UK Court Upholds Its First Web Censorship Order: BT Has 14 Days To Block Access To Newzbin2 & Gets To Pay For The Privelege
from the that's-one-slippery-slope dept
Back in July, we noted that a UK court ordered ISP BT to begin censoring the web, beginning with a blockade of Newzbin2, which the MPAA has been trying to destroy. After a user petitioned the court to seek alternatives to censorship, the court rejected that request and has issued a ruling giving BT just 14 days to figure out how to block users from accessing Newzbin. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry is thrilled. Any new opportunity to put the entire burden on ISPs is one that it celebrates. Why should the entertainment industry have to adapt to a changing world when it can run to court, and have the court force tech companies to pretend that new technologies don’t exist.
A few scary specifics in the full ruling, starting with this: the expense to implement the blocking is entirely dumped on BT. The judge seems to say that since BT is a commercial enterprise, and profits from people using its services to infringe, it must pay. That’s ridiculous. Just because people use BT’s service to break the law, shouldn’t make BT responsible for the costs of stopping user activities.
Next up, rather than just block URLs, BT has to block the URLs using intrusive, privacy-destroying deep packet inspecting… and “re-route” IP addresses. The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist. And, at Hollywood’s urging, the judge left that expansive, such that even if a URL or IP address point to other legal content, along with Newzbin, those URLs and IPs can be censored.
Finally, and most amazingly, the judge seems to admit the court’s technological cluelessness in admitting that it did not realize that a full on IP block (rather than re-routing) might lead to overblocking of innocent sites. And yet it still went forward, despite this rather blatant admission of ignorance.
And with this, the UK goes one step closer to more blatant web censorship.
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, newzbin, uk
Companies: bt, mpaa
Comments on “UK Court Upholds Its First Web Censorship Order: BT Has 14 Days To Block Access To Newzbin2 & Gets To Pay For The Privelege”
Huh?
From the BBC article:
“This move means that we can invest more in our own digital offerings, delivering higher quality and more variety of products to the consumer.”
And for some reason you could not do that before?????
Re: Huh?
That’s the usual spin put on these things, same as when companies pretend that DRM somehow allows people to get better products (when in reality it just makes the product less valuable than a cracked one).
It’s complete bullshit, just a way to pretend they’re not trying to kill all sorts of legal activity in a way that fits into their false “download = lost sale” mentality.
Re: Re: Huh?
This post protected by Macrovision(tm) Quality Protection.
Re: Huh?
Notice that they didn’t say they “will invest more”, only that they “can”.
The MPAA can adapt to modern technology, just like I can win the lottery.
I expect 3 things to come out of this.
1. At some point, either a higher court or the legislature will see this as the technological cluelessness that it is and over rule this judge
2. The entertainment industry will not see any improvement in revenue and may experience an economic or political backlash
3. Anyone who wants to spend 10 minutes on their favorite search engine bypassing the block will get around it anyway
:popcorn:
Re: Re:
3. Anyone who wants to spend 10 minutes on their favorite search engine bypassing the block will get around it anyway
Only if they’re willing to pay an extra monthly fee. I’ve tried a bunch of those free, anonymous web proxy services and they all crash and burn at the slightest bit of Javascript required to use the site. Pure HTML works fine, but any fancy tricks the site uses will fail.
A true proxy server that you enter directly into your browser will work, the only problem is that you have to go through about a hundred of them to find a free one that actually works, and then it’s only good for a day, if that.
Re: Re: Re:
As I understand it, Newzbin is a Usenet site and should be accessible without Javascript. It’s been a LONG while since I’ve accessed any sites using a newsreader but it’s always seemed very basic to me. It’s all just text with few interactive elements other than the ability to login and post a message. I could be wrong, but any free proxy should work.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I understand it, Newzbin is a Usenet site and should be accessible without Javascript.
