Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British ISP Ordered To Block Links to Pirate Site

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the political-censorship-next dept.

Censorship 157

An anonymous reader writes "A UK High Court judge has ruled that BT must block access to a website which provides links to pirated movies. Justice Arnold ruled that BT must use its blocking technology CleanFeed — which is currently used to prevent access to websites featuring child sexual abuse — to block Newzbin 2. 'Currently CleanFeed is dealing with a small, rural road in Scotland,' ISPA council member James Blessing told BBC Radio 4's PM programme. 'Trying to put Newzbin and other sites into the same blocking technology would be a bit like shutting down the M1. It is not designed to do that.' Digital rights organisation the Open Rights Group said the result could set a "dangerous" precedent. "Website blocking is pointless and dangerous. These judgements won't work to stop infringement or boost creative industries. And there are serious risks of legitimate content being blocked and service slowdown. If the goal is boosting creators' ability to make money from their work then we need to abandon these technologically naive measures, focus on genuine market reforms, and satisfy unmet consumer demand," said ORG campaigner Peter Bradwell."

cancel ×

157 comments

In other news... (3, Funny)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907222)

...court orders pavements(sidewalks) ripped up to prevent bank robbery.

Re:In other news... (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907250)

...court orders pavements(sidewalks) ripped up to prevent bank robbery.

Robbers seen handling steamrollers creating their own pavement.

Re:In other news... (2)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907258)

...or just walking on the dirt.

Re:In other news... (2)

JustOK (667959) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907444)

until someone steals the dirt.

Re:In other news... (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907902)

Then bring a bucket to pick up the lava of course. Let's just hope nobody gets past the bedrock.

Re:In other news... (1)

sadness203 (1539377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907908)

This only happen in minecraft... while griefing... Does the court is griefing real life ?

Re:In other news... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908604)

Yes, the court does is griefing real life. ;)

Re:In other news... (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907268)

Appeals court overturns original ruling as ineffective and instead orders banks to seal all their doors preventing access for bank robbers.

Re:In other news... (1)

paziek (1329929) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907282)

But just those that lead only to thief safe house. Sure he could have some legitime business there as a cover up, but so what?

Re:In other news... (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907488)

I wish there was a -1 Horrible Analogy mod.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907586)

A UK High Court judge has ruled that BT must block access to a website which provides terrible analogies.

Re:In other news... (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908896)

But what about the analogy of "child sexual abuse" and "a small, rural road in Scotland?"

Love it (3, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907280)

I love how trivial this is to get around for the pirates, too. First thing I thought was 'URL Shortener.'

But of course, anyone that really cares would use a VPN and this wouldn't affect them in the first place.

Re:Love it (3, Informative)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907364)

But of course, anyone that really cares would use a VPN and this wouldn't affect them in the first place.

Newzbin felt this coming on a long time ago and have set up their service on Tors .onion a while ago. I read about it a month or so ago, but I'm sure it's been up a good while longer.

It's quite pointless to do this, and it sets a dangerous precedent legally for using a filter in place to stop kiddy porn (equally useless for the same reason btw) to protect corporate interests. Insert your favourite slippery slope argument here.

Re:Love it (4, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907506)

The fantastically sad thing is that this is what we've always warned/complained about. Every time a child porn filter is mentioned on Slashdot as a proposed project, there's a cloud of "it's gonna be abused" comments following it. It happened in Australia, without too much open discussion until the blacklists were leaked. Here, we have a quintessential example—in motion, no less—of the precise same problem.

I recall some stories about US lawmakers pushing for the Internet to become more regulated; that it's too lawless. For once, I agree with them: we need mandatory net neutrality.

Re:Love it (2)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909282)

The fantastically sad thing is that this is what we've always warned/complained about. Every time a child porn filter is mentioned on Slashdot as a proposed project, there's a cloud of "it's gonna be abused" comments following it.

Yep. We demolished the arguments for it, we provided previous examples where it all went to hell, and it still happened. Now we have one more example.

Come on Cassandra, let's go down and watch 'em bring the horse in.

Re:Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36909586)

For once, I agree with them: we need mandatory net neutrality.

Net neutrality won't solve this problem. We should be pushing for Internet Justice.

