UK Pirate Party Pressured Into Taking Down Proxy… Leading To Other Proxies Opening Up

from the if-you-need-to-whac-a-mole dept

It’s really quite ridiculous how much time, money and effort the various arms of the entertainment industry have spent trying to get certain countries to “block” The Pirate Bay. Every single time it happens, it seems to drive up traffic to the site. Those who want to use it don’t suddenly decide “gee, now I’m going to start buying what I formerly pirated.” They just think “where’s a proxy to get to the site” and they find one easily enough because they’re everywhere. The industry then goes on a wild goose chase seeking to take them all down which is impossible. So they get a few morale-boosting wins… and everyone still gets to go to The Pirate Bay. Couldn’t that time be spent more effectively?

The latest is that, over in the UK, where BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) was threatening to sue the leaders of the UK Pirate Party personally for setting up a proxy, the Party eventually shut it down knowing that the costs of fighting such a legal battle would be extreme and damaging.

But, of course, it’s unlikely that actually stopped anyone from reaching TPB, which is available through a variety of other means. In fact, soon after the UK Pirate Party took down its proxy, the Pirate Parties in some other countries put up their own proxies (and, of course, there are tons of general proxies out there). BPI can try to go after these political parties in other countries, or it can demand that ISPs block those proxies also, but more and more will just keep popping up. And none of that will convince a single person to buy something they weren’t planning to buy in the first place. It just makes you wonder what they think they’re accomplishing.

Filed Under: bans, free speech, pirate party, proxy
Companies: the pirate bay

Three Strikes Is Out? UK Judges Rule Internet Ban Is 'Unreasonable', Even For Sex Offenders

from the it's-a-human-right dept

Last week, Techdirt wrote about a US teenager being banned from using the Internet until his 21st birthday as punishment for his involvement with some Web site break-ins. That seems incredibly harsh, and as Mike noted, earlier bans have been tossed out on the grounds that they were unreasonable.

And that is exactly what has just happened in the UK, as the Guardian reports:

Banning anyone from the internet is an “unreasonable” restriction, two appeal court judges have ruled, suggesting that access to a computer at home has become a basic human right.

The decision by Mr Justice Collins and Judge Nicholas Cooke QC signals judicial recognition of how pervasive digital communications are in an era when a multitude of services can be obtained online.

What makes this judgment even more interesting is that, as with cases in the US, it concerned a sex offender. Normally, these result in especially severe sentences. So for an Internet ban to be held to be “unreasonable” even here means that for far less serious offences — unauthorized sharing of copyright works, say — it is hard to see Net disconnection imposed by a lower UK court being upheld upon appeal.

That would seem to spell the end of the “three strikes and you’re out” approach in the UK. Of course, there are still plenty of other unjust ways of exacting collective punishment on families — throttling their Internet connection rather than cutting it off, for example — but it is nonetheless a hugely important decision. In particular, it seems bound to impact the UK’s Digital Economy Act, whose detailed implementation is still being discussed.

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

Filed Under: bans, human right, internet access, three strikes, uk

Facebook Bans User's Ad Campaigns For Displaying Google+ Ad

from the all-i-see-is-sand dept

There’s a longstanding myth about ostriches that, when frightened, they will bury their head in the sand and pretend the danger isn’t there. This, of course, is ridiculous. Such horribly unadaptive behavior would have been bred out of the species by the evolutionary process (or by whichever God you believe in tweaking his code a bit) as hungry African predators would have delighted in seeing stationary feathery meals. See, that isn’t how you behave when you’re threatened. You don’t just pretend like the threat doesn’t exist.

Unless you’re Facebook, of course.

As reported by CNET, apparently a user of both Facebook and Google+ wanted to cross-pollinate his social networking farms and, since Facebook is still the more fruitful territory at the moment, decided to take out an ad with Facebook to get folks to add him on Google+. These two are, of course competitors, currently vying for users attention and loyalty. Apparently Facebook believes the best way to do that is to not only block this gentleman’s Google+ ad, but all of his ads on Facebook. The notice he received?

Your account has been disabled. All of your adverts have been stopped and should not be run again on the site under any circumstances. Generally, we disable an account if too many of its adverts violate our Terms of Use or Advertising guidelines. Unfortunately we cannot provide you with the specific violations that have been deemed abusive. Please review our Terms of Use and Advertising guidelines if you have any further questions.

In other words, we’re banning your ads because we’re banning your ads. The CNET article tries to dig into Facebooks advertising TOS, but basically comes up with nothing other than that they reserve the right to ban for any reason including promoting competing products.

So Facebook, embroiled in a war to win the hearts and minds of internet users, is pretending that the war doesn’t exist. There is no Google+, at least not in Facebook-Land, where everything is milk, honey, and Farmville requests. We know why ostriches didn’t evolve this kind of behavior.

So what’s going to happen to Facebook if they keep their heads firmly entrenched in the sand?

