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!

BT Ordered To Block Usenet Binaries Index

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the keeping-you-free-one-ip-at-a-time dept.

Censorship 308

First time accepted submitter eyeoftheidol writes "A judge in the UK has ordered the ISP BT to block access to filesharing site Newzbin2 within 14 days. From the article: 'Wednesday's court order also allows for the blocking of any other IP or internet address that the operators of the Newzbin2 site might look to use to continue to offer copyrighted content to users. In addition the court said BT must foot the bill for the cost of implementing the web block on Newzbin2.'"

cancel ×

308 comments

In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843586)

First Post!

Re:In other news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843608)

it was me!

New site mirror for UK (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843596)

I give it five minutes.

And next.. (2)

clownface (633478) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843612)

Newzbin3!

Re:And next.. (3, Informative)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843718)

They already have a workaround in place.

Re:And next.. (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843860)

Simply making a "Newzbin3" website could be trivially argued as falling under the Judges comment "Furthermore, I do not consider that the studios should be obliged to return to court for an order in respect of every single IP address or URL that the operators of Newzbin2 may use,", so it would be quickly blocked. Newzbin3 would have to show significant evidence that they have no relation to Newzbin2 in order to not be blocked.

Re:And next.. (3, Interesting)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843970)

What they should do instead is spread some small-sized copyrighted content(or parts of larger works) in Base64 on every single website that allows posting of comments/text and to report this terrible infrignment to both the judge, studios and BT. So that if BT actually complies with the demands they end up blocking 90% of the internet.

Re:And next.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844924)

Yeah, because nobody would be able to tell that the trivial amounts of small copyright usage were inconsequential, nor would a judge decide somebody is acting in contempt of court if you managed to even do this.

Because you know, judges aren't stupid or tolerant of asses.

Re:And next.. (2)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844104)

But will BT be required to develop some means of identifying Newzbin3 and blocking it when it shows up? Or can they wait for the studios to come tell them about Newzbin3 and then block it. If BT needs to get into the Newzbin hunting business to prevent liability, the studios should be paying them to do it. If it's just blocking known domains/IP numbers, that should be simple.

Re:And next.. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844194)

Reading the ruling, its when they are identified, and BT doesnt have to do the discovery - and yes I agree that BT should not be paying for any of this.

The times are a-changing. (1)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843614)

So offering XML-files, which are useless on their own, is illegal now, check.

Re:The times are a-changing. (0)

leamanc (961376) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844298)

Are they really "useless" if they lead you to content you are interested in and might want to download?

Don't get me wrong, I like downloading copyrighted stuff for free as much as the next guy, but I find it peculiar that otherwise smart people try to argue that what The Pirate Bay or Newzbin or whoever is doing is just offering up "indexes" or "text files" or what have you. You know damn good and well their intent is to aid you in downloading stuff you would otherwise have to pay for, for free.

Like I said, I like the free stuff too, but let's not play coy here. If you're going to be a pirate, at least admit it.

"You can't shut down my favorite torrent tracker! All they do is offer .torrent files, which are totally useless on their own! (Except for when I load in them up in a torrent client and get free music, movie, TV shows and pr0n, but really, they are useless, I promise!)

Re:The times are a-changing. (4, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844374)

You know damn good and well their intent is to aid you in downloading stuff you would otherwise have to pay for, for free.

To quote one of my favorite Simpson's lines, do they give the Nobel Prize out for attempted chemistry?

Re:The times are a-changing. (1)

ACE209 (1067276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844708)

If you're going to be a pirate, at least admit it.

"Pirate" seems politically incorrect here. We prefer the term "budget disabled audience" (You insensitive clod!)

Re:The times are a-changing. (1)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844438)

Most files are useless on their own.

What would you do with a .jpg without a viewer?

Re:The times are a-changing. (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844562)

No, only the imaginary bits that go with it. The imaginary bits being the intent to facilitate copyright violation. We like to call those imaginary because in the context of legality and morality they DO in fact exist (regardless of your interpretation or perceived importance of them) however, when you sit down and look at it, the bits clearly do not exist in practicality. It's an interesting point of conflict between technical folk like us, and other people.