Possibly, I’ve never used it myself. However, when the various internet censorship laws take effect (when, not if), there will be lots of sites that you can’t access directly. And unfortunately, many web sites today use JS for things that plain HTML would handle just fine. For example, most picture galleries require JS to view the large versions of images. All cyberlocker sites require JS to show the count-down timer and redirect to the file. Many streaming video sites use JS to handle the gallery-like functions of presenting the various videos and to activate the Flash player. Some web sites won’t even display any content if you don’t have JS enabled.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Newzbin is a usenet indexing site – kind of like the pirate bay, but for nzb files instead of torrents. In itself, it does not let you access usenet, for that you would still sign up with one of the many usenet providers.
The NZB files themselves contain no infringing content, simply a list of links that a newsreader can understand in order to download the content.
Re: Re: Re:
Tor
Re: Re:
I see a lot of mirrors popping up in the future.
Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
As BT run the phone lines will it also apply to those ISPs who use BT lines?
Re: Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
No, BT the ISP are seperate from BT the telecom company – as far as this goes anyway, same parent company but I believe any rulings against the ISP stay as just that.
I think this story broke and mentioned four different ‘major’ ISP’s that are to be targeted:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/technology-gadgets/hollywoods-legal-victory-over-uk-isp-bt-threatens-illegal-filesharing-16029494.html
Also, this story tells of the ‘porn blocking’ ruling that the government was trying to bring in against the big four, so although this ruling may be used as a catalyst to go for other ISP’s it won’t stop them yet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128
Re: Does this apply to ISPS who use BT lines
No.
Sounds like this judge is leading the pack......
……..in the Biggest Douche Bag in the Universe Contest! However, only time will tell, but at the moment, he’s the favorite.
just shows what happens when you have idiots in the decision making positions who dont understand in the least what is involved. the court admitted to not having the knowledge required, but still went ahead with the block order. what does that tell you? shows just how much influence (incentives given?) the entertainment industries have on laws being implemented , whilst everyone else and sense is ignored. seems to me that the decisions now coming into effect in the UK are a direct result of Obama’s visit to UK, after cementing ‘that special relationship’ that exists. what absolute crap! USA wants world-wide internet censorship, not for the good of any other country just for it’s own benefit and mainly to prop up the various Hollywood legacy entertainment industries!
Would be an absolute shame if any of the content cartel URLs got blocked.
Pointless… they are blocking access to one nzb site, there are hundreds more. They aren’t blocking access to any newsgroup/usenet providers.
Even if they managed to block all the nzb sites you can just fall back on browsing the groups through the download client anyway.
Pointless.
Re: Re:
and just how long do you think that it will be restricted to 1 site? now they have a toe hold, there will be countless more sites added and done as quickly as possible!
Re: Re: Re:
This is the Hydra game of the last decade, block or shutdown one site and another 3 pop up. Who gives a crap, I can find NZB files for files I want to download via my download client, who even needs indexing sites anymore anyway?
Re: Re:
It’s the whacky whac-a-mole! NEENEENENENENEE
Re: Re:
Pointless… they are blocking access to one nzb site, there are hundreds more. They aren’t blocking access to any newsgroup/usenet providers.
That’s the next step…
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah.. good luck with that one! If they wish to try and take on the Usenet industry then let them try.
Re: Re: Re:
And after that…FTP! I can see them in their mansion in the Alps, a snifter of brandy in one hand and a $500 cigar in the other laughing maniacally.
Bt Should go nuclear on this.
Simply pull the plug on it’s whole operation – and refuse to put it back until the ruling is reversed.
The threat should be enough.
Re: Bt Should go nuclear on this.
I see my comment below pretty much duplicates yours. I am going to plead independent invention here as I didn’t read the comments before making mine. I did not intentionally mean to violate your copyright/trademark/patent so please don’t sue me. 😉
Re: Re: Bt Should go nuclear on this.
It was my first thought too. Need to block all access to newsbin? Fine the only way to do that is to start ripping up all these wires.