Filed Under: advertising, bans, google
Companies: facebook, google

EA: Banned From Forums? Can't Play Single-Player Game Either

from the overkill dept

Tom Landry was the first of a bunch of you to send in the news that EA has taken forum banning to a new level. Obviously forums ban people all the time for whatever reason, but it appears that EA went way beyond just a forum banning in this case. First, the guy was banned for saying in the comments: “Have you sold your souls to the EA devil?” Seems pretty tame compared to some of the stuff that goes on in plenty of forums. But, whatever. If EA wants to be thin-skinned like that, that’s its own insecure decision. Where it goes overboard is that not only did the company ban him from the forums, but it also blocked him from activating a single-player game that he had purchased, Dragon Age II, from BioWare. In the thread where this is discussed, a company rep notes that this is EA’s policy, and since BioWare is a part of EA, this was done at a higher level:

EA Community bans come down from a different department and are the result of someone hitting the REPORT POST button. These bans can affect access to your game and/or DLC

That seems ripe for a lawsuit. Selling someone a video game for 50 euros (what the guy says he paid for it), and then telling him he can’t play it, even as a single player game on his own computer, because he said something mildly anti-EA in a forum? Honestly, all that really seems to say is that you should never “buy” (yeah, right, you didn’t “buy” anything) from EA since they can vindictively make whatever you bought stop working if someone who works there doesn’t like you. That seems like a much worse message than some forum person talking about “selling your soul.” Update: And of course, once the publicity came out on the story, EA is now claiming it was a glitch and has been fixed. Doesn’t change that this appears to be part of EA’s official policy, though (also, corrected the name of the game).

Filed Under: bans, bioware, forums, video games
Companies: ea

Hackers Claim They Can Unban Banned PS3s While Banning Unmodded PS3s

from the don't-mess-with-the-hackers dept

We recently noted that Sony had announced plans to ban any jailbroken PS3 from the PlayStation Network, because Sony apparently wants to punish people who want to put back features that Sony advertised and then removed. It appears that move may end up backfiring as well. Jay was the first of a few of you to point to a report that some hackers claim they’ve figured out how to unban banned PS3s and at the same time to issue bans on unmodded PS3s. There are some questions as to how accurate the report is, but if true, it would suggest another failed strategy by Sony. Will it ever realize that trying to clamp down on its own users is a bad idea?

Filed Under: bans, hacks, ps3
Companies: sony

UK May Reconsider COICA-Like Plan To Have ISPs Censor Websites Deemed Infringing

from the good-for-them dept

One part of the Digital Economy Act in the UK was that the UK government could have ISPs ordered to block certain websites deemed to be infringing upon copyrights. This is similar to what the US is trying to pass with COICA (or, already doing via Homeland Security’s domain name seizures). However, it appears that at least some folks in the government are realizing this is a dangerous idea, and they’re now exploring whether or not it’s actually a feasible plan. That’s better than just implementing it, of course. Perhaps most interesting is that this “rethink” was driven by a government website which asked the public to “nominate laws and regulations they would like to see abolished.” Apparently this was a big one. What a concept: having citizens in a democracy point out what laws they believed were unfair.

Filed Under: bans, coica, digital economy act, free speech, uk, websites

Kuwait Bans Cameras With Big Lenses — Because People Might Get Worried [Updated]

from the huh? dept

Update: And, um, this story just got odder as the original article has been updated to state that the reporter got it flat out wrong, and no such ban has been instituted by the Kuwaiti government. I’m not exactly sure how one goes about getting such basic information totally wrong, but consider the rest of this post here for posterity, rather than accuracy.

This one is just confusing. According to the LA Times, Kuwait has announced that cameras with big lenses (i.e., DSLRs) are banned for use in public in the country — with an exception for “journalism purposes.” If it seems unclear as to why DSLRs were singled out, while smaller point-and-shoots and camera phones are allowed, it appears that folks in Kuwait don’t understand it either. The best they can come up with is that many people haven’t been “exposed to art,” and won’t know what a big camera is for.

What most Kuwaiti photographers have come to wonder is how such a decision could be reached by authorities, especially considering that digital cameras and cell phone cameras have the same abilities. What most people think of photography as a hobby has become a bit misguided due to the fact that the country has so little exposure to art. While using a DSLR, passersby may wonder if the camera is being used for the wrong reasons…. What often happens is that a big black camera tends to worry people. Taking a picture of a stranger would seem like much less of an issue if you were using a more discreet camera or even a cell phone.

If you thought some laws in the US didn’t make much sense, at least you can be happy knowing that other countries are even more bizarre.

Filed Under: bans, cameras, kuwait

Turkey Lifts YouTube Ban… But Only After Someone Made Questionable Copyright Claim On 'Offending' Video

from the censorship-by-copyright dept

It’s been years since Turkey “banned” access to YouTube in the country, after some (apparently Greek) users uploaded a video making fun of the country’s founder, Ataturk (which is considered a crime in Turkey). The ban has been considered ridiculous by nearly everyone. Earlier this year, reporters started speaking up about how stupid the ban was, followed by Turkey’s own President, Abdullah Gul, complaining about the bans (via Twitter of all places), saying that he was against the ban on YouTube (and other parts of Google) and had asked the “responsible institutions for a solution.” The issue, apparently is that the bans come from a different part of the government — one that is highly bureaucratic, with a person who heads the (I kid you not) “Ataturk Thought Association,” claiming that the block is “about respect” for Ataturk and saying that she is “not bothered by the impact of the court decision.”

