High Court moron forces ISP's to block Torrent sites

Cody Pomeray

Prodigious wrote: »

If they are preparing an appeal for the high court it is probably in their interests to stay quiet until they present their defence.

Well anticipation of an appeal doesn't explain why a defendant wouldn't defend. There's no tactical advantage to the defendant in an appeal, in fact he is at a disadvantage when approaching the court with a judgement that has just been issued against him.

pmcmahon wrote: »

Since it's a blanket ban of all ISP's i can see why they wouldn't challenge it.If UPC was singled out and it was available to other ISP's,it could cause a loss in custom for UPC due to customers moving to other ISP's who'd still provide access to torrent sites.But since no other ISP's will be providing a service which UPC won't,there's no need for them to panic.

But that wasn't the point of the CJEU judgement in the Belgian case.

In the Belgian case, which was Sabam v. Scarlet, the law also applied to all Belgian ISPs. The reason why this ISP was unburdened of the task of implementing and maintaining a filter is because, in the words of the court, it creates an expense on the ISP and a burden on the ISP, both of which are to financially benefit a 3rd party enterprise. In other words, it's not the ISP's responsibility to babysit a copyright holder's property for him.

I just don't understand why this very clear principle doesn't appear to have been raised, but maybe the written judgement will clarify that.

Wile E. Coyote

pmcmahon wrote: »

I'd say it's quite the opposite,look at metallica for instance.

Are you saying Metallica haven't made it big and haven't made enough cash already?

googled eyes

euobserver

EU to slap ban on online blocking
12.06.13 @ 09:37
RELATED Brussels to table net neutrality rules in July Public consultation on 'net neutrality' to delay EU rules on ISPs Netherlands first EU country to enshrine net neutrality into law
BY BENJAMIN FOX
BRUSSELS - The EU will ban Internet service providers from manipulating and blocking access to certain websites, according to a European Commission official.


An estimated 236 million European Internet users have suffered a restricted service online
Speaking with EUobserver on Tuesday (11 June) following an internal debate among commissioners, an EU official indicated that the proposal would include a ban on blocking and throttling. Bandwidth throttling, where a network provider deliberately slows down the service on certain websites, has been identified as the most common restriction to service.

However, it is likely that exemptions will be included to differentiation based on speed and volume of online traffic.

The proposals, which will form part of an overhaul to the bloc's regulation on the digital telecoms sector, are expected to be published by digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes in late July.

"What matters is that people aren't stopped from accessing the content they want and that we maximise network investment so that everything works better because of higher speeds," the official said.

The Netherlands and Slovenia are currently the only EU countries with national laws on net neutrality.

Net neutrality campaigners argue that Internet service providers and governments should treat data equally and not discriminate against or restrict access to websites and online services.

Last week, 20 Internet entrepreneurs signed an open letter calling on EU lawmakers to put in place "safeguards to curb the tendencies of access operators to act as gatekeepers of the Internet."

They said the practice is "harmful to the fundamental rights of users, to new and existing companies counting on the global reach of the Internet to launch and grow their businesses and to innovation and the economy in general."

Meanwhile, evidence collected in 2012 by Berec, the pan-European group of national Internet service providers, found that around one in five fixed lines and over one in three mobile users had restricted services.

For their part, MEPs are likely to support net neutrality rules, having twice adopted non-legislative resolutions calling on the commission to act.

Speaking with this website, Marietje Schaake, a Dutch liberal MEP and prominent digital rights campaigner, welcomed the proposed.

"I'm happy that blocking and throttling will be banned. This practice hurts access to people's information, is anti-competitive and limits an open internet," she said

But she also voiced caution noting that "as ever the the devil will be in the detail", adding that "the gap between relying on transparency and competition as the commission has done in the past and rules that are legally binding is large. I really hope the Commission will take this important step."

Celly Smunt

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Are you saying Metallica haven't made it big and haven't made enough cash already?

No,i'm saying they're quite huge,have a lot of money and aren't exactly fond of sharing their music.(I don't see why anybody would want to download that rubbish in the first place but,ah well.)

Sin City

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Are you saying Metallica haven't made it big and haven't made enough cash already?

Lars hasnt , the greedy bastard

Seedy Arling

There was a guy talking on the radio last night and he said the record companies would be happy if they could claim back 10% of what they are losing. Does this mean that their profits are so big they can afford to lose 90% of what they were previously getting?

I've no sympathy for them if that is the case. I remember paying over 20 euro for CD's back in the day.

desertcircus

Seedy Arling wrote: »

There was a guy talking on the radio last night and he said the record companies would be happy if they could claim back 10% of what they are losing. Does this mean that their profits are so big they can afford to lose 90% of what they were previously getting?

I've no sympathy for them if that is the case. I remember paying over 20 euro for CD's back in the day.