Totally insane! (2)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843624)

How to block "any other IP or internet address operators of the Newzbin2 site might look to use to continue to offer copyrighted content to users" ?
What if they change name? Or country? Or whatever?
Do that judge understand the meaning of this sentence?
And is it possible in the UK to head a bill in the name of someone because of a judge rule?
I definitely this is totally insane, unless this is another case of british humour [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Totally insane! (4, Interesting)

sosume (680416) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843772)

"any other IP or internet address operators of the Newzbin2 site might look to use to continue to offer "

I'd say that covers the full 0.0.0.0/32 block. therefore, BT must terminate its ISP business.

Re:Totally insane! (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843842)

I think you mean 0.0.0.0/0 as 0.0.0.0/32 would mean only the address 0 to most of us. I agree with you though considering almost any other address *might* get used to tunnel traffic or host news they must stop permitting access to the Internet.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844228)

Arguments like yours are why we cant have "common sense" rulings and legislation any more. The sad thing is that you may see that as a good thing.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844662)

What's common sense? Forcing BT to pay the costs of tracking NewzBin's IP address, which can change every day if they want to?

Common sense would be dropping this case.

Re:Totally insane! (0)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844798)

So courts should essentially legislate from the bench, then-- declare that they will no longer enforce the properly passed laws on copyright because "its too hard"?

Common sense is for a judge to declare whether someone is breaking the law, and issue an enforceable remedy. Are you disputing that?

Re:Totally insane! (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844926)

The IP address can't change too much, or the users wouldn't be able to find the NewzBin site anymore.

Also, since it only costs BT £100 to update the IP address in their filter, that's not too bad.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844312)

They should do it. They should block all (or at least corporate) access to internet, and blame the judge. Just to see where does it head to.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844532)

This reminds me of how flight attendants in the US always say to take with you anything you *might* have brought on board when disembarking. Really? I might have brought my dog, but I didn't. How shall I now take him with me?

Re:Totally insane! (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843914)

Usually judges are completely stupid on IT issues, they think they have "supreme power" over the internet as they believe they have "supreme power" over the material world... But nonsense decisions like this are usually caused by simple bribery.

You're reading to much into it I'm afraid (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844300)

"But nonsense decisions like this are usually caused by simple bribery."

If only, then these judges could be put out to pasture where they belong. Unfortunately its down to simple ignorance. Most people in the UK legal industry including the judiciary are utterly fecking clueless when it comes to technology but they assume because they've got law qualifications (which in their eyes are the acme of intellectual achievment) this means they can become an instant expert in every field of human endeavour.

They can't, and boy does it show.

Re:Totally insane! (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844204)

Ok, I get that "protecting IP" == "shady, evil business" in the slashdot mindset. But are people SERIOUSLY arguing that, given the judge's position, he needs to issue a ruling devoid of common sense? Do you think, given the nature of the internet, that the courts should be able to be crippled and circumvented by a simple change in domain registration costing $8 a pop?

Come on. You may dislike the judge's position, but arguing that he needs to act like a moron who doesnt understand the internet and the MO of sites like Pirate bay, etc ("the internet sees censorship as damage...", streisand effect, mirrored everywhere, etc) is silly. This is a judge who DOES understand the internet, and you just dont like his position-- at least be honest about it.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844390)

I feel it necessary to clarify why I make the point I am making.

You seem to have a position that this judge's ruling is harmful. It may be so, and if so my hope is that people would rise up and present good arguments against it, convince others, fight against it.

But when people present bad arguments, and argue against a judge for trying to make sure his ruling is actually enforceable, it does noone any favors. I think it is WORSE to have an unenforceable bad ruling, for several reasons:
1) if it is not enforced for a short time, people are less likely to know what has happened, or to feel outraged. This dulls any reaction.
2) unenforced laws are worse than useless, as they make it harder for the average person to even know the entirety of the law
3) unenforced laws lower the respect for the law, leading to a society who disregards progressively more laws

The third point in particular means that, if things continued that way, you would end up with a more and more lawless society with harsher and harsher penalties for those who get caught-- which is in fact what we have. We have rampant copyright violation because noone respects those laws nor even understands them, and incredibly harsh examples of producers lashing out at those they can snag. Is this really the direction you want to go?

