we have a constitutional right to anonymous speech. I'm sure the UK will figure it out eventually.
You can't remove the tools without infringing on legitimate anonymous free speech, as SCOTUS has expressly ruled a Constitutional right.
You cannot provide an automated tool to remove content without giving those whose intent is to censor/limit political discourse a strong tool to keep us uninformed.
Us sane people have decided that a strong guarantee of free speech is worth any copyright infringement that might come along with it.
I personally don't care about your piracy strawman. I don't participate and it's not my problem. What I do care about is censorship, corporate bullying, and some semblance of a level playing when monied special interests compete with the interest of the greater general public. I care about our economy and our democracy.
If people want to have silly fights about silly songs and videos, let them. Leave my privacy to me. Leave my right to speak freely and hear others speech unfettered alone and until those monied interests understand that these are non negotiable to a large portion of the people, I will take pleasure in watching them fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
>>> "I personally don't care about your piracy strawman. I don't participate and it's not my problem. What I do care about is censorship, corporate bullying, and some semblance of a level playing when monied special interests compete with the interest of the greater general public. I care about our economy and our democracy."
I don't raise a "piracy strawman": that's the subject matter used to justify the blocking. But I can't see any "censorship" in blocking /linking/ to infringing content: it's a logical next step in the copyright/piracy battle. Effect, if any, on "free speech" is /semi/ collateral damage. In my view, it's actually the intent of gov't allied with corporations to use "piracy" for excuse. So have to inform you that I agree with you, at least past a point. And it's the UK under discussion: serfs of England don't actually have any rights, only privileges. But of course that's coming here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Most pirates aren't thoughtful enough to read or care about blogs like this. You can shout the sky is falling until you are blue in the face but the vast majority of those who do violate copyright will never hear you.
Wouldn't a more productive use of your time and energy be to shout (figuratively of course) at the lawmakers that increased copyright protections are not worth limiting our right to free speech instead?
It's there job to listen to their constituents... even if they often don't do it very well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Not much. But as Mike Masnick doesn't present cases either honestly -- or practical solution -- then I'm opposed on general principles. Here, for instance, I don't agree that "censorship" is accurate: it's a site that has nothing except infringing content. And Mike's basic "give away and pray" (no matter how often denied that's what he has) model for solution is ridiculous. There's also the howling mad assertion that piracy /helps/ the biz. With such easy targets, it's fun. -- And I'm /still/ not convinced that Mike isn't an industry shill, because his arguments are neither consistent nor weighty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
> "censorship" is accurate: it's a site that
> has nothing except infringing content.
Bullshit.
Newzbin is a Usenet portal and Usenet consists of literally tens of thousands of different newsgroups, covering almost every conceivable subject-- from classic cars to politics to surfing. The vast majority (90%+) are text-only discussion groups with no infringing content whatsoever. Only a very small percentage are binary groups that can transfer files (pictures, sound files, video files, etc.).
So rather than containing "nothing except infringing content" as you claim, it's actually the exact opposite. Usenet is *mostly* non-infringing speech which would be completely protected if this were in the US. Dismissing it as 'collateral damage' in order to get at the minority of pirated content is a complete legal non-starter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
And it doesn't even occur to you that Big Copy-- the ones pushing for this whole thing, after all-- should be the ones to do so?
> I'd guess the expenses are small
If they're so small, then Big Copy shouldn't have a problem paying them.
> and in /any/ event gov't can just nationalize the
> operation
Sure, I suppose the government could resort to outright theft. I'd hardly call that a rational solution, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DPI
I guess that's this will be OK though as it's been fully endorsed by the corporations....I mean government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all look at Russia, they used to have evil government run censorship to let dictators control people. Now Russia makes the news media censor themselves, and thanks to that censorship Russia's 'democracy' has a stable 1 party rule (people who formerly were part of the KGB) with nonexistent opposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've already routed around it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is, people do not respect artificial limitations on infinite goods. Right or wrong, good or evil, doesn't matter to your average Joe. If it is infinity reproducible, then it can't be theft, and if it's not theft, then it's not wrong. You can paint all the silly shill slogans about lost sales you want, you have to convince your average burger eating 18-40 year old that knows 10 times more about it than the dumb ass presenting/passing the law, that he should not be doing what he's doing. Good luck with that.