Re: Bt Should go nuclear on this.
At the least BT should post a page explaining why the sight was blocked and allow users to submit complaints that will be forwarded to the correct government office.
BT should shut down
It would be awesome if BT just pulled the plug on their operations in effect taking their ball and going home. Then lets see what the courts and government has to say about that.
Re: BT should shut down
I had the same thought … if just one major ISP did this and very publicly announced that it was the result of the court ruling, the public outrage would be overwhelming and we might get some real scrutiny on the whole PROTECT-IP issue and it’s real impacts.
Re: Re: BT should shut down
I’m with BT Broadband…. will I be able to sue the MPA for loss of internet?
I would recommend blocking all voice and data traffic to and from this judge while they have the hood up. To prevent the bribery of government officials and such, because they have a responsibility…
Re: Re:
You’re right. They are a commercial enterprise after all… and they profit from fraudsters making phone calls. They have an obligation to block illegal phone conversations at their expense. If that means listening in to every conversation and nipping crime in the bud, then so be it.
Oh and hotels. Hotels profit from all the prostitution that takes place in their buildings. They need to monitor all activity in every guest room and evict people who are engaged in any deviant activity.
Re: Re: Re:
” Hotels profit from all the prostitution that takes place in their buildings. They need to monitor all activity in every guest room”
Sounds like a job for the TSA
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Last time I checked the TSA didn’t charge you for groping you.
Bad news for the UK =[
Slightly off-topic, but can we come up for a name for the big movie, tv and music companies other than “the entertainment industry”? That term encompasses thousands of decent companies that have no interest at all in this ruling or any kind of net censorship.
Re: Re:
I like abc gum?s term: The Content Cartel
(see a few posts up)
Re: Re:
> can we come up for a name for the big movie,
> tv and music companies other than “the
> entertainment industry”?
Big Copy?
“European directive 2000/31/EC clearly stating that ISPs may not be put under a general obligation to monitor the information they transmit and directive 2002/58/EC granting European citizens a right to privacy of communications.”
Source Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection
BT may be against this, but they were guilty of trying to implementing Phorm (spyware) on their networks back in 2009 which used DPI for targeted ad’s.
This ruling will hopefully be over ruled by a judge with at least an IQ in the high double digits.
A decent VPN is all you really need.
Re: Re:
Here’s the pdf of the EU Directive in question
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:178:0001:0001:EN:PDF
Re: Re:
Hopefully this idiocy gets undone by the legendary 2-digit IQ judge you mentioned. The directive you mentioned seems promising.
I wonder, isn’t encryption enough to fuck up dpi? I wonder when we’ll have to add https to each and every site we use lmao.
Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
Missed this bit, didn’t you? :
“The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist.”
Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
Do you know how a VPN works?
Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
Maybe his idea is just start adding any IP address that looks like a VPN to the list?
Re: Re: Re: @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
@ “Anonymous Coward”: “Do you know how a VPN works?”
Yes, I do. Do you grasp what this means?
“he studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist.”
IF a VPN can be /discovered/ as funneling to Newzbin, then it can be added. Now, discovering a /public/ VPN is easy. That’s what I meant, pardon me for not nailing down every last possibility for knowledgeable persons resolved to pirate. Set that aside.
If you’re in IT and talking about setting up a really “private” one, yot, that’ll work for /you/ and a small bunch of pals. Not a general solution. And it may be vulnerable to DPI, eventually. IF it’s somehow discovered that your company’s network is dodging around the Newzbin block, that’ll probably annoy responsible persons. At worst, by blocking, er, “public” VPNs, they’ll still stymy many pirates.
Back at ya, AC: see any flaw in my argument?
Re: Re: Re:2 @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
Strange I thought that meant if a URL/IP address redirected to Newsbin2 then they must be added…. to me the words that lead to Newzbin seem quite specific.