Re:Totally insane! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844702)

We have rampant copyright violation because noone respects those laws nor even understands them, and incredibly harsh examples of producers lashing out at those they can snag. Is this really the direction you want to go?

No, just the first part.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844750)

So you want a society where noone respects the law? Thats utterly brilliant, I hope Im around when someone steals your bike and the police says "son, bicycles want to be free. Row Row, fight the power."

Re:Totally insane! (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844822)

Strawman. I want a society where no one respects unjust laws.

By that absolutist logic my country would still be dictatorship. After all, it was illegal to rebel!

Re:Totally insane! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844294)

Please let BT know that they need to start blocking 127.0.0.1 immediately.

Re:Totally insane! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844610)

Just ambiguous wording. If you take the time to read it without being a jackass and intentionally misreading it, it's clear that he means they should go ahead and block any IPs/domains that Newszbin2 moves to. The pivot point of this being around the word "might" - you are reading it as if it read "potentially," which is clearly (from context) incorrect - again assuming you are not intentionally reading it incorrectly.

So BT eats the cost? (1)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843626)

So, I am walking down the street, in the next block someone lifts a wallet and I have to pay for the wallet just because I'm on the same city?

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843824)

Correct. My wallet had 1,000,000 dollars in it. Please send it next day delivery.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843898)

No, if the crime is committed while they're walking across your driveway, then you have to pay the cost of sending the cops out to deal with it.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844176)

More like someone ran through your garden with a stolen book, and now you have to pay to get a wall put up

Re:So BT eats the cost? (4, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844266)

No. The book isn't a book. It's a list of books. It has not been taken. It is not even a copy. Well, are you making a copy of this by reading and clicking about.
Ban Google please. That make lists of lists of lists.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844276)

How about a non-broken analogy, where you are in the business of selling used cars, and the courts tell you it will start holding you liable for selling stolen cars.

Oh wait, we have laws like that.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844432)

To unbreak your non-broken analogy. You're selling a map of locations to other people who happen to be selling replicated used cars. Legally on both sides of the pond there is a difference. I'm sure it's still a grey area, but to counter a flawed analogy with another flawed analogy is...well...flawed.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844844)

To clarify my analogy, the cars are the bits on the internet. ISP provides access to them (selling them for all intents and purposes), and some of them are illegal. It is in their interest, profit-wise, to do so as long as customers desire it, so it is necessary for the courts to dis-incentivize it.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844558)

Not even close. They're not selling anything. They're providing access to everything, just just that specifically. It would be like having a bunch of lists that everyone can look at whenever they like. One of those is a list of cars and other people can copy the car if they like. I'm not saying it's good or right, I'm saying that if you're going to complain about a broken analogy, please don't make it worse.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844820)

Theyre selling access, and some of what theyre selling access too (internet) is illegal (copyrighted binaries, media). I think the analogy lines up nicely. The courts are saying that if they want to continue selling access, they need to make sure they arent providing access to illegal goods.

Re:So BT eats the cost? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844246)

I would assume that the presumption is that, if BT wants to do business, they need to make sure that the courts do not consider them an accessory to infringement. You can disagree with it, but it is consistent.

Fight Club (3, Insightful)

DreadPiratePizz (803402) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843636)

Looks like someone's been breaking the first two rules of Usenet!

Customers Pay (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843648)

(Posting AC because I'm at work)

In addition the court said BT must foot the bill for the cost of implementing the web block on Newzbin2.

Sorry, did you mean to say "the court ordered BT's customers to foot the bill"?...

Circumvention (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843658)

Has already been done [zdnet.co.uk] . Effectively!

Re:Circumvention (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843926)

According to TorrentFreak, Newzbin Client 1.0.0.127 sets up an encrypted session with the Newzbin2 website, "rendering blocking impractical and snooping more or less impossible".

Switching to an encrypted connection, which everyone should have been using anyway, will not circumvent blocking Usenet or index sites by IP address.