  Net Neutrality actually means preventing ISPs from charging websites for access to the ISP's customers. (A ban on ISP level blacklists has nothing to do with this.) You can explain this to a non-technical person by replacing "ISP" with AOL or Comcast or Verizon or whoever their ISP is. Explained like that, Net Neutrality actually means something. There are people who are calling seriously crazy ideas "Net Neutrality." (For example, there's a set of college professors out there suggesting that when you open Fox News's website, it should randomly redirect you to NPR sometimes. They're calling this "Net Neutrality.") Any of the other things that have been called Net Neutrality can be explained too, and calling a proposal what it is allows people to have reasonable debate about its pros and cons.

Re:Love it (3, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907590)

If you want to avoid your ISP's tomfoolery, use a VPN. Giganews provide one with their platinum package. When I use the VPN, it gets round my ISPs bandwidth throttling and I get 1000% faster download speeds.

By leap-frogging the ISP like this, you can work around some of the bullshit.

Re:Love it (3, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907780)

If you want to avoid your ISP's tomfoolery, use a VPN.

Until your ISP starts fooling around with the VPNs. It's trivially easy to throttle things like OpenVPN & co. My ISP is currently testing DPI combined with throttling, and they've been quite successful at it.

By leap-frogging the ISP like this, you can work around some of the bullshit.

And you become dependent on the company offering the VPN service, which also has to keep logs to be legally compliant to its local government. Hell, once the VPN service becomes the next target instead of your local privacy laws protecting you (if your country has such a thing), you now are subjected to the local policies of the company you're hiring the service from. Most companies have a policy in place to keep track of financial records, if you get what I mean.

I'm very wary of companies offering me VPNs to "enhance my internet privacy".

Re:Love it (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908452)

Throttling VPN is something they might be a bit wary about. Think of all the company customers that would very quickly get very angry, and losing them is quite a bit of a problem for most ISPs.

Re:Love it (2)

lostfayth (1184371) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909176)

Rogers in Canada throttles VPN connections. Lots of pissed off business types, no huge problems for Rogers yet.

Re:Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36908262)

It's nothing more than training ground for blocking the real enemy: dissent. We know the government, both UK and US, are itching to block and litigate dissenting voices. This is just a way create the precedent.

Re:Love it (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907406)

Trivial to defeat or not, it'd be nice to make some attempt to resist this; Newzbin have already said they plan to take out Cleanfeed, but whether or not they'll manage it I don't know. In either case, that seems a poor way to mount a principled defence of our free speech.

What I'd rather see is a group of Slashdot types setting up our own censorship-free ISP, perhaps making it uncensorable in principle by deliberately obfuscating logs and so forth (to within the letter of the law on data retention, of course), and explaining loudly and publicly why we feel it important to do so.

Re:Love it (1)

AGMW (594303) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907518)

I just googled newzbin and guess what, yep, Google provides a page that links to newsbin [google.co.uk] !

So, presumably if BT points this out and therefore has to block Google too, maybe Google can pay to fight the stupid law!

Re:Love it (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909380)

There would be no point in banning links to a site that is blocked at the ISP level. And it's a stretch to say that google is "linking to it", you search for newzbin and they tell you where newzbin is. You search for "harry potter torrent" and it shows you pages that contain that phrase, including this Slashdot discussion soon. What it does not show you are a checked and rated list of links to harry potter torrents. It could be a news site about harry potter torrents being shut down.

Re:Love it (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907564)

deliberately obfuscating logs and so forth (to within the letter of the law on data retention, of course)

The law on logging and data retention here is quite clear and doesn't allow for much breathing room. Very few people are complying with it at the moment except for the ISPs and large corporations, but it's bound to cause a mess sooner or later, and not in a good way.

explaining loudly and publicly why we feel it important to do so.

But who other than the slashdot audience gives a fuck? I'm pretty sure that no Joe Sixpack isn't going to care. Aside from that, this kind of blocking is so trivially circumvented that it's only going to lead to more stringent approaches.

Re:Love it (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908476)

I've read our law on data retention. The sensible thing for an ISP to do is to ignore it. The fine for failing to comply is lower than the implementation cost.

wating for everyone to use a VPN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907602)

then court will ban use of all vpns....PWNED.

Re:wating for everyone to use a VPN (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908484)

I can see a few companies getting a wee bit upset about that idea of not being able to call their IT staff at home and during holiday and 'ask' them to fix something 'quickly' even if they're a continent away.