Re: Re: Re:2 @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
So you start by saying that yes you do understand and then go on to explain how you don’t. Nice work.
Re: Re: Re:2 @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
VPNs don’t funnel anything. They provide a service. A private network. Are you really saying that this judge just gave the studios the power to remove any private network from the internet just to prevent the possibility that someone might at some time get access to a newzbin site?
I bet they could monetize that power… Hey Microsoft, want to kick all of Googles telecommuters out of there network?
Re: Re: Re:2 @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
“Back at ya, AC: see any flaw in my argument?”
i dont really see the argument in your flaw
Re: Re: Re:2 @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
> that’ll probably annoy responsible persons
When exactly did it become illegal to “annoy responsible persons”?
Re: Re: Re:2 @ "A decent VPN is all you really need."
their efforts a month ago resulted in this
boingboing.net/2011/09/21/newzbin2-releases-censorware-busting-client.html
their most recent efforts will result in more of the same, probably even more effective permanent fixtures. Put up walls and tunnels will be dug.
So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
>>> “The judge seems to say that since BT is a commercial enterprise, and profits from people using its services to infringe, it must pay. That’s ridiculous. Just because people use BT’s service to break the law, shouldn’t make BT responsible for the costs of stopping user activities.”
Well, someone has to pay. I’d guess the expenses are small, and in any case, will be “passed along” to users. But taking your notion to logical extreme: we shouldn’t jail any criminals because the public only has to pay for that.
>>> “Next up, rather than just block URLs, BT has to block the URLs using intrusive, privacy-destroying deep packet inspecting… and “re-route” IP addresses.”
YOT, the deep-packet inspection gadgetry and or software has been put in place, just as I’ve been saying and many here don’t want to acknowledge.
>>> “The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist.”
This too is a logical step. As I’ve /tried/ to get across to you who think you’ll have an easy time dodging and continuing to pirate, they’re WAY ahead of you, already know the holes and will plug them up.
Now, most lamentably lame solution ever is:
“Bt Should go nuclear on this.
Richard (profile), Oct 26th, 2011 @ 5:16am
Simply pull the plug on it’s whole operation – and refuse to put it back until the ruling is reversed.
The threat should be enough.”
BT is NOT going to do that, not least because not actually much burdened, and in /any/ event gov’t can just nationalize the operation, I’ve no doubt would because considered a vital part of operations.
Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Of course it’s in place. Not every ISP has it, but certainly the government does. That doesn’t mean that encryption and/or proxies cannot bypass it. Luckily, here in the good ol US of A we have a constitutional right to anonymous speech. I’m sure the UK will figure it out eventually.
You can’t remove the tools without infringing on legitimate anonymous free speech, as SCOTUS has expressly ruled a Constitutional right.
You cannot provide an automated tool to remove content without giving those whose intent is to censor/limit political discourse a strong tool to keep us uninformed.
Us sane people have decided that a strong guarantee of free speech is worth any copyright infringement that might come along with it.
I personally don’t care about your piracy strawman. I don’t participate and it’s not my problem. What I do care about is censorship, corporate bullying, and some semblance of a level playing when monied special interests compete with the interest of the greater general public. I care about our economy and our democracy.
If people want to have silly fights about silly songs and videos, let them. Leave my privacy to me. Leave my right to speak freely and hear others speech unfettered alone and until those monied interests understand that these are non negotiable to a large portion of the people, I will take pleasure in watching them fail.
Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
@ “A Guy”: I’m going to have to write a standard disclaimer to paste in as signature, since you people persist in going crazy when I merely state FACTS.
>>> “I personally don’t care about your piracy strawman. I don’t participate and it’s not my problem. What I do care about is censorship, corporate bullying, and some semblance of a level playing when monied special interests compete with the interest of the greater general public. I care about our economy and our democracy.”
