LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.A judge has ruled that BT will be required to block access to a site where users share links to pirated material.
Read more.A judge has ruled that BT will be required to block access to a site where users share links to pirated material.
Giving the fact that these blocks are usually worthless on the internet and this has just advertised this form of piracy across the internet you've got to wonder what the point of this action was?
Note - I'm not supporting piracy but I think they should be handling this more with a carrot than a stick (I'm still waiting for a spotify like service for TV shows - lovefilm is too expensive and slow for tv series).
There's something I don't get about this - if Newzbin2 is "merely" a Usenet index/search-engine, then surely wouldn't the MPA have been better advised to get BT to block the offending newsgroups? Otherwise - to my simple view at least - the users of Newzbin2 can use Google et al to get a similar result?Newzbin 2, curates links to content found on Usenet, much of which infringes on the copyright of companies represented by the MPA
Maybe I'm being alarmist, but I've got a sinking suspicion that this might be the first step in portions of the current 'net disappearing as more and more injunctions get filed...
What about the Sky (and Virgin) video-on-demand services? I realise that they're probably just as "guilty" as LoveFilm of having high charges (plus those LF bu**ers are never off of my phone, trying to sign me up to a "free" trial, despite me telling them I've got FilmFlex already). Reputedly NetFlix are looking at a possible UK launch - in which case the increased competition has got to be good news?Originally Posted by cheesemp
That said, my use of FF has fallen dramatically since I discovered that the "local" Vue does a good midweek discount - but then again I do still prefer the whole "experience" of the big screen, pop-corn, etc.
Last edited by crossy; 28-07-2011 at 05:36 PM.
Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...
Like the MPA and whoever else are going to understand usenet! It's just the usual "PIRACY!!... BAN IT" response.
I'm not particularly bothered in that a lot of usenet firms have firmly positioned themselves as aggregators of illicit material, but what I am slightly bothered by, is how unnerving it is from a net neutrality perspective.
Torrent sites can rightly say they don't store the content, just an index.
Usenet sites do directly host the content, never understood how they get away with that myself, and I can remember when usenet was for text discussion - before web forums ( before web!)
Those "Usenet sites" only host links to content available on usenets. Anyway, keep to the rules and stop talking about usenets!
Newzbin2 merely indexes and serves .nzb files just like a torrent site indexes and serves .torrent files.
But there are servers actually holding the files... making the action against newzbin2 a little odd.
Obviously it's pretty hard to go up against thousands of torrent seeds, but usenet is a completely different kettle of fish.
Closing this down or sacking all of their MPAA lawyers. What do you think would save them more money?
That's such a good point
This reminds me of Ubisoft bringing back DRM.. All just moving in the wrong direction.
Reading a bit more about found this tidbit;
The judge's order relied on the European Union's 2001 Information Society Directive, as implemented by the UK Parliament in 2003. That law states that a court can "grant an injunction against a service provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe copyright."
Well that's not a frighteningly broad law, I'd never heard of, at all. So every search engine, webhost and ISP in Britain can soon expect to be inundated with injunctions and spend a great deal of time and money enforcing someone else's copyright. Sure they'll be pleased about that. I'm no supporter of piracy, I've had my own copyright infringed, but everytime I read a story about the MPA, RIAA and all their cohorts I can't help but facepalm. they really don't get it do they?
Great example being this happening in the same week one of Britain's favourite sports, one we win at even, gets a 500% price hike, a drop in service quality and they wonder why people turn to piracy.
Most people in my experience want to support the artists, actors, sportsmen et al they love, but it's pretty hard to turn a product that's not only free, but often better.
No, they can't expect that. Or certainly, can't necessarily expect that.
The judgement didn't solely rely on the law you referenced (the UK interpretation in the CDPA 197) of an EU directive, but made very clear that it was a balancing act between competing rights in that directive and a couple of others, and the Human Rights Act rights.