Re:Circumvention (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844080)

Would be amusing if they used a vhost shared by some very popular site... can't block that by IP. BT might be able to do something with DNS block (Easily cirumvented), or may have to resort to adapting their Cleanfeed anti-child-porn filter, which does have that capability via transparent HTTP proxying.

Re:Circumvention (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844198)

You underestimate the level of "don't give a shit" and "I can do what I want" held by most judges. They can and would order the IP blocked just to make sure their orders were followed; other users be damned.

Re:Circumvention (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844280)

If they were on a vhost shared with a popular site, they wouldn't be able to use just the IP in the first place... they would have to be the default site for the IP address, which I dont see happening.

Re:Circumvention (1)

Stalks (802193) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844696)

With SSL and SNI, transit providers only see the IP, so it remains the same.

Re:Circumvention (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844742)

So? Hosts file ftw.

Newzbin2 must be busy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843660)

They must be focused on getting their workaround in place. This news hasn't even hit the front page of their own site yet.

Re:Newzbin2 must be busy (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843704)

More probably, I would think, it's unimportant to them because such workarounds are going to be trivial, and they aren't even going to have to worry about it.

Re:Newzbin2 must be busy (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843920)

The workaround has been in place for months now, they had it up and running about 2 weeks after the original verdict came down.

Blocks (2)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843664)

Blocking a website is fairly trivial to get around. But if only BT were more interested in blocking all the spam phone calls they pretend they can't block.. because they make lots of money from these spamming phone calls. I can block an IP in hosts, or ads with browser plugins, but BT claim they can't block phone calls even thought THEY know the number. Hypocrites who are only after money.

Re:Blocks (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843930)

Having some experience of this, I find myself in defence of BT - the vast majority of spam calls in the UK actually originate from foreign countries, and rotate caller IDs with every call (the call centers buy huge blocks of phone numbers and rotate them around destinations - and then simply dump them back to the telecoms companies when they become too stale), and as BT only knows the last exchange before it hits a BT exchange, they can't know its from the same source.

I had this issue with Virgin Media as well - its easy to block spam calls from within the UK, but near impossible to block international spam calls.

Re:Blocks (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844078)

Just block external telcos that don't behave altogether until they can get their act together.

Being unable to route calls to a major country like the UK would be enough to destroy any such telco pretty quickly as it's real legit customers bugger off elsewhere. Even better if BT can team up with European/US telcos and implement the ban Europe/US wide.

Let's be honest, this is basically what the MPAA et al. are pushing on the internet, so if it can be done there why can't it be done for things that the general population actually WOULD like like spam phone calls? I think this is the GP's point.

Re:Blocks (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844306)

Yup, go for it - bring a lawsuit in the same way that the media groups did in this case...

Re:Blocks (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844346)

Just wondering, then how do they in BT manage to transfer the money to the spam callers? Or are we not talking about the scheme where somebody calls from a premium rate number and hangs up shortly in a hope that somebody will call them back?

Re:Blocks (1)

Sam Andreas (894779) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844746)

Blocking phone numbers is meaningless - the spam calls you get originate from VOIP services where setting a caller id is trivial. None of those phone numbers are actually the number of the caller. You basically end up with the phone provider being in the exact position of an ISP in blocking spam - do you really want them to decide which phone calls you get and which you don't, based on criteria you have no control over? ISP's at least have some experience doing this now but it's pretty new for the telecoms.

Stupid judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843682)

Then must a mail deliverer like ups pay for copyright delivery prevention (after they, can can easily just send out discs with the stuff)? They services has no legal obligation to enforce the law, nor are they willingly or knowingly helping people break the law. Can a police officer force you to pay them in order to help them do their jobs? Even then, most of these laws (at least in the US) are civil laws, as in deputes between two entities rather then the government and a person. It's like punishing a witness because the main perpetrator can't be reached.

Block access to highways (2)

drunkahol (143049) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843686)

Because some people OR(speed, drive dangerously, fall asleep at the wheel, road rage, drive without insurance, drive without license).

The list here is quite long. Very few people, in fact, never break any laws on the UK highways.

