That wont circumvent the rule at all. If a site is in breach of legislation and refuse to remove content the copyright holder now has authority to approach the courts and if the court finds they are correct they can order all Irish ISPs to block any requests from Irl based IP addresses to that site url and IP so no matter where the site is hosted geographically it doesnt matter as the site itself may not be able to be forced to remove the content but all IRL users may be blocked from seeing it.
|This was exactly the case with pirate bay, they refused many times to remove content from their site so IRMA took legal action and had the courts contact Eircom to stop directing their IP addresses to PB url / IP address. Eircom didnt fight it and agreed hence Eircom customers couldnt access PB while others could. IRMA attempted the same action with UPC but they fought and won as the judge had no legislation in place at the time to force them to block or redirect traffic.... now there is.|
I disagree, Eircom pussied out there and bent over in front of the media bigwigs.
I speculate that they were only willing to comply in return for a sweetener - who can tell.
Maybe it's just a strange coincidence that they are now able to offer their overpaying and bandwidth limited customers access to 'unlimited free' copyright material in their 'eircommusichub' offering.
As far as PB is concerned, this is where it gets really fuzzy - PB does not, and never has, hosted any copyright material on their servers. They only host virtual signposts as to where you can possibly get it. It's up to the user after that to decide if they want to risk breaking the law by using what they host.
To hypothetically put this in Airsoft terms, you can go into an Airsoft retailer and purchase a realistic imitation Glock 9mm pistol or AK47 or whatever. If you then choose to go and rob a bank with your RIF, the new law is saying that the retailer should be punished (by blocking any future visitors to his shop) rather than the robber who they don't seem to be too concerned about.
To expand further, if PB gets blocked because they 'facilitate' downloading copyright material without permission by providing links to it then it sets a pretty nasty precedent. Where does that leave Google / Yahoo / other search engines who happen to return a hit to a dodgy site?? Under our common law system, the same precedent would need to be applied to them and therefore the same order issued to the ISP's to block them.
You mentioned 'a fair usage clause' in a previous post - that sort of rational thinking seems to be beyond the comprehension of our muppet lawmakers in this case.
*Sorry for ranting lads, I'm as peed off as you all are at this.