Removing a copy (website, domain, etc) of something that is infinite is a total waste of time and money. It's like smacking a water balloon with a hammer, all the water is still there, it's just harder to find now. All there doing is fragmenting the problem into impossible to find little pieces..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thats my new favourite quote.. thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
http://newzbin.com/browse/category/p/movies/
"Displaying 1 to 50 of 143,386 reports"
FIrst two were "Transformers" (2011) and "Great Muppet Caper" (1981).
Clicking the latter to avoid the slightest taint from "Transformers", I got to a log-in page where read:
"Newzbin is a member-only site (see signup page). You need an account to proceed."
That requirement by Newzbin undermines your "free speech" defense notion in two ways:
1st, it's NOT a public information site: they "charge" something to join, I'm not going to find what, but even if pnly eyeballs on ads and an email address, that's charging.
2nd, the non-public nature gives it the air of a criminal conspiracy. Users "agree" to join a club that's based solely on copyright infringement. -- There's probably VERY little non-infringing material. -- And whether the links as such aren't /technically/ infringing in fullest legalistic weenie word-wiggling, they're absolutely connected to infringement, and it's just sleazy to be profiting from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
But yeah, you found a couple of copyrighted movies on Newzbin that someone might profit from so that's all OK then...
Once you start listening to the ACTUAL objections instead of assuming that people are trying to support the actions of Newzbin and other "pirate" destinations, then maybe you'll understand the problems before it's too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
Hosting companies will be much less likely to give a home to scammy or illegal sites if they think they will actually get blocked and lose customers over it. When it starts costing them money to accept to host this crap, they will quickly shy away from it.
As for "a couple of copyrighted movies on Newzbin", you have to understand that their business model is pretty much the same as most of the file lockers out there. They don't upload offending material themselves, but they are more than happy to accept payment for "access" to it. They are still profiting from copyright infringement, they just try to pull a cloak of deniability over their actions. In the end, you can stand back and see exactly what they are doing.
The actual objections would be trying to give clearly illegal sites a free pass because they are "on the internet". Moves like this in the UK shows that this just isn't going to be tolerated any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
its free turd-sandwich and do you see any ads? http://newzbin.com/
Look at all the money they make by......well something, billions man its billions!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
Scammy and illegal by whose terms? As with many of the recent cases we've seen, they could be perfectly legal in the country where the site is based. Are you suggesting that, say, a Spanish hosting company will start refusing business from sites legal in Spain on the off-chance they might lose business from the UK?
"As for "a couple of copyrighted movies on Newzbin", you have to understand that their business model is pretty much the same as most of the file lockers out there"
I understand and don't care. Newzbin could be the most evil people on the planet making a fortune from 100% guaranteed piracy. That still wouldn't clear the objections I stated above.
Try to understand that while I disagree completely with your assessment of Newzbin, it's irrelevant to my assessment of the problems here.
"The actual objections would be trying to give clearly illegal sites a free pass because they are "on the internet"."
So, you ignore my points and go with your pre-conceived notions instead. Typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
Well, in turn, try to understand that I disagree in large part with your assessment of the the problems here. That's why the title of my post. WHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP? State for me /exactly/ what/s being censored, not some hypothetical.
But, as you equate more than 143,000 with "a couple", I doubt that you're inclined to actually try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
Sadly, that's the problem. Since the censorship hasn't happened yet, I can't tell you when or where it will happen. Whenever such data is revealed, I will discuss it, but all I can say at that point is "yes, you frigging idiots, THIS is what I was talking about".
I tell you what, the real thing that annoys me here is telling people of the potential dangers of shit like this, and then not even getting an apology when it turns out to be true. You people just continue to attack me for "piracy" when I point out the next nakedly obvious danger.
Meanwhile, piracy is not affected.