I don’t raise a “piracy strawman”: that’s the subject matter used to justify the blocking. But I can’t see any “censorship” in blocking /linking/ to infringing content: it’s a logical next step in the copyright/piracy battle. Effect, if any, on “free speech” is /semi/ collateral damage. In my view, it’s actually the intent of gov’t allied with corporations to use “piracy” for excuse. So have to inform you that I agree with you, at least past a point. And it’s the UK under discussion: serfs of England don’t actually have any rights, only privileges. But of course that’s coming here.
Re: Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Then I have to ask… what do you hope to gain by arguing against piracy here?
Most pirates aren’t thoughtful enough to read or care about blogs like this. You can shout the sky is falling until you are blue in the face but the vast majority of those who do violate copyright will never hear you.
Wouldn’t a more productive use of your time and energy be to shout (figuratively of course) at the lawmakers that increased copyright protections are not worth limiting our right to free speech instead?
It’s there job to listen to their constituents… even if they often don’t do it very well.
Re: Re: Re:2 So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
@ “A Guy”: “…what do you hope to gain by arguing against piracy here?”
Not much. But as Mike Masnick doesn’t present cases either honestly — or practical solution — then I’m opposed on general principles. Here, for instance, I don’t agree that “censorship” is accurate: it’s a site that has nothing except infringing content. And Mike’s basic “give away and pray” (no matter how often denied that’s what he has) model for solution is ridiculous. There’s also the howling mad assertion that piracy /helps/ the biz. With such easy targets, it’s fun. — And I’m /still/ not convinced that Mike isn’t an industry shill, because his arguments are neither consistent nor weighty.
Re: Re: Re:3 So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
> Here, for instance, I don’t agree that
> “censorship” is accurate: it’s a site that
> has nothing except infringing content.
Bullshit.
Newzbin is a Usenet portal and Usenet consists of literally tens of thousands of different newsgroups, covering almost every conceivable subject– from classic cars to politics to surfing. The vast majority (90%+) are text-only discussion groups with no infringing content whatsoever. Only a very small percentage are binary groups that can transfer files (pictures, sound files, video files, etc.).
So rather than containing “nothing except infringing content” as you claim, it’s actually the exact opposite. Usenet is *mostly* non-infringing speech which would be completely protected if this were in the US. Dismissing it as ‘collateral damage’ in order to get at the minority of pirated content is a complete legal non-starter.
Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Adding IPs to a block list is not “WAY ahead” of anyone. You people seem to think an IP address is a lot more then it is. The IP is not the content, it is not the person, it is not identifying. It is part of a route for internet data to flow through.
Re: Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
Dont bother. He thinks he knows and understands everything. If you actually correct him he will attack you and blame it on the mole people/Cher conspiracy. The man is all powerful and they will win also the law is correct because its the law anyone who disagrees with this is a evil criminal and their opinion doesnt matter.
Re: So, just "route around" it! Where are your solutions when needed?
> Well, someone has to pay.
And it doesn’t even occur to you that Big Copy– the ones pushing for this whole thing, after all– should be the ones to do so?
> I’d guess the expenses are small
If they’re so small, then Big Copy shouldn’t have a problem paying them.
> and in /any/ event gov’t can just nationalize the
> operation
Sure, I suppose the government could resort to outright theft. I’d hardly call that a rational solution, however.
DPI
Also, isn’t this form of DPI technically a legalised form of phone hacking, but used to instead spy on all BT Broadband customers.
I guess that’s this will be OK though as it’s been fully endorsed by the corporations….I mean government.
But Mike, this is just one step to a stable dictatorship… err, ‘democracy’, don’t you like stability?
After all look at Russia, they used to have evil government run censorship to let dictators control people. Now Russia makes the news media censor themselves, and thanks to that censorship Russia’s ‘democracy’ has a stable 1 party rule (people who formerly were part of the KGB) with nonexistent opposition.
We've already routed around it...
…which I’m sure will surprise nobody. This was anticipated and prepared for.