Shame on the judge and/or law. Understanding the problem FAIL.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843862)

Your publicly claiming there is a brit that has not driven drunk?!? You surely meant to post anonymously. :P

Re:Block access to highways (1, Informative)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843866)

There's a difference between a few people misbehaving on the freeways, and a site that's mostly made/used to aid in piracy.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843922)

Last time I checked, piracy never killed anyone. Freeway's certainly aren't made to kill anyone directly but why shouldn't they be to blame for the thousands of deaths that happen on them every year.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844076)

Freeway's certainly aren't made to kill anyone directly but why shouldn't they be to blame for the thousands of deaths that happen on them every year.

You said it yourself: because they aren't made to kill. In fact, freeway designers take great care to maximize safety, while still allowing people to travel efficiently.

Pick a better analogy, this one doesn't make sense.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844434)

Last time I checked, piracy never killed anyone.

Yet it IS illegal, and it is ostensibly the duty of the courts to uphold and enforce laws.

Or are you honestly arguing that legislating from the bench is a GOOD thing?

Re:Block access to highways (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843936)

Quite right, one of those things can kill people and the other is about entertainment.

Re:Block access to highways (0)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844014)

Both are about breaking the law. Killing people isn't the only thing people get punished for.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

index0 (1868500) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844010)

The site creates an index of things on the internet, just like Google does ...

Re:Block access to highways (0)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844156)

No, google creates an index of the whole internet, while newzbin creates a specific index of Usenet binaries, which are mostly used for piracy.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844386)

They newzbin needs to expand to the whole web and give a few options to filter.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844482)

This type of argument is a veiled request that the judge turn off his higher reasoning faculties, and make a black and white decision.

But when a site is known to be infringing willfully (which IS a factor in law), and its entire popularity is based on that, and it markets itself as that, its an entirely different animal than Google-- which DOES take steps to proactively comply with copyright laws.

There is a world of difference, and the only way you can argue otherwise is by turning your bias up to maximum and ignoring all common sense.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844050)

You are making the difference between statute and law, i suppose? Believe me, piracy is not forbidden by any statute, hence, any other law (read rule, recommendation) is simple rule, nothing more, nothing less.... If you still don't believe me, go to the library and read your "constitution" Magna Carta .

Re:Block access to highways (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844224)

Yes, one can cause loss of life, the other can't.

I'll leave you to figure out which is which, it shouldn't be too hard.

Oh, and a few people? try something more like 30 out of the 32million or whatever people in the UK that drive. Hardly just a "few". Don't try and pretend only a "few" people have never broken the speed limit, never run a red light even if by a fraction of a second, never driven with a tyre tread below the legal limit, never driven with two bulbs out, never undertaken because the fast lane slowed suddenly, never failed to indicate properly, never gone the wrong way down a poorly signed one way street, forgotten to renew their insurance/tax disc by even just a day. Really, there's so many things that might catch people out even if just once, even if by accident, that you'll struggle to find anyone who hasn't broken the law on the road. Mostly it's no problem because they happen to be able to get out of the situation safely, or because other road users manage to avoid the hazard caused, but sometimes, just sometimes, that isn't the case, and someone dies.

One might argue that the roads, being created as safe as they are, are as much designed in such a way that they aid speeding as indexing sites are to support piracy. That is after all why an MP recently suggested we look at raising the UK's speed limit on some roads- because they're safe enough to break the current speed limit on.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844296)

Yes, one can cause loss of life, the other can't. I'll leave you to figure out which is which, it shouldn't be too hard.

Why is the distinction relevant ? Do we only have rules against things that cause loss of life ?

Re:Block access to highways (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844332)

Your argument would have more merit if 99% of people OR(speed, drive dangerously, fall asleep at the wheel, road rage, drive without insurance, drive without license) on the highways...

Lets face it, the ratio of legit content to non-legit content on these sorts of sites is astronomically weighted one way.

Re:Block access to highways (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844538)

Funny you bring this poor example because the idea behind it is actually accurate.

Secret roads between state and country lines that are used for illegal smugling are actually closed/barricaded/blocked when found, just like this site is being blocked.

