UK Recording Industry Looks To Censor More Sites With No Trial Or Conviction
from the hello-slippery-slope dept
Once the UK recording industry realized that UK courts would order ISPs to block websites it didn't like, it appears that the industry, led by BPI and PPL began putting together a list of over two dozen sites that they're asking to have blocked by all UK ISPs, even though many of the sites on the list have never been tried in a court of law or convicted of copyright infringement. Included on the list, for example, is Grooveshark, who has been sued, but has not yet been found to violate copyright laws. It may very well be true that there is infringement on many, if not all of those sites. But, generally speaking, there's this thing called due process that allows a site to defend itself before being censored from an entire country. Just because a site has some infringing content does not mean that the entire site should be blocked -- or you'd have absolutely no user generated content sites online, because the liability would be too high. The UK courts started down this slippery slope by allowing sites to be blocked, and now the record labels are just going to keep piling the list higher and higher.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: blocks, censorship, copyright, due process, filter, isp blocks, uk
Companies: bpi, grooveshark, ppl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Meanwhile, the Neo Internet will come out and be even harder for government to control.
Damnit, we need a new internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The BPI and PPL say to the courts 'Due' Process these orders to censor these websites quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the little people don't have any rights. "Due process" is when the copyright industry gets everything it wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
John Steele just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd be content with a simple adversary hearing beforehand. Why are the content industries so afraid of anyone defending themselves? That's what I'd like to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next law they should buy
> a demonstrably false way of identifying infringers
The next law they should buy is that an IP address is a person. Hey, corporations are people too my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
At the adversarial hearing, the collateral damage to your overreach can be considered, and other innocent and uninvolved parties can show the harm to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really? When was that? One of the last minute mark-ups before it was killed by the public outcry?
A lot of what I read was law scholars complaining that SOPA violated the First Amendment by not providing an adversarial hearing before taking actions like cutting off monetary funding. Like this one:
http://www.serendipity.li/cda/tribe-legis-memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1.pdf
You losers should make up your minds.
My mind is made up. Maybe you should quit trying to revise history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know its hard for someone with as limited intellect as yourself to address an entire issue or consider all the implication of what's happening, but do try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, the only real reason I can think of to skip the 'trial' part entirely is if the sites aren't actually guilty, or at least guilty of all the crimes they are being accused of, and the ones making the accusations don't want such 'inconvenient facts' coming to light in a court room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The rationale is always interchangable to suit the needs of the powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The rationale fails with all of these groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice and due process mean nothing anymore.
On one hands we have the courts willing to censor websites on a whim and massive surveillance by government who are looking for powers for even more.
On the other hand we have legislation that passed which bring back the days of secret courts. No juries, no publicity.
And the worst thing is, mainstream media gives zero coverage to what is happening. We are marching towards the Orwellian nightmare like a herd of lemmings to a cliff and anyone who points this out is branded part of the 'tinfoil hat brigade'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lemmings to a cliff was a myth created by Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A matter of proportionate ease.
Besides that, "sites" are not persons with inherent rights, but are commercial entities that agreed to some restrictive terms in getting the site name -- besides must obey common law terms like "don't take what isn't yours".
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike "supports copyright" but always overlooks or excuses piracy.
04:16:42[f-257-6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
"Getting fat is easy; hell, losing weight should be just as easy!"
"Being stupid is easy; hell, learning and mastering knowledge should be just as easy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
You mean a quickly growing, vastly creative marketplace of ideas accessible by anyone? THE HORROR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
Wait, that's not the case. The sites aren't being censored. The sites still exist with all of their content.
Would you consider using geo IP to redirect people to a mobile site as censorship? After all, the real site wouldn't be reachable anymore, as the user would always get sent to a different site. Does that mean mobile users are censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship != deletion
All chickens have feathers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship != deletion
Censorship is the CONTROL of communication between two consenting parties by a third. Outright deletion of material is sufficient but not necessary for censorship.
There fixed your logic issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
now wait just one durn tootin' minute there, pardner...
aren't you the same jerkoff who insists that hiding a comment here in techdirtia is the same as egregious 'censorship' ? ? ?
doesn't it ever occur to you that wanting to have it both ways equals a massive failure in logic and consistency ? ? ?
(which is the bottom-line stance of the MAFIAA as well:
laws for thee but not for meeeeeeeee ! ! !)
the thing MANY of us dislike about you is your intellectual dishonesty and lack of consistent principles...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
Wait...so when you and your ilk scream at Techdirt for "censoring" your comments when they're reported...they're not in fact censored now? After all, the comments are still there, with all their content. They're not being deleted. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: censorship
You can't have it both ways, can you? If Techdirt isn't censoring, then clearly the Brits aren't either. Make your minds up, I'm waiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
These sites though in the UK...the ISPs have to go to some effort to block them, or face sanctions. While pointless (since you only need a proxy or VPN to view them anyway), if the judge sees that Blocked Site A can be viewed on ISP B, he'll go ballistic that they're violating his order.
What the judge is doing in the UK is censorship. The sites may still be there with all of their content, but the onus is placed on third parties to try and ensure no-one accesses them. Techdirt doesn't censor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: censorship
It's funny to watch you guys squirm. You can't have it both ways, but you are trying really, really hard to pull it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: censorship
Here, for example. The hiding of comments here has two components that don't apply to the attempt to block the sites in question. One is that there's no attempt at censorship, just a warning that a certain proportion of the community here agrees that the comment in question is "abusive, spam, trollish or otherwise inappropriate", as the report button is marked.
The other is that there's a clear message with a one-click was to show the comment again. That's not applicable to using a proxy or VPN, since the average user won't know how to do that - blocking any legitimate speech on those sites from a majority, unlike the hiding of comments here, which block nothing.
But, hey, thanks for admitting that any attempt to censor content in this ways is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard to anyone who knows what they're doing. Won't you join us in going for workable and effective solutions, rather than the constant useless (and hugely damaging to legitimate activity) methods promoted by the idiots in charge and their corporate masters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Denied seeing
The law can be ignored if it is too much hassle? So one commercial business can censor away rivals? Where those rivals have never been convicted of any wrongdoing?
Welcome to the UK where such censorship is quite normal. I can only hope this time a strong defence can be made headed by Grooveshark and backed up by ISPs and more. The latest OFCOM report gives them some good ammo this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Denied seeing
> the DMCA & EUCD when take-down notices are simply too much hassle.
I thought that the purpose of DMCA & EUCD takedown notices was to super dooper streamline the censorship process so that it wasn't too much hassle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Denied seeing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work around it
website gets blocked
next day website is back
block has been circumvented
big corporation jumps up and down crying
public says "what a wanker" in regards to corporation's actions
sales drop drastically as people buy from small upstart instead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should be making the list longer and longer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]