Web Blocking's Slippery Slope: It's Never 'Just' One Site

from the thin-end-of-the-wedge dept

Even against a background of repeated attempts to censor the Net, it's still possible to become a little complacent about some of the actions being taken by the copyright industries. For example, many people probably feel that blocking a site like The Pirate Bay isn't really a problem because, after all, it's just one site, right?

A post on TorrentFreak explains why that's a dangerous attitude:

Copyright activists often warn that a ruling in one case has the potential to be leveraged elsewhere and the wedge can become thicker frighteningly quickly if issues aren't dealt with early on. It seems that a case currently underway in Ireland involving The Pirate Bay is proving that assessment correct.

At the moment customers of the Irish ISP Eircom cannot access The Pirate Bay since an uncontested 2009 High Court ruling orders the ISP to block the site. But that's just one ISP, some people will say, and it's easy to switch to another. Nice try.
That's because the recording labels want the Web block to be extended to other ISPs. Again, some might say: well, it's still just one site. But here's where things start to get serious. It's not just about one site any more:
The plaintiffs (technically EMI, Ireland) have told the court that they are looking to achieve more than just a blockade of the world's biggest torrent site. In fact, they have a list of 260 other "objectionable" websites they have identified that they would also like blocked if this attack on The Pirate Bay is a success.

What started out with Eircom agreeing to have The Pirate Bay blocked could now potentially lead to a few other Irish ISPs having to follow suit. In a worst case scenario that could play out to all ISPs having to block 260 other sites on the music industry's hit-list. Which sites? Only they know.
And of course, if the industry manages to get the court to agree to 260 sites being blocked, you can be sure that it will be back with another few hundred, or a few thousand, at some point in the future. Because once the court rules that Web blocking is acceptable, it's easier to go back to ask for more censorship, citing that judgement. That's why it's important to remember it's never 'just' one Web block.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 9:09am

    I think we could block EMI and the likes for making available content that promotes violence, sexual irresponsibility, drugs.... Sounds fair right? After all the filters lost their initial intent anyways... (for the children, right?)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 10:45am

    FUD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 10:54am

    Re:

    Yes, that is what your comment is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    Re:

    History.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    S. T. Stone, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 10:58am

    Re:

    Not really. The RIAA holds a lot of sway when it comes to copyright law -- and the law itself, it seems -- so it can pull this kind of crap with frightening regularity.

    And this doesn’t just apply to Internet blocks. It applies to other forms of censorship.

    ‘Oh, sure, we’ll just burn this one book…’

    ‘Yeah, don’t worry, we’ll just pull this one album off store shelves…’

    ‘Nobody’ll notice if we ban this one game…’

    You’ll find the road to Hell paved with good intentions, but you’ll also notice that it starts with a single brick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:07am

    And you just know they had tens of people hashing it out over hundreds of hours to whittle the list down to their get-our-foot-in-the-door 260 domains.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:11am

    Levity

    "It's Never 'Just' One Site" - Its like a potato chip, cant have just one.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:16am

    First they came for the Pirate Bay

    First they came for The Pirate Bay but I said nothing because I was not a pirate.

    Then they came for sites linking to infringing content but I said nothing because didn't use these sites.

    Then they came for blogs that were critical or embarrassing to them . . .

    Then they came for Google . . .

    Then they wanted streamlined shutdown switches for any internet site.

    Then they wanted request filtering done at the ISP before requests leave the ISP.

    Then they wanted a gigantic OFF switch for the entire Internet. But by that time, nobody was able to express any complaints, and so it was made law because such a measure was so wildly popular among the people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    bob, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:23am

    260 site list

    I'm fairly confident that those will be very successful sites if the internet can get their hands on the list and publish it. I mean, I'd go and check them out, they sounds like they might be interesting.
    banning stuff just makes some people want to go see what all the fuss is about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:35am

    I am betting that list contains.

    google
    facebook
    youtube
    techdirt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:36am

    Re:

    Yeah, about that.

    FUD is supposed to stand for "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt". Aren't "Uncertainty" and "Doubt" redundant in the context where FUD tends to be used?

    I propose that we remove the redundancy and simply drop the last letter.

    I foresee no problems whatsoever with the adoption of this acronym.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:42am

    Re:

    Could be, but are you willing to bet your freedom on that belief?

    The question should be: Are they getting a declaration on all of the sites in a single trial or are they having to file separate lawsuits? If it is the first one you are definately wrong. If it is the second, I say good riddance to EMI! They are already low on funds. Now they want to run up 260 trials at thousands of irish pounds each? Goodness gracious, but they are desperate and cracy enough to do it...

    FUD is a double assumption so far. Educate me, will ya, so the article can be based on facts!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:43am

    Re:

    Guaranteed TD is on the list, I mean OOTB probably added it to the list himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:46am

    neither the various governments nor the entertainment industries are in the least bit interested in anything bad that has already happened, is happening or will happen to privacy, freedom or human rights through censorship or any other prevention implemented. as long as it is only 'the people' that are affected, they think all is perfectly ok!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:47am

    Re:

    Along with bandcamp, soundcloud, and any other site that offers musicians and filmmakers an alternative, non-label outlet for their stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jan 9th, 2013 @ 11:57am

    Re: Re:

    Jamendo, Pledge music, Kickstarter etc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Re: FUD

    FUD is a three pronged attack, it's not redundant.

    Instill the Fear of 'something' in your audience...

    Make your audience Uncertain about the potential, or the consequences, or what might happen...

    Make your audience Doubt their own views, knowledge, understanding based on the irrational fear and uncertainty...

    It's not about being redundant, it's about obliterating your opponents confidence by making them doubt their own views when you have no facts on your side...

    Politicians are great at spreading the FUD....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 9th, 2013 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: FUD

    So, by your own assertion, what the RIAA is doing is FUD.

    Good to know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 10th, 2013 @ 12:57am

    Re: First they came for the Pirate Bay

    *ahem*

    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Martin Niemöller

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 10th, 2013 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: FUD

    what the RIAA is doing is FUD


    Yes, FUD has been a standard tactic of the *AAs for pretty much as long as they have existed. It's one of the main reasons that they have no credibility whatsoever with most people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This