Free Speech

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
censorship, free speech, newzbin, uk

Companies:
bt, mpaa



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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    AJ (profile), 26 Oct 2011 @ 6:37am

    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..

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.