A former ISP for The Pirate Bay, Black Internet, was told by a Swedish court that it had to stop hosting the site a while back. The Pirate Bay quickly switched to a different provider, but Black Internet went to court to challenge the legality of being told whom it can and cannot host. It appears that the Swedish appeals court ruling on the matter went beyond just telling Black Internet that it can't host The Pirate Bay, it also told the ISP that it must block all of its customers from reaching the site, even though the site is no longer hosted by Black Internet. It seems like yet another attempt by courts trying to play whac-a-mole in an incredibly ineffective manner that is likely to do more damage than good. Completely blocking people from reaching a site, even if they have legitimate reasons for reaching it, doesn't help anyone. Those who are interested in infringing on copyrights will still figure out plenty of ways to do so. They'll route around the blocks or go to other sites. So what does this do other than create an inconvenience and set a bad precedent for any ISP? Update: Thanks to folks in the comments for pointing out the update, where the court is claiming that Black Internet misinterpreted the decision, which says that Black is prohibited from providing "internet access" and there's a bit of a debate over what "internet access" means. It appears that Black interpreted that to mean "access" while the judge meant just hosting.

The Dutch "anti-piracy" group BREIN has been one of the most aggressive in bringing all kinds of lawsuits in attempting to use basically any means possible to block various torrent sites. It has sued ISPs telling them they need to block The Pirate Bay and it has sued The Pirate Bay, telling it that it needs to block all Dutch users from accessing the site. On the ISP front, it appears that a few Dutch ISPs are teaming up to challenge the demand that it needs to block foreign sites like The Pirate Bay:

"The basic principle of the Internet is that ISPs pass on traffic to their customers unfiltered, they are merely a gateway," says Niels Huijbregts, spokesman for XS4ALL. "The Pirate Bay website is not hosted on a Ziggo server, so Ziggo can't be held responsible for restricting access to the website. BREIN is targeting the wrong people."

While this makes sense, it seems like every time we hear about court cases involving BREIN, the group comes out on top. So if I had to guess, I'm assuming that BREIN will win again. Hopefully I'll be surprised and the Dutch courts will pick up some common sense somewhere along the way.

Jaime Novoa was the first of a few of you to point us to a series of links about how French ISP Orange has started offering a service to let subscribers pay 2 euros to "block" file sharing services on their connection. The theory, of course, is that this service "protects" you from getting any strikes. Of course, you could also do that for free -- by limiting yourself and encrypting your connection, but that's a separate story. Beyond the fact that this system involves a secret blacklist that could very well block legitimate uses as well, lots of folks started digging into the service and discovered that the software in question is basically malware and ridiculously insecure that more or less broadcasts the private info of anyone who uses it for anyone else to see. So, not only is the program costly, limiting and useless, but it's a massive security and privacy problem as well. All because of three strikes/Hadopi.

For many years, we've seen the entertainment industry make totally bogus and unsubstantiated claims about file sharing sites being hotbeds of child pornography in an effort to get them to regulate or shut down those services. Of course, the actual evidence shows that file sharing porn is no worse than what's on the wider internet. But that doesn't stop the entertainment industry from making such bogus claims -- and it seems like they're gleefully admitting it these days. Jamie Love points us to an account of an event in Sweden, entitled "Sweden -- A Safe Haven for Pirates?" put on by the US Chamber of Commerce, where someone from the Danish "Anti-Piracy" group spoke out about how great child pornography is, because it makes it easy for them to get politicians to block or shut down file sharing sites.

"Child pornography is great," the speaker at the podium [Johan Schluter] declared enthusiastically. "It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites".

Of course, this is no surprise, but having him say so directly is a bit surprising. He goes on to admit that the entertainment industry is planning to use child porn as a wedge to demand "a giant filter" for copyright:

"One day we will have a giant filter that we develop in close cooperation with IFPI and MPA. We continuously monitor the child porn on the net, to show the politicians that filtering works. Child porn is an issue they understand."

Of course, those filters don't actually work, and using them to force entire sites to be blocked, despite them having a relatively tiny proportion of such content isn't just dishonest and underhanded, but dangerous. We're all in favor of trying to stop child porn, but you do that by focusing on the source, not by putting up filters willy-nilly in a misguided attempt to get politicians to also protect your business model.

Either way, it's incredibly disgusting to have anyone claim that child porn is "great," just because it can be improperly exploited for the sake of protecting another industry's business model. That he's basically admitting that he doesn't remotely care about stopping child pornography, but prefers to use it to his advantage is downright sickening.

See update below. Well, well, well. You may recall back in 2008, when EA used annoying DRM on Spore, consumers revolted by giving the game one-star reviews on Amazon. There was some controversy when Amazon deleted some of those reviews -- but it claimed it was just a glitch (the algorithm treated so many rapid one-star reviews as an attack of some kind). However, it's now become quite popular when someone selling books or games does something stupid, for people take to Amazon to express their displeasure in one-star reviews.