Notice how the authorities seem to think “taking” something from someone will fix the problem. The fail starts with not understanding the problem; You can’t deprive something from someone that is infinitely reproducible.
The problem is, people do not respect artificial limitations on infinite goods. Right or wrong, good or evil, doesn’t matter to your average Joe. If it is infinity reproducible, then it can’t be theft, and if it’s not theft, then it’s not wrong. You can paint all the silly shill slogans about lost sales you want, you have to convince your average burger eating 18-40 year old that knows 10 times more about it than the dumb ass presenting/passing the law, that he should not be doing what he’s doing. Good luck with that.
Removing a copy (website, domain, etc) of something that is infinite is a total waste of time and money. It’s like smacking a water balloon with a hammer, all the water is still there, it’s just harder to find now. All there doing is fragmenting the problem into impossible to find little pieces..
Re: Re:
“It’s like smacking a water balloon with a hammer”
Thats my new favourite quote.. thanks!
Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
I’ll put some mere facts here to confuse you freetards, from:
http://newzbin.com/browse/category/p/movies/
“Displaying 1 to 50 of 143,386 reports”
FIrst two were “Transformers” (2011) and “Great Muppet Caper” (1981).
Clicking the latter to avoid the slightest taint from “Transformers”, I got to a log-in page where read:
“Newzbin is a member-only site (see signup page). You need an account to proceed.”
That requirement by Newzbin undermines your “free speech” defense notion in two ways:
1st, it’s NOT a public information site: they “charge” something to join, I’m not going to find what, but even if pnly eyeballs on ads and an email address, that’s charging.
2nd, the non-public nature gives it the air of a criminal conspiracy. Users “agree” to join a club that’s based solely on copyright infringement. — There’s probably VERY little non-infringing material. — And whether the links as such aren’t /technically/ infringing in fullest legalistic weenie word-wiggling, they’re absolutely connected to infringement, and it’s just sleazy to be profiting from that.
Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
If you didn’t have your head up your ass, you might have understood the actual objections to this. The effect on actual free speech on site unrelated to newzbin (such as those hosted on shared servers with blocked IPs), the potential abuses by both industry and government, the collateral damage and the fact that despite all this it almost certainly won’t reduce piracy. Not to mention that the resulting higher prices having a potential chilling effect on legitimate uses of the internet (including, ironically, legal entertainment services which may result in lower profits for those trying to block Newzbin).
But yeah, you found a couple of copyrighted movies on Newzbin that someone might profit from so that’s all OK then…
Once you start listening to the ACTUAL objections instead of assuming that people are trying to support the actions of Newzbin and other “pirate” destinations, then maybe you’ll understand the problems before it’s too late.
Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
Paul, if you sleep with the dogs, you get fleas.
Hosting companies will be much less likely to give a home to scammy or illegal sites if they think they will actually get blocked and lose customers over it. When it starts costing them money to accept to host this crap, they will quickly shy away from it.
As for “a couple of copyrighted movies on Newzbin”, you have to understand that their business model is pretty much the same as most of the file lockers out there. They don’t upload offending material themselves, but they are more than happy to accept payment for “access” to it. They are still profiting from copyright infringement, they just try to pull a cloak of deniability over their actions. In the end, you can stand back and see exactly what they are doing.
The actual objections would be trying to give clearly illegal sites a free pass because they are “on the internet”. Moves like this in the UK shows that this just isn’t going to be tolerated any longer.
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
“They don’t upload offending material themselves, but they are more than happy to accept payment for “access” to it.”
its free turd-sandwich and do you see any ads? http://newzbin.com/
Look at all the money they make by……well something, billions man its billions!
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
“Hosting companies will be much less likely to give a home to scammy or illegal sites if they think they will actually get blocked and lose customers over it.”
Scammy and illegal by whose terms? As with many of the recent cases we’ve seen, they could be perfectly legal in the country where the site is based. Are you suggesting that, say, a Spanish hosting company will start refusing business from sites legal in Spain on the off-chance they might lose business from the UK?