It means the figures for what they're losing are complete fiction.

mbur

More spin here from the BEEB

Ireland signed into law last year an EU regulation designed to make it easier for copyright owners to seek injunctions against ISPs and other intermediaries providing access to pirated materials

But if you follow the links, the whole exercise has feet of clay

I, RICHARD BRUTON, Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 (No. 27 of 1972) and for the purpose of giving further effect to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 , hereby make the following regulations:


1. These Regulations may be cited as the European Union (Copyright and Related Rights) Regulations 2012.


2. The Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 (No. 28 of 2000) is amended—


(a) in section 40, by inserting the following subsection after subsection (5):


“(5A)(a) The owner of the copyright in a work may, in respect of that work, apply to the High Court for an injunction against an intermediary to whom paragraph 3 of Article 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society applies.

Section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 Is the 'power to make regulations' clause:

3.—(1) A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling section 2 of this Act to have full effect.


(2) Regulations under this section may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister making the regulations to be necessary for the purposes of the regulations (including provisions repealing, amending or applying, with or without modification, other law, exclusive of this Act).


(3) Regulations under this section shall not create an indictable offence.


(4) Regulations under this section may be made before the 1st day of January, 1973, but regulations so made shall not come into operation before that day.

The ISP would not be committing an indictable offence if they simply ignored the court order?

CrazyRabbit

CruelCoin wrote: »

The vast majority of all traffic through thepiratebay is the downloading of torrents for copyrighted material.

There is no possible reason the owners/runners of the site could claim they knew nothing about it, and if they did (as they must have done) and did nothing to stop it, then they were indeed facilitating.

Not that this is anything to worry about.

Piratebay has been declining for a long while now and isohunt is a far better site, and these sites will simply pop up faster than they can legally be taken down, so why the fuss?

Incorrect. There is no copyrighted material hosted on the TPB website.
And I personally have used the site to find torrents for several non-copyrighted applications. Just because it can be used to search for copyrighted content, does not mean it should be blocked. I can use Google, Bing, Facebook, Yahoo etc to do exactly the same thing.

Blocking a simple search engine is idiotic. I really don't see why so many find it hard to understand.

Cody Pomeray

mbur wrote: »

The ISP would not be committing an indictable offence if they simply ignored the court order?

No. The SI cannot create an indictable offence, but refusal to adhere to the terms of an injunction is an offence in its own right.

mbur

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No. The SI cannot create an indictable offence, but refusal to adhere to the terms of an injunction is an offence in its own right.

That is the finest example of lawyers logic so far today. So

Regulations under this section shall not create an indictable offence.

doesn't mean what it says. Why am I not surprised.

Cody Pomeray

mbur wrote: »

So doesn't mean what it says. Why am I not surprised.

It does mean what it says. With respect, you're just incorrectly identifying what it says.

An organisation (EMI) is free to apply for the Court to issue an injunction which stops an intermediary (UPC) from facilitating copyright theft.

The Court who accepts that application is not suggesting that the intermediary (UPC) is guilty of an indictable offence as a matter of necessity.

An indictable offence has not arisen.

ryanch09

This won't do anything, it takes literally 10 seconds to get around it, just use a TPB proxy site that's out there

Prodigious

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It does mean what it says. With respect, you're just incorrectly identifying what it says.

An organisation (EMI) is free to apply for the Court to issue an injunction which stops an intermediary (UPC) from facilitating copyright theft.

The Court who accepts that application is not suggesting that the intermediary (UPC) is guilty of an indictable offence as a matter of necessity.

An indictable offence has not arisen.

So they're not doing anything wrong, but they have to stop doing it?

Arawn

Sin City wrote: »

Lars hasnt , the greedy bastard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvYYqRefhuM

Cody Pomeray

Prodigious wrote: »

So they're not doing anything wrong, but they have to stop doing it?

Well that still makes it sounds unduly critical of UPC and the ISPs. The courts are not coming down on the ISPs here, and if the ISPs had bothered defending this case, they would have had a strong case for doing nothing.

So yes, the Court is saying that UPC (and others) are not necessarily doing anything illegal, but they are passively facilitating an offence, and they can be requested to take steps to stop facilitating that in specific circumstances - unless they can show this would be an unfair burden on them. Which they didn't try to do.

AntiRip

I found this great browser called Chrome today. It's a waaayyyy better than Internet Explorer

blatantrereg

Vlad the Impaler, the real life Count Dracula, would display his power by leaving treasures such as jewels out in the open, in easy reach of any who dared take them. No one did, because he was Vlad the Impaler.

The Irish government today are making access to easy plunder more difficult. The objections don't really make much sense. The alternative is to start trying to catch people and punishing them properly [Dracula demonstrating that approach at its extreme]. That would be less pleasant and would incur expense.

hatrickpatrick

Question: Why would anyone pirate download a movie when they could stream it from Putlocker or Sockshare instead? Unless you're getting a HD version to stick on a USB and watch on your HD telly, I can't understand the point of doing this.

hatrickpatrick

AntiRip wrote: »

I found this great browser called Chrome today. It's a waaayyyy better than Internet Explorer

Just want to point out that the internet is brimming with allegations that Google harvests more information about you from Chrome than they admit to, and if you consider that alongside last week's allegation that Google is routinely sending the NSA copies of its databases for storage, the idea of using Chrome might suddenly seem a little less attractive...