Re:Love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36909886)

Obviously, when access to your site has been blocked, no copyrighted material on your site can be accessed any longer and there is no intention to infringe either once you know that it has been blocked. Furthermore, it is approved by the government that a blocked site cannot be accessed by anyone---special filter technology developed for the safety of our children ensures that.

Therefore, it must be allowed to put any kind of infringing material on such a site. Basically, it's an entirely legal private storage, secured from outside access by the government. Now my question is: Can I get my site blocked even if I have not put any infringing material on it yet?

At the ISP's cost? (1)

Superken7 (893292) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907286)

I wonder:

1. How much this will cost the ISP, especially considering the growing number of sites that provide links to warez. If you only block a few, other will pop up and it will be ineffective. Block many and it will probably have an impact on required infrastructure.

2. If they can block sites that link to material, how will they handle services that get you to sites that link to materials? For example, VPN services and proxies.

3. Will this make warez software improve so no link sites are even needed? Maybe decentralized technologies similar to freenet will become popular for sharing those links.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (2, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907326)

I wonder:

1. How much this will cost the ISP, especially considering the growing number of sites that provide links to warez. If you only block a few, other will pop up and it will be ineffective. Block many and it will probably have an impact on required infrastructure.

The ISPs may well wait for a court order to close each one so that they don't have a large overhead.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907338)

They don't care how much it will cost. They are a business and will pass that cost onto the consumer.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907382)

Relax, people will only pay so much for service from them. Supply and Demand is still in effect.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907996)

You don't know much about the UK ISP market do you.

Most of the bandwidth in the UK is controlled by BT. Obligatory wiki link to BT [wikipedia.org] . Suffice to say, they own most of the infrastructure, and control most of the bandwidth in the UK. One way or another, you are paying BT for your service. Ergo, the cost will be passed down to the users.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Cogita (1119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908020)

Relax, people will only pay so much for service from [the ISPs]. Supply and Demand is still in effect.

Supply and demand only works on good which it is possible to give up or replace. Given our societies dependency on the internet, the monopoly or duopoly state of service providers here in the US, and the relative lack of competition or differentiating factors between firms here in the US, it is still concerning. :-\

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908504)

Really? Where? Where can you choose between more than one or two ISPs?

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908858)

For a few billion bucks and several years waiting, I can get fiber installed from Qwest, a couple of states over!

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909038)

And now a realistic option. Who could wait several years on an internet connection?

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907450)

They don't care how much it will cost. They are a business and will pass that cost onto the consumer.

Unless not all ISPs are injuncted, in which case those who are so injuncted are at a competitive disadvantage if they are forced to incur costs - passing costs on to the consumer only works if all competitors are in the same situation.

Similarly, for an injunction to be granted under s97A, it must be "fair and proportionate and must not be excessively costly"- see, for example, L'Oreal v. eBay [europa.eu] , at paragraph 139, although see paragraphs 135 - 144 more generally.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907482)

BT already has in place a system called CleanFeed [wikipedia.org]. CleanFeed uses Deep Packet Inspection, so DNS changes won't affect it. Implementation is likely to be trivial - it costs next to zero to add an entry to a table. BT won't go out of their way to add entries to the their block list, but will likely comply with each court order as it's received. -- Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19

Re:At the ISP's cost? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907632)

And, like all DPI technology, can be gotten around by implementing something that should be standard on all Internet sites anyways: HTTPS. Completely bypasses DPI, AFAIK, unless they also have the tech to perform MITM attacks. Which they might, but probably don't. And that would add large overhead to their systems, so its unlikely to be implemented. Also, from the wikipedia article (correct link here [wikipedia.org] ) you can just use another port. So its not exactly hard to get around, but it is likely to block casual users.

Good news everyone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36908446)

This might turn out to be excellent news. If 1000 BT customers downloaded child porn to prove that CleanFeed is total bullshit, they would most likely all get arrested and harassed by law enforcement for being pervs, even if they did it just to make the point, Now that legitimate content has been added to the filter, if 1000 BT customers each download 10 seconds of totally legal newzbin content through CleanFeed they will be able to very effectively demonstrate that the whole filtering issue is a waste of time. They have just handed us the tools to take this down publicly.