“As for “a couple of copyrighted movies on Newzbin”, you have to understand that their business model is pretty much the same as most of the file lockers out there”
I understand and don’t care. Newzbin could be the most evil people on the planet making a fortune from 100% guaranteed piracy. That still wouldn’t clear the objections I stated above.
Try to understand that while I disagree completely with your assessment of Newzbin, it’s irrelevant to my assessment of the problems here.
“The actual objections would be trying to give clearly illegal sites a free pass because they are “on the internet”.”
So, you ignore my points and go with your pre-conceived notions instead. Typical.
Re: Re: Re:2 Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
@ “PaulT”: “Try to understand that while I disagree completely with your assessment of Newzbin, it’s irrelevant to my assessment of the problems here.”
Well, in turn, try to understand that I disagree in large part with your assessment of the the problems here. That’s why the title of my post. WHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP? State for me /exactly/ what/s being censored, not some hypothetical.
But, as you equate more than 143,000 with “a couple”, I doubt that you’re inclined to actually try.
Re: Re: Re:3 Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
This.
Re: Re: Re:3 Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
“State for me /exactly/ what/s being censored, not some hypothetical.”
Sadly, that’s the problem. Since the censorship hasn’t happened yet, I can’t tell you when or where it will happen. Whenever such data is revealed, I will discuss it, but all I can say at that point is “yes, you frigging idiots, THIS is what I was talking about”.
I tell you what, the real thing that annoys me here is telling people of the potential dangers of shit like this, and then not even getting an apology when it turns out to be true. You people just continue to attack me for “piracy” when I point out the next nakedly obvious danger.
Meanwhile, piracy is not affected.
“But, as you equate more than 143,000 with “a couple”, I doubt that you’re inclined to actually try.”
Do you want to look at how many that is vs. the number of non-infringing Usenet posts? The ratio might be surprising, even this late in the day when spam has outnumbered real posts on non-binary groups. Again, Newzbin’s activities are not at issue, the crap you’re trying to promote in order to save corporations from actually understanding the internet are.
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
“Hosting companies will be much less likely to give a home to scammy or illegal sites if they think they will actually get blocked and lose customers over it. When it starts costing them money to accept to host this crap, they will quickly shy away from it.”
Hosting companies wont exist at all if you make them responsible for policing everything they host.
Using your logic, the police should be charging the owners of the private toll roads, as well as the actual people caught, for speeding. These private tool roads are designed to get you where your going fast, so they have to know the law is being broken, they must be facilitating it. They are making a small fortune on speeders! Yes yes… i know there are speed limit signs and police.. just like there are copyright laws and DMCA take down notices… Funny how we don’t see people lining the streets in protest of these law breaking private toll road operators……
Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
“1st, it’s NOT a public information site: they “charge” something to join, I’m not going to find what, but even if pnly eyeballs on ads and an email address, that’s charging.”
http://newzbin.com/account/signup/ :
Registration at Newzbin is easy to do and absolutely free. The benefits of signing up allow you to customise the site to your preference, and expands the capabilities of the browsing and search engines.
some great investigative journalism blue keep it up
Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
oh they charge email address. So every forum on the internet is private and can be shut down at will. You sir should work for the DOJ
Re: Re: Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
oh and any newspaper, since you have to pay to read it
and the NYT with their paywall
any site the requires a login for comments
I like your logic its fun to be insane.
Re: Censorship? WHERE? See NO actual speech, just invitations to pirate!
> That requirement by Newzbin undermines your
> “free speech” defense notion in two ways:
> 1st, it’s NOT a public information site: they
> “charge” something to join, I’m not going to
> find what, but even if pnly eyeballs on ads
> and an email address, that’s charging.
Please point me to the court decision or legal principle which says that the moment you set up a private club and/or charge access for membership, you lose your free speech rights.