So what's happening with Assassin's Creed 2 -- the Ubisoft game that is using incredibly annoying DRM and has had trouble keeping its servers up. Well... reader Aaron points out that for the PC version of the game Amazon appears to be showing no reviews at all. Either it deleted them or has proactively blocked the reviews. Of course, the reviews somehow are magically working for the PlayStation3 and Xbox versions of the game... Funny how that works.

Update: Some are pointing out that since the PC version isn't officially released until tomorrow, that could explain the lack of reviews on Amazon. They also note that elsewhere, such as in the UK, there are numerous angry one-star reviews...

Last summer, due to a DDOS attack emanating from IP addresses connected to 4chan, AT&T temporarily blocked access to 4chan... without giving a full explanation for why. If you know 4chan, you know why this is a bad idea. It took very little time for the 4chan community to retaliate (and, as you know, no one "retaliates" like 4chan "retaliates"), and only a few days later, when AT&T explained what happened, did 4chan back off. So, now comes the news this weekend that Verizon Wireless is blocking 4chan (this is just Verizon Wireless, not Verizon), and the company seems to be making the same mistake. No clear explanation of why. I'm sure there's a reason that Verizon Wireless can give, but not explaining that immediately seems like a huge mistake. Update: Not surprising, but looks like the same reasoning as AT&T's temporary block last year. Still doesn't explain why the company wasn't upfront in explaining it.

We've already described how ridiculously hypocritical it is for various newspapers to block UK aggregator service NewsNow from linking to their articles in its paid subscription service, but apparently it's a difficult concept for some to grasp. The UK's Daily Mirror has now started blocking access to NewsNow's crawlers, claiming that its only problem is the fact that NewsNow makes money off subscriptions. If it wasn't making any money, the paper wouldn't have a problem.

Ok, quick question time. Does the Daily Mirror make money off of subscriptions? Oh, they do? And do they pay their sources on which they build their articles? No? Then doesn't that make the Daily Mirror a huge hypocrite? Why, yes, it does.

NewsNow makes money selling a subscription service, absolutely. But it's not doing it by misusing anyone's content. It's pointing subscribers to where they can go directly to the source. It's providing a service to give The Daily Mirror more relevant traffic. At no cost to The Daily Mirror. And they want to block that? Meanwhile, The Daily Mirror makes its money by writing about individuals and companies and the news they create. And it doesn't pay them anything either. In fact, many companies are happy to be written up (it's called PR). In the case of NewsNow, it's effectively providing PR for The Daily Mirror, and The Daily Mirror's management appears too incompetent to realize this.

I am still not convinced that we need special laws mandating net neutrality, but I find the arguments from telcos that no one would ever block sites or services to be highly unbelievable. There have been cases of it happening in the past, and there are cases of it happening now. Shocklee points us to the news that a Russian ISP has been blocking websites that the government has dubbed "extremist," even though they include political opposition sites like Garry Kasparov’s Kasparov.ru, Solidarity's Rusolidarnost.ru and the National Bolshevik Party's Nazbol.ru. Combine that with attempts in the UK and Australia to give the government the ability to make up secret lists of sites that should be blocked by ISPs, and you can see why some believe it's important, as a fundamental principle, that ISPs should allow access to any site. US telcos say that they are in the business of encouraging free speech, and they would be crazy to block sites, but what we're seeing around the world suggests that there are times when ISPs do decide to block sites, and it's often due to political pressure from governing parties.

I'm wondering if there's more to this, because it seems rather "un-Google-like." The makers of a set top box that can display internet content are complaining that Google is blocking them from displaying YouTube content, unless they agree to "partner" and commit to buying lots of ads (the amount is in dispute). If this sounds quite a bit like the ongoing battle between Hulu and Boxee, you might be right. However, in that case, at least you could sort of understand the (misguided) thinking behind it, since Hulu is owned by the colossally short-sighted content companies. But what's Google's excuse? If all these set top boxes are really doing is accessing free internet content and formatting it better for a TV, why stop it? They're really no different than accessing content via a computer and a browser -- it's just that the "computer" is a set top box and the "browser" is formatted for a television. That shouldn't require a special agreement, or any sort of ad buy commitment. Update: Received a confused and angry email from YouTube PR linking us to the very Wired article we linked to and demanding we add their PR statement (which is already in the Wired article). However, it does not actually answer the questions raised or change the point of this post. The fact that YouTube restricts set tops from accessing the content still does not make sense.

I'm heading over to Norway in the next few days to give a talk at the Nordic Music Week event, and it's nice to see that the courts in that country seem to recognize how silly the IFPI's demands that major ISP Telenor block access to The Pirate Bay are. Telenor was smart enough to fight back, and the courts have now said that Telenor is not liable for what its users do, and should not have to block access to a site like The Pirate Bay. From TorrentFreak on the ruling:

The court ruled that Telenor is not contributing to any infringements of copyright law when its subscribers use The Pirate Bay, and therefore there is no legal basis for forcing the ISP to block access to the site.... In making its decision, the court also had to examine the repercussions if it ruled that Telenor and other ISPs had to block access to certain websites. This, it said, is usually the responsibility of the authorities and handing this task to private companies would be "unnatural."

Good to see a court recognize that the entertainment industry doesn't own the internet, and shouldn't be the one to determine what is and what is not legal online.