Re:At the ISP's cost? (2)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909566)

BT already has in place a system called CleanFeed [wikipedia.org]. CleanFeed uses Deep Packet Inspection, so DNS changes won't affect it. Implementation is likely to be trivial - it costs next to zero to add an entry to a table.

And let's not forget that this type of action tends to reduce the ISP's bandwidth usage, hence reducing its costs. A few customers will be lost also, but don't forget that those customers are probably unprofitable for the ISP (as they are high bandwidth users).

Congrats! One down... (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907300)

... God-only-knows-how-many to go...

So, rightsholders... (2)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907302)

1.) Went to court, and were granted a ruling that the actions of the site in question infringed copyright, once the judge had listened to the evidence on each side.

2.) Went to court again, seeking an order under s97A, CDPA 1988, that BT should block access to the site, and a judge granted it, having listened to the evidence on each side.

3.) Will go to court a third time, to discuss the measures in question with BT, to determine what is proportionate.

My instinctive reaction is against site blocking, but, as long as the laws on copyright stand - a debate in itself - this seems roughly the right procedure, giving multiple levels of legal scrutiny before imposing an order, rather things being done on a voluntary basis?

Re:So, rightsholders... (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907380)

4) BT gives him an estimated bill, and impact on customer bills, for creating an infrastructure that reads every byte of every customer's traffic and blocks anything to/from a given central blacklist of websites (because this surely wouldn't be the only one), anything to any IP listed on their DNS A records, and anything that looks like a reasonable way to get around the traffic.

Because they want to follow the court order to the letter and make sure their users can't just change their DNS etc. and get around the filtering, obviously.

The judge sees that it will cost more than the ISP is worth, and finds them "guilty" with a £10 fine, or not responsible at all.

Re:So, rightsholders... (1)

FalconZero (607567) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907434)

BT already has in place a system called CleanFeed [wikipedia.org] . It already uses DPI, so DNS changes are moot. Implementation is likely to be trivial.

Re:So, rightsholders... (2)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907500)

Because they want to follow the court order to the letter and make sure their users can't just change their DNS etc. and get around the filtering, obviously.

BT does not need to curb copyright infringement online. It needs to satisfy the requirements of the injunction, which will be determined as a result of the third hearing - I would expect BT to seek particular and clear technical requirements within the terms of the injunction, so that they can be demonstrably satisfied, rather than some vague wording about the effect which must be achieved.

Similarly, the injunction must be "fair and proportionate and must not be excessively costly", so the obligations on BT must be set at an appropriate threshold to fall within the requirements of directive 2004/48/EC - otherwise, BT can apply for the injunction to be set aside, on the grounds that the court did not have the power to grant the injunction.

Re:So, rightsholders... (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909002)

listened to the evidence on each side.

I somehow doubt Newzbin 2 paid the large amounts of money needed to have lawyers represent it's side in court. Even if they did, I doubt every other website that someone dislikes has that kind of money on hand.

So no, the evidence for both sides was most likely not heard.

Re:So, rightsholders... (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909604)

Censorship that follows the "right procedure" is still censorship. Watch Sophie Scholl to see what "legal scrutiny" is worth in a country without basic rights.

No appeal? (0)

Darkon (206829) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907318)

Disappointed that BT are rolling over on this. It's the thin end of the wedge, and once they make it known that they are willing to censor one site then every special interest group and their dog will be getting court orders to silence parts of the web they don't like - well in the UK at least.

Re:No appeal? (1)

troon (724114) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907402)

"Special interest group"? To protect their interest, they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me. Hopefully, this will deter the casual downloader who isn't particularly aware of the illegality of what they are doing. Obviously, determined downloaders will get around any block BT can put in place, but it sends out a message.

Re:No appeal? (3, Insightful)

Darkon (206829) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907508)

To protect their interest, they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me. Hopefully, this will deter the casual downloader who isn't particularly aware of the illegality of what they are doing.

It's a slippery slope though. How long before Ryan Giggs [slashdot.org] or someone like him demands that they block Twitter to protect his super injunction?

Re:No appeal? (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907512)

To protect their interest, they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me.