> 2nd, the non-public nature gives it the air
> of a criminal conspiracy
My local golf club is a non-public (private) club which charges people for membership. Does that have ‘air of criminal conspiracy’, too? Does the fact that it’s a private club mean the people who run it and join it have lost their right to free speech?
You’re a cartoon.
Privilege, not Privelege.
“Why should the entertainment industry have to adapt to a changing world when it can run to court, and have the court force tech companies to pretend that new technologies don’t exist. “
What changed in the world was that illegal content became more readily available.
What “new technologies” are you speaking of? An encrypted connection to an indexing service that allows pirates to find illegally copied content? Is that innovation?
You keep talking about these pirate sites, like they are providing something new, but the only thing new that they are providing is new ways to hide illegal activity.
I guess if you are in the crime business this would be advancement. If you are an honest consumer, these services provide you with very little. The majority of the traffic on these sites is the transfer of illegal content.
Re: Re:
“What changed in the world was that illegal content became more readily available.”
That’s all that’s changed in the 15 or so years they’ve been trying to kill borderless digital delivery of content instead of learning to use it for their own gain? Interesting take.
Re: Re:
“What changed in the world was that illegal content became more readily available. “
no what changed in the world is content became more readily available. The content cartel refuses to use these new avenues to deliver content to people. So people share content with each other.
“You keep talking about these pirate sites, like they are providing something new, but the only thing new that they are providing is new ways to hide illegal activity.”
They provide the service the industry refuses to provide. Of course refusing to make use of new content delivery methods that customers crave is not the only thing they do, they also try to cripple any legal service that does try to satisfy the market.
Dunno about privelege unless you mean privilege
Can’t read an article with a misspelled word in the title.
Just checked the newzbin site got this “Failed to load page conten” interesting
"Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
From theinquirer.net
Lord Puttnam, President of Film Distributors’ Association, welcomed the news, along with a load of other rights holders, publishers and media firms.
“This is a very significant day for the UK’s creative industries,” he said. “The law is clear. Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped.”
—————-
Heh, heh. I like the phrase. Long wondered exactly how those file lockers manage to operate when they boast petabytes of content. Legalities is all, and those are turning. Law moves glacially.
Re: "Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
It works like any physical locker does.
You put your stuff in there, and if you wish to give other people access you may.
I bet public storage has a lot of illegal goods in their units, we should probably shut them down. Or does this logic not apply IRL?
Re: "Industrial online piracy is illegal and can be stopped."
But it isn’t a “very significant day for the UK’s creative industries”.
I am a BT Broadband customer who within a few days will find that a particular NZB indexing site will be unavailable to me unless I use some sort of bypass… I won’t because that site is one of hundreds of sites all doing the same thing, indexing NZB files that I can just as easily locate by reading the headers of each post on Usenet.
Feel free to think that this is some turning point in the “war on filesharing” but it’s a hollow pointless victory as it won’t make a jot of difference.
If they really want to make a difference, provide a service that offers me something that I’m prepared to pay for. Right now I pay over ?30 a month for my unlimted bandwidth and Usenet access… I’m willingt to pay, they just don’t have anything of value to offer me.
Guns?
I have an idea. Since firearms can be used to commit crimes, will there be laws passing to mandate firearm producers to include small GPS device to report their location and whether they have been shot? The firearm owners would be responsible to recharge the batteries before they’re running out or that’ll put them into trouble.
I think such law would make more sense than the “net censorship” ones.
Re: Guns?
HOLD THE PHONE?!?! Firearms can be used to commit crimes??
Re: Re: Guns?
Why, yes, they can. How do you think I can afford this computer? On the other hand, baseball bats are so much less noisy, and as long as you wear a cap and carry a mitt, nobody will trouble you as to what you intend to do with it. So, it cuts both ways. Oh, speaking of cut, there are some fine knives out there, some of which can field-dress a full-grown man in less than five minutes. But that’s going off on a tangent.