"But, as you equate more than 143,000 with "a couple", I doubt that you're inclined to actually try."
Do you want to look at how many that is vs. the number of non-infringing Usenet posts? The ratio might be surprising, even this late in the day when spam has outnumbered real posts on non-binary groups. Again, Newzbin's activities are not at issue, the crap you're trying to promote in order to save corporations from actually understanding the internet are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
Hosting companies wont exist at all if you make them responsible for policing everything they host.
Using your logic, the police should be charging the owners of the private toll roads, as well as the actual people caught, for speeding. These private tool roads are designed to get you where your going fast, so they have to know the law is being broken, they must be facilitating it. They are making a small fortune on speeders! Yes yes... i know there are speed limit signs and police.. just like there are copyright laws and DMCA take down notices... Funny how we don't see people lining the streets in protest of these law breaking private toll road operators......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
http://newzbin.com/account/signup/ :
Registration at Newzbin is easy to do and absolutely free. The benefits of signing up allow you to customise the site to your preference, and expands the capabilities of the browsing and search engines.
some great investigative journalism blue keep it up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
and the NYT with their paywall
any site the requires a login for comments
I like your logic its fun to be insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
> "free speech" defense notion in two ways:
> 1st, it's NOT a public information site: they
> "charge" something to join, I'm not going to
> find what, but even if pnly eyeballs on ads
> and an email address, that's charging.
Please point me to the court decision or legal principle which says that the moment you set up a private club and/or charge access for membership, you lose your free speech rights.
> 2nd, the non-public nature gives it the air
> of a criminal conspiracy
My local golf club is a non-public (private) club which charges people for membership. Does that have 'air of criminal conspiracy', too? Does the fact that it's a private club mean the people who run it and join it have lost their right to free speech?
You're a cartoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What changed in the world was that illegal content became more readily available.
What "new technologies" are you speaking of? An encrypted connection to an indexing service that allows pirates to find illegally copied content? Is that innovation?
You keep talking about these pirate sites, like they are providing something new, but the only thing new that they are providing is new ways to hide illegal activity.
I guess if you are in the crime business this would be advancement. If you are an honest consumer, these services provide you with very little. The majority of the traffic on these sites is the transfer of illegal content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's all that's changed in the 15 or so years they've been trying to kill borderless digital delivery of content instead of learning to use it for their own gain? Interesting take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
no what changed in the world is content became more readily available. The content cartel refuses to use these new avenues to deliver content to people. So people share content with each other.
"You keep talking about these pirate sites, like they are providing something new, but the only thing new that they are providing is new ways to hide illegal activity."
They provide the service the industry refuses to provide. Of course refusing to make use of new content delivery methods that customers crave is not the only thing they do, they also try to cripple any legal service that does try to satisfy the market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dunno about privelege unless you mean privilege
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
Lord Puttnam, President of Film Distributors' Association, welcomed the news, along with a load of other rights holders, publishers and media firms.
"This is a very significant day for the UK's creative industries," he said. "The law is clear. Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
----------------
Heh, heh. I like the phrase. Long wondered exactly how those file lockers manage to operate when they boast petabytes of content. Legalities is all, and those are turning. Law moves glacially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
You put your stuff in there, and if you wish to give other people access you may.
I bet public storage has a lot of illegal goods in their units, we should probably shut them down. Or does this logic not apply IRL?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
I am a BT Broadband customer who within a few days will find that a particular NZB indexing site will be unavailable to me unless I use some sort of bypass... I won't because that site is one of hundreds of sites all doing the same thing, indexing NZB files that I can just as easily locate by reading the headers of each post on Usenet.
Feel free to think that this is some turning point in the "war on filesharing" but it's a hollow pointless victory as it won't make a jot of difference.
If they really want to make a difference, provide a service that offers me something that I'm prepared to pay for. Right now I pay over �30 a month for my unlimted bandwidth and Usenet access... I'm willingt to pay, they just don't have anything of value to offer me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guns?
I think such law would make more sense than the "net censorship" ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]