The Cleanfeed infrastructure was sold to the public on the basis that it would be used to block child abuse content and nothing else; it was specifically said time and again that this kind of thing absolutely and categorically would not happen. Even ignoring that, Newzbin simply provides links, they don't host any infringing material - blocking them seems a stretch of copyright law at best. Saying "it's the law, so it's right" is also dubious - the sites blocked by the great firewall of China are illegal under Chinese law, for example; does that make it right to censor them?

Re:No appeal? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907572)

"Casual downloaders" do not generally use or know about Newzbin... they still use bittorrent and HTTP downloads for the most part.

Re:No appeal? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907708)

Newzbin isn't exactly for casual downloaders

Re:No appeal? (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907716)

Well it's a matter of logic here. Most all illegal download sites have an even mix of legal and illegal content. would it be unheard of for a linux distribution to be hosted on isohunt etc... Do you think these filters are going to just block out the individual movies and shows, or more realistically just block out any site that has something illegal. This sort of law will continue to branch out and expand. Phase 1. CP, phase 2, piracy, coming soon, Phase 3. subjects deemed highly offensive (Nazi's etc), and continues to branch out.

Re:No appeal? (1)

nukenerd (172703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909424)

Troon wrote : they are trying to enforce laws that are currently being broken. Seems reasonable to me

The issue, if you had not noticed, is whether it should be BT's responsibility to do the enforcement. Seems to me that if anyone is to be pursued on this it should be the owner of Newzbin, not BT.

and this is what the IWF has always been for (4, Interesting)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907320)

I've endured half a decade of being told I'm a tinfoil-hat-wearing maniac for suggesting that the IWF - already in a strange, anti-competitive position of being a private charity endorsed by government and given special legal privileges - is a slippery slope and that technology based on its list would eventually be used at a judicial level to block other sites.

It required lobby groups to step up the pressure in the courts. We've seen that over the past few years. It required an Act to consolidate the views of these lobby groups and set the legislative view of Internet censorship. That was the DEA. Next comes implementation.

Abusing children is wrong and the law has a duty to stop it.

Censoring 0s and 1s does not stop children being abused, but it does provide a framework for censorship.

The IWF list's implementation has not stopped any child abuse, but it has sat as the foundation stone for the Great Firewall of the UK.

Every one of you geeks who works for an ISP which has caved into government pressure to implement the list should be ashamed. You are the problem.

Re:and this is what the IWF has always been for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36908060)

More so, since censoring 0s and 1s (nice way of saying it, btw), only hides away the problem, and any real child porn maker can circumvent it in seconds, its only real effect, is to hide the child porn "culture" from our eyes. Which means, it's actually protection of child porn.
When they tried this in Germany, actual people who were abused and used is child porn as children, came out, even on TV, and said that this exact thing is the case: Protecting child porn makers.

So how I see it, the IWF is doing organized aiding and abetting of child porn production on a massive scale. Now if I were from the UK, and would have money, I would sue them for this exact thing, with big fanfares... be all over the media... and utterly destroy them.
To make matters worse, and because in a war, the one who goes further, wins, I'd pay some Russian hacker to put child porn on their computers, and then let the police bust them. I'd make it look like a giant child porn distribution ring. With ten, twenty, fifty people going to jail, if I had to.

Re:and this is what the IWF has always been for (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908650)

Which means, it's actually protection of child porn.

I completely agree. The modern approach of all governments, tackling any problem from homelessness to child abuse to chronic sickness to poor labourer conditions (especially Far Eastern) to abusive farming environments to dissemination of news itself, is to block out the truth about modern living with a thin veneer of respectability and neatness. Don't tackle the problem and don't wipe out the victim, but do make out like he doesn't exist and leave him alone to continue suffering. And, if they just won't go away, make out that it's their fault.

It's not child abuse that's bad. It's evidence of child abuse that's bad. Oh, and the victims, they're also bad. See, victims of abuse are often poor and desperate - they have no-one to trust and no-one to turn to. That's their own fault and it is not society's duty to stop people becoming poor and desperate in the first place.

I'd pay some Russian hacker to put child porn on their computers,

But what would come of the police "busting" those who are part of a private organisation which has special legal privilege to browse and catalogue child porn? That was part of my work, officer. No, under the British justice system, having friends in the right places is an absolute defence.