There were several major and complex issues, not least the Information Society Directive you mentioned stipulating "actual knowledge" of the infringing. And also, it explicitly covered the extent and proportionality. The judge made very clear that not only was this case quite expensive, but that a lot of the groundwork for this case had been done before in the case against the original Newzbin and it still required substantial extra effort to produce evidence the judge needed in this case, as well as the not inconsiderable costs of this case.
One of the factors that made a huge difference in this case was the extent to which it was those bringing the case (that being 6 studios) that were getting their rights abused, and that organisations representing other bodies whose rights were abused were, while not formally part of the case, agreed with the application and supported in.
It was broken down and analysed in various ways, but was clear was :-
- a very high proportion of Newzbin's activities were in relation to material that was clearly commercial and therefore protected by copyright.
- those bringing, or supporting, the action represented something in excess Probably well in excess) or 95% of the activity.
But for that massive level of participation in the abused rights, certain elements the judge relied on in reaching his decision would have been significantly compromised, and the case may therefore have either failed, or resulted in a very different type of order.
It is certainly NOT clear from this judgement that either search engines or hosts will be affected, though they may, and it's also very far from clear that even other ISPs will be under much threat other than from broadly that same group of plaintiffs, because it's unlikely anyone else could put together the ability to represent anything like the broad level of infringed rights that those studios can.
In other words, while it's eminently likely that other ISPs will shortly face the demand for action that BT faced (and fought and lost), it's far from clear that this judgement will be of much help to anyone other than that group of studios, and that anyone else faces very substantial costs in seeking such an injunction, and that they will face several substantial issues that, just because the studios could satisfy the criteria is not indicative that others will be able to.
The law you cite is pretty broad, but when you break down the definitions, the jurisdiction issues and the competing rights, this judgement goes nowhere near setting up a boilerplate case for action against "every search engine, webhost and ISP in Britain". If it makes that more likely, it's not (IMHO, of course) by much.
Always appreciate your input on legal issues Saracen. You're far more knowledgeable than me in such matters. As always though, I'm very sceptical about where this is going.
This case might have been very expensive and time consuming but now the test case is done. Surely it will only get easier and those 6 studios own the vast majority of movies released in the UK. Meaning it will be them and their supporters in the main going for such injunctions, thus always satisfying those criteria, the other major IP in Britain agency, the BPI would satisfy all the same criteria. In fact if they don't have a case going already it wont be long. The American divisions and incarnations of the same organisations have been less than targeted in who they've gone after, ars.technica for example has fought 3(iirc) cases in the last year, they're owned by a large investment company and can handle it, but many smaller sites have been shut down without even being able to fight the case, how long could hexus fight, if it had to? I couldn't care less about actual infringer's, but stories like that and the same organisations pushing the same agenda over here I do care about.
DMCA went from test case to spamming takedown notices by the thousands daily in short order. Their goals here are the same, merely using a different approach. All the same human rights issues and talk of balance were there in the first cases but they rapidly evaporated. The power of lobbyists for you. Obviously the methods and legalities vary greatly between us and America but the people behind it and their intent does not.
You're right it's certainly not clear who will be affected that's one of my major gripes. I think law should be clear. Service provider is a very vague term, IANAL but I reckon I could make a reasonable case against just about any website that they are a service provider.
If it's handled well, with consideration to human rights and the burden of proof always falling on the claimant, then great. Hope it is has a real impact, but as I said in my opening I'm very sceptical.
I was wrong about news2bin - which I thought was a usenet host, but just indexes usenet,Those "Usenet sites" only host links to content available on usenets. Anyway, keep to the rules and stop talking about usenets!
its primary purpose is still piracy though.
In general "usenet sites" are hosting and distributing content.
As I'm sure you're aware, any of those "1000 Days Binary Retention" usenet hosts are just commercial piracy sites - let's be honest here.
It annoys me that many think piracy is "freedom of speech"
Interesting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14372698 Much rather see the DEA scrapped and it handled in court if it's going to be done.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