On the other hand, the example you give would only be appropiate if the government was asking for the internet as a whole to be blocked, obviously not the case.

Correction (2)

TheDawgLives (546565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843696)

"In addition the court said BT 's customers must foot the bill for the cost of implementing the web block on Newzbin2."

There, I fixed it for you.

Next on the list (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843712)

Monkeys and keyboards... just in case an infinate number of monkeys recreate something

This is it, then (4, Insightful)

Catbeller (118204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843750)

The end of the internet, as I used to prophesize on Slashdot over ten years ago. It will become cable TV and a wiretapped phone, along with the history of everything we access. And with IPV6, we will get assigned personal IPs - there will be enough for every amoeba on the planet to be tracked. And don't bother telling us about how we will hack around it- that will be an international felony, and they will show us what happens to people who think they're cute. Ask Kevin Mitnick or Assange.

Re:This is it, then (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843900)

It will become cable TV and a wiretapped phone, along with the history of everything we access.

No, it will become a network of VPN's sharing encrypted traffic, and you will never find out about the good sites because you're not invited.

Re:This is it, then (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844058)

It'll become both. The internet will split - the controled, Disneyfied internet for the majority of people, all heavily policed, tracked and filtered. The internet of corporate governance. Then there will be the internet of the geeks, hidden in lower-level protocols and encryted connections, accessible only to those will the will and skill to find it.

Re:This is it, then (4, Insightful)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844190)

Your use of future tense surprises me.

Re:This is it, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844738)

if we're going to talk prophecies, suggested reading:

The Player of Games - Iain M Banks

http://www.amazon.com/Player-Games-Iain-Banks/dp/0061053562

Re:This is it, then (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37843902)

Well, we can be thankful that content producers are also mostly generating crap that's not worth downloading anymore.

Re:This is it, then (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843974)

Dude, you really need to read this Cracked article [cracked.com] , in particular #1.

Re:This is it, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844222)

so buy a bunch of cables and connect to your neighbors. ask them to do the same, and get back to neighborhood networks that are disconnected from the internet. the neighborhood networks will be free.

Re:This is it, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844442)

In the case of Mitnick are you trying to say that he will be a washed up ex hacker relentlessly mocked by the new guard, laughed out of DEF CON, and maintaining a lucrative speaking career?

http://www.newleafspeakers.com/?page_id=3

Ups and downs for sure, but it could certainly be worse.

It's only BT - The UK's noob ISP (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37843910)

There is plenty of choice of ISP in the UK, and switching is very easy.
BT is the noob ISP, so blocking usenet isn't a big deal for their demographic. This crap always hits "the big three", but NEVER filters down to the smaller, better ISPs.

Re:It's only BT - The UK's noob ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844178)

its being implemented through cleanfeed, the majority of all the other isps use it...

Four bullet point overview and summary (5, Informative)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844038)

Four bullet point overview:

  • 1.) BT must block access to the "Newzbin 2" website, including amending the blocking rules in effect to ensure blocking, when the studios notify it of a change of IP address and similar by Newzbin 2. (No further court order required for these changes)
  • 2.) The order extends to any downstream services which BT operates which incorporate CleanFeed. It does not apply to BT's access services and upstream divisions.
  • 3.) BT must pay the costs of the solution.
  • 4.) BT must pay the costs for defending itself in the case, since it was insufficiently neutral by virtue of opposing the order.

Summary (with some of my opinions...):

Background: In July, BT was injuncted to block access to the Newzbin 2 website, which had previously been held to infringe copyright. The decision today related solely to the order itself, and procedural / cost aspects.

The order requires BT to block access to the Newzbin 2 website (including at any future addresses it uses, as notified by the studios to BT (para. 10)). It applies to any downstream services which BT provides which implement - whether as an option or not - BT's CleanFeed system, which allows certain traffic management and filtering capabilities. It does not apply to BT's access services and upstream divisions.