The market ask for reforms. (0)

Tei (520358) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907372)

I am a capitalist. And as a capitalism is obvious to me that the warez networks are distribution channels. I have see people download free software from these networks, stuff like openoffice, that is a free download elsewhere, and would download faster. This means to me that people is using these networks purelly for the convenience.

ABSOLUTELLY NOTHING will stop people from download whatever want from the internet. What we can do, as a society, is to ask for a reform of the bussines model. Theres a busines model that seems to work, the one of App Store, Netflix, Steam, etc... a wide range access to very cheap or free content. If things like Netflix are not profiteable enough, then change the tax systems, etc... so these type of systems are more profitable. That way the "old economy" that don't work anymore can move to a new economy that work.

I don't want to lose my rights, like free expresion, privacity, etc.. so I will work to protect then,even if that means protecting people that want to warez stuff. Don't force me to fight this war.

Re:The market ask for reforms. (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908762)

I am a capitalist.

I guess civilisation cannot exist without religion.

Full text of judgment (4, Informative)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907378)

is available on BAILII [bailii.org] .

(BAILII - British and Irish Legal Information Institute - is a very valuable resource indeed, for lawyers and those who simply want to understand the laws affecting their lives. legislation.gov.uk is another useful resource.)

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907392)

We need to cleanse links [thepiratebay.org] to pirated [piratedmov...orfree.com] movies [icefilmstube.com] from the Internet

Google, Bing and Jeeves (4, Interesting)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907394)

How can I add Google, Bing and Jeeves to this list? I want to see how that works out?

But... but... but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907428)

this technology is only able to block this evil childpr0n????

Re:But... but... but... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908592)

And guns are only able to protect the law and my property. They cannot be used for criminal acts. A hammer is also only able to hit nails on the head. Not you.

Technology is neither good nor evil. But every technology can be used for good and evil.

What is BT? (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907452)

BT = British Telecommunications. But, I had to open up the court order PDF to find this. I'm not sure if you can even find what it means on their website [bt.com] .

Re:What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907594)

Well seeing as they trade under BT and are pretty much unanimously referred to as that, what's the problem?

Re:What is BT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907782)

I think, since privatisation, they just changed their name to BT. A bit like BP did... but with telephones instead of oil...

Re:What is BT? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908606)

Ok, for a moment I was worried. But if they're like BP, it should be trivial to leak content around their seals.

Re:What is BT? (1)

Grench (833454) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907966)

That's because they want to be called "BT" and not "British Telecommunications". They even inform their employees and contractors of this. I used to work for them in an IT helldesk.

"BT" is seen as a snappier, less-stuffy title than "British Telecommunications", or "British Telecom". However, they primarily dropped the "British Telecommunications" moniker because they had become more than just a telephone company, and wanted to reduce the importance of the "telecommunications" aspect. They were performing managed IT services, writing business software, and conducting scientific research, to name just a few different things.

The phrase "British Telecommunications, PLC" is found in small print copyrights (i.e. "BT is a registered trademark of British Telecommunications, PLC").

Re:What is BT? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908152)

How much digging do you have to do to find out that AT&T = American Telecom and Telegraph?

Re:What is BT? (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909670)

I don't argue that it would be a similar amount, and I wouldn't mind if non-U.S. slashdotters would post a similar comment on stories talking about AT&T. Does BT have a similar presence in the U.S. as AT&T does in the U.K.?

Re:What is BT? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909508)

I thought it meant BitTorrent. Well, no I didn't, I'm British so I knew what it meant. And it doesn't mean British Telecom any more, in the same way that BP does not mean British Petroleum. It's just BT, and BP, those are the official registered names now (and BP is ~50% US-owned).

This is what the technology was intended for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907646)

and BT are more than happy to be ordered to use the technology in this way. They are a huge corporation and want control over your access and content. This order brings them one step nearer to what they want.

The plan:
1) People protest at proposal
2) Say you are doing it for some reason most people can sympathise with.
3) Word the legislation loosely so that it can be applied to other cases
4) Wait a bit
5) Apply it to other cases

Patent Pirates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907652)

As Microsoft and Apple are always involved in new cases of having stolen people's patents, doesn't that make them unrepentant patent pirates who should be blocked?

Will always be circumvented (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907682)

Newzbin hosts small portions of metadata and not the actual binaries. This means it can be _trivially_ circumvented using tor.