Jonny7

relax everyone.. you will still be able to pirate all your favorite music films and games

there are plenty of piratebay proxies that will work

MadsL

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

That is more than likely the case but if you remove the record companies, how many up and coming bands can afford to fund themselves full time to make/release albums and get radio airplay to gain a sufficient fanbase that would allow them to tour? How many big bands can you name would still be around today if they hadn't signed to a label?

Fugazi for one.

Arawn

MadsL wrote: »

Fugazi for one.

macklemore says hi

MadsL

At midnight on January 16, 1920 , the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition of Alcohol) took effect. The famous minister Billy Sunday celebrated by preaching a sermon to 10,000 people in which he repeated the fantasy at the heart of the temperance and prohibition crusades:

The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.

We have banned Pirate Bay, our artistes will return to a happier time when they did not have to slave over tour schedules, nor promote their wares against a sea of independent productions, we once again will return to the benevolent tyranny of the studio system and one album every three years will suffice to keep our Rock Gods in coke and hookers.

MadsL

Arawn wrote: »

macklemore says hi

Yeah, there's always a downside

UCDVet

Is it just me.....or does anyone else get the impression that the people making these laws have no idea how the internet works, how torrents work, or how p2p downloading works?

Because this block is ridiculously silly.

Not only will it not work, at all, it sets a horrible precedent of censorship. I'm a reasonable guy and I think that, in some cases, censorship *might* be okay....but blocking an entire country's access to a website because some rich US corporations might lose some sales is pretty horrible IMHO. I mean, ignoring that it won't work, at all, in the slightest.

Also, its depressing that we're having this conversation *now*.

Torrent'ing started in 01.
Pirate Bay started in 03.

*Ten years later* we're banning access. 10 years?

Similarly, you've probably noticed those stupid warnings that companies are (by law) required to display. That again, shows how clueless our lawmakers are....

Cookies were introduced into web browsers in 1995. And you've always been able to disable them, at will, within your browser. 15+ years later, in order to protect us, they pass a law that makes websites mention that they are using cookies?!?!

Even if they were dangerous, and even if you couldn't trivially disable them - where were they fifteen years ago? A group of 15 year-old kids who like computer games would be better equipped to make the decisions.

smokin ace

low and behold i went to my usual torrenting site and its not thepbay and all i am getting is

Access to the web page was denied
The server refused to fulfill the request:(:(:(:(:(

blocking torrenting sites my arse i was able to access the site in less than 10 seconds so the ban is pointless:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Sin City

MadsL wrote: »

Fugazi for one.

Jesus, that takes me back

MadsL

Sin City wrote: »

Jesus, that takes me back

A&M Records should take you back further; arguably the single most successful independent record label ever.

Herb Alpert & the Tijuana Brass, Baja Marimba Band, Burt Bacharach, Waylon Jennings, Sérgio Mendes & Brasil ’66, We Five, The Carpenters, Chris Montez, Elkie Brooks, Lee Michaels, Captain and Tennille, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Quincy Jones, Lucille Starr, Stealers Wheel, Barry DeVorzon, Perry Botkin, Jr., Marc Benno, Liza Minnelli, Rita Coolidge, Wes Montgomery, Paul Desmond, Cat Stevens, Bobby Tench, Hummingbird, Toni Basil, and Paul Williams. Folk artists Joan Baez, Phil Ochs and Gene Clark also recorded for the label during the 1970s. Billy Preston joined the label in 1971, followed by Andre Popp and Herb Ohta in 1973.

In the late 1960s, through direct signing and licensing agreements, A&M added several British artists to its roster, including Cat Stevens, Joe Cocker, Procol Harum, Humble Pie, Fairport Convention, Free, The Move, and Spooky Tooth. In the 1970s, under its manufacturing and distribution agreement with Ode Records, A&M released albums by Carole King and the comedy duo Cheech & Chong. Other notable acts of the time included Nazareth, Y&T, the Tubes, Styx, Supertramp, Rick Wakeman, the Ozark Mountain Daredevils, Chuck Mangione, Squeeze, and Peter Frampton. On March 10, 1977, A&M signed the Sex Pistols after the band had been dropped by EMI. However, A&M dropped the band within a week.[1] A&M sustained its success during the 1980s with a roster of noted acts that included Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, Henry Badowski, Janet Jackson, the Police, Sting, The Brothers Johnson, Falco, Atlantic Starr, the Go-Go's, Chris De Burgh, Bryan Adams, Suzanne Vega, Righeira, Brenda Russell, Jeffrey Osborne, Oingo Boingo, Human League, Ozark Mountain Daredevils, Sharon, Lois & Bram, Annabel Lamb, Jim Diamond, Vital Signs, Joe Jackson, and Scottish rock band Gun.

zom

Dont think, dont ask, pay tax, vote for us!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party