The court heard arguments as to the differences (or similarities) between a Norwich Pharmacal order and an Art. 8(3) injunction (which is the mechanism here). Whilst Arnold J ruled in favour of the studios, that there are differences, he ruled that the "intermediary has not committed any legal wrong." (para. 30)

BT was also found to be liable for the costs of implementing the solution. At para. 32, Arnold J held that: "BT is a commercial enterprise which makes a profit from the provision of the services which the operators and users of Newzbin2 use to infringe the Studios' copyright. As such, the costs of implementing the order can be regarded as a cost of carrying on that business."

In effect, the cost of bearing the outcome of the injunction is the cost of the shield provisions of Arts. 12-14, 2000/31/EC. BT was also effectively penalised for defending itself, per para. 54, with the court holding that defending itself against an order such as this - the first of its kind in the UK - was insufficiently neutral. I struggle with this, as it would seem to hold that access providers are unable to defend themselves against threats such as this for fear of not being "neutral" on an issue which, unsurprisingly, is contentious for an ISP.

The full wording of the order appears at the end the judgment (para. 56), in the following terms:

"1. In respect of its customers to whose internet service the system known as Cleanfeed is applied whether optionally or otherwise, the Respondent shall within 14 days adopt the following technical means to block or attempt to block access by its customers to the website known as Newzbin2 currently accessible at www.newzbin.com, its domains and sub-domains and including payments.newzbin.com and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin2 website. The technical means to be adopted are:

(i) IP address re-routing in respect of each and every IP address from which the said website operates and which is notified in writing to the Respondent by the Applicants or their agents; and

(ii) DPI-based URL blocking utilising at least summary analysis in respect of each and every URL available at the said website and its domains and sub-domains and which is notified in writing to the Respondent by the Applicants or their agents.

2. For the avoidance of doubt paragraph 1 is complied with if the Respondent uses the system known as Cleanfeed and does not require the Respondent to adopt DPI-based URL blocking utilising detailed analysis.

3. The Respondent shall not be in breach of paragraph 1 if it temporarily suspends Cleanfeed or the addition of IP addresses or URLs thereto with the consent in writing of the Applicants or their agents.

4. The parties have permission to apply on notice in the event of any material change of circumstances including, for the avoidance of doubt but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in respect of the costs, consequences for the parties and effectiveness of the aforesaid technical means from time to time.

5. The Applicants shall pay the Respondent's costs of this application down to 16 December 2010. The Respondent shall pay the Applicants' costs of this application from 17 December 2010 to 28 July 2011 inclusive. Such costs shall be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed and set off against each other. Each party shall bear its own costs since 28 July 2011."

It strikes me that there is no precautionary measure, requiring BT to stop blocking an IP address once Newzbin 2 has ceased to be addressed by it. Whilst this would have imposed an obligation on the studios or BT, to ensure that the list was kept clean, the risk is that other sites / users which are assigned such an IP address would be blocked through no fault of their own.

Re:Four bullet point overview and summary (3, Interesting)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844316)

4.) BT must pay the costs for defending itself in the case, since it was insufficiently neutral by virtue of opposing the order.

So if BT didn't defend itself, staying sufficiently neutral, they automatically would have been ruled against and had to implement it. From BT's point of view, they were fucked from the beginning. There was no way to oppose them having to do something AND remain neutral.

ISPs really need to bring this stuff to the.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37844118)

...Consumers.

And I think a really, really good way would be the price increase on all their services if they were to install a top-of-the-line filtering system with all the requirements by those greedy media companies and the like.
Of course, make it a "gotcha!" afterwards, then have the official statement after it, in addition to an explanation for it all, informing the general public just how stupid it is and to get in touch with their MPs and so on.

This sort of nonsense is just getting a bit too stupid now.
Good to see it has already been bypassed by the guys there.

so the studio's become the judge now? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844180)

How come the studio's get to become judge if something could be possibly related to this newsbin2 site? What if they decide that slashdot.org is in fact a front for newsbin2? Does BT have to close access to slashdot.org then? I see plenty of reasons for BT to not obey this court order and wait for the trial that follows when they disobey.

What's it going to take? (1)

thedarb (181754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37844804)

I have nothing constructive I can say that won't get me locked up for life.
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...