It can even be done in a sort of auto-whitelist fashion using cascaded proxy approach: https://eiiggesgzqlfbmpd.tor2web.org/ [tor2web.org] (SFW, tor hidden service to a text-only howto).

Streisand effect (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36907686)

I had never heard of that site. It's got some good stuff. Thanks, Justice Arnold, for bringing it to my attention and that of so many. Now learn about the Streisand Effect.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909450)

And I'm surprised it works at work. Normally things like that are blocked by work's filter.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

nukenerd (172703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909468)

I have just bookmarked it myself.

Not All Pedos (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907740)

Why are all file sharers always grouped up with "websites featuring child sexual abuse"?

I understand that some people don't agree with file sharing, that's fine. But they need to stop likening gas station gum theft to bank robbery and child rape.

Re:Not All Pedos (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907820)

Child molestation is built into the bittorent and gnutella protocols. Duh.

Gotta love the British (0)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#36907850)

This order is a lot like an unarmed bobby trying to prevent crime, yelling "STOP! Or I'll shout 'STOP' again!"

I guess it's too much to ask for politicians to understand anything more complex than a digital wristwatch. As such, they have no clue that this measure will have virtually no effect. But what's worse is the telecom companies who are using this as an excuse to put in all sorts of anti-competitive filtering and so forth. How long until we find out that they were "inadvertently" blocking access to legitimate websites that just so happen to be run by their competitors?

Re:Gotta love the British (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908684)

This is at least something we'll hear about because their competitor will create a huge stink about it. How about webpages that express customer opinion about them, or other pages that don't have the backing of a huge PR and legal department?

Good luck with that. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908370)

The biggest websites that link to pirate sites are popular web searches. Google, yahoo, ask, etc.
Good luck blocking them without being swarmed by their lawyers.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

Inf0phreak (627499) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908710)

They won't do that. That of course means they can't have a consistent policy on what should be outlawed, but that doesn't matter since the blocked sites will be outlaws.

Nice and arbitrary. And of course Working As Intended.

Onions! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36908610)

(to the tune of More, More More by "The Andrea True Connection" [wikipedia.org]

Tor, Tor, Tor.
That's how you browse it, that's how you browse it
Tor, Tor, Tor.
That's how you browse it, that's how you browse it

I Hope This Kills British Telecom (1)

tomxor (2379126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36908908)

I really hope they implement something more trivial than a poisoned DNS cache. Because i want this to force customers away from BT, they are such a shit ISP

Newzbin 2 (1)

tomxor (2379126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909068)

Had not heard of that site before this case... I must go visit it on my OpenVPN connection on my BT ISP

Trading natural liberties for temporary profit (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909090)

How is the entire internet subject to an industry which the world can live without? How did they amass this kind of power?
They have no respect for the natural rights of others, so why should we respect the artificial (copy)rights granted to them by the government?

Re:Trading natural liberties for temporary profit (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909782)

Politicians are cheap to bribe, and your life is shaped significantly by regulations written by various special interests.

This Publicity is Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36909168)

I now have another place to find movies and tv shows. The selection available through bittorrent, rapid share, and gnutella is rather limited to the newest stuff. The older stuff can be very difficult to find, if at all.

THANKS MPAA!

Why Newzbin? (1)

John Napkintosh (140126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909294)

Instead of instructing BT to block traffic to a site which doesn't actually provide any copyrighted materials, why would they not instruct BT to instead block the sites which DO? If "A" provides links to "Z", and Z is the offender, blocking traffic to A will only inevitably result in "B" being created, which also points to Z. And then they have to come back and block B. And so the cycle goes, when they could go right to the source.

Cleanfeed - read Richard Clayton's paper (1)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909428)

Take a look here:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1 [cam.ac.uk] ...and then read this pdf:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf [cam.ac.uk]

Re:Cleanfeed - read Richard Clayton's paper (2)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36909464)

Replying to myself has caused a temporary split-brain issue. Anyhow, more useful comment on Richard's blog:

http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/ [lightbluetouchpaper.org]

better to ban themexp.org ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36909934)

Where every file is a virus. Man if your going to shut down a website shut down this one.

Streisand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36910176)

I would like to take this time to thank the British courts for introducing me to yet another pirate website, and many more to come!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...