However, over the weekend the news came out that the YouTube ban has been lifted, with a bureaucrat in charge saying that “common sense prevailed.” At first, you might agree… until you read further. It appears by “common sense prevailed” — he doesn’t mean that the bureaucrats realized how ridiculous it is to ban an entire website based on one immature video uploaded by random users… but in that the video had been taken down off of YouTube. That’s because after saying that, he also said:

“I hope that they have also learned from this experience and the same thing will not happen again. YouTube will hopefully carry out its operations in Turkey within the limits of law in the future.”

So… what happened to the video? Well, it’s been taken down, but YouTube has stated that it had nothing to do with the takedown directly. Instead, YouTube is claiming that the video was taken down after someone made a copyright claim on the video, which resulted in the video being automatically pulled. However, YouTube is now “investigating whether this action is valid in accordance with our copyright policy.” Of course, the likely answers is that it is not. It’s doubtful that the guys who made and uploaded the video made a copyright claim on their own video, so it seems likely that someone made a bogus copyright claim and got the video taken down (it’s also potentially possible that something in the video violated someone else’s copyright, but no one seems to have suggested that). That could mean that the video will go back up shortly, and Turkey might just go back to banning YouTube again.

Filed Under: ataturk, bans, copyright, turkey
Companies: google, youtube

A Look At How Many People Have Been Kicked Offline In Korea On Accusations (Not Convictions) Of Infringement

from the one-strike dept

With the Hadopi three strikes program in France kicking into full speed, it may be worth jumping halfway around the world to South Korea, which put in place a very strict copyright law last year, that included the ability to kick people offline for accusations (not convictions) of file sharing. It’s worth noting, of course, that the reason South Korea put in place such a draconian copyright law was due to serious diplomatic pressure from the US as a part of a supposed “free trade” agreement between the two countries. It’s also worth pointing out that the trade agreement between South Korea and the US was, according to many, the basis for the initial draft of ACTA (though, obviously, it’s changed a lot since then).

So, now that the law has been in place for over a year, what’s been happening in South Korea? Well, it turns out that people are getting kicked offline for accusations of filing sharing — but worryingly, it appears they’re being kicked off with one strike, not three. Glyn Moody points us to a report on the data behind what’s going on in South Korea.

Now, it’s important to understand the specifics of the law there. There are two ways a user can have his or her account suspended. The first is if the Minister of Culture orders the ISP to suspend the user. However, this can only come after the user has been warned three times (hence: three strikes). However, there’s also a separate way, which is that the Copyright Commission can “recommend” that ISPs warn someone, block or delete materials believed to be infringing or suspend accounts. Deleting or suspending doesn’t require any prior notice or warnings or anything. Basically, the Commission says “we recommend you censor this content and/or suspend this user” and the ISPs then have a choice to make. Guess what they do? That’s right, they obey. Nearly every time. Out of over 65,000 “recommendations” by the Commission, ISPs have only declined to follow the recommendation 40 times — 20 times in sending out warnings and 20 times in deleting content. It’s never declined to follow a recommendation to suspend an account.

Below is the full chart of data concerning the Copyright Committee’s recommendations, and what was done about them:

Hopefully, it’s clear what’s going on. Basically, the Commission has sent out a lot of warnings, and blocked/deleted a ton of content. A total of 31 users have had their accounts suspended — again, with no indication that there was any number of warnings or pre-notice at all. Separately, the blog post in question does note that the other method (the actual three strikes way, involving the Culture Minister) has sent out a much smaller 275 warnings and 41 orders to delete content, but none to suspend accounts.

Filed Under: bans, infringement, south korea, three strikes

Court Rejects Probation Rules On Teen That Ban Him From Using Social Networks Or Instant Messaging Programs

from the free-speech-ftw dept

We’ve written a few times about the ridiculousness of courts trying to ban the internet for certain people convicted of various crimes. However, what about specific bans on just part of the internet. Venkat Balasubramani has a post about a teenager (“J.J.”) who had received a stolen motorcycle. He was given probation with a variety of restrictions on computer usage:

[J.J.] shall not use a computer that contains any encryption, hacking, cracking, scanning, keystroke monitoring, security testing, steganography, Trojan or virus software.

[J.J.] is prohibited from participating in chat rooms, using instant messaging such as ICQ, MySpace, Facebook, or other similar communication programs.

[J.J.] shall not have a MySpace page, a Facebook page, or any other similar page and shall delete any existing page. [J.J.] shall not use MySpace, Facebook, or any similar program.

[J.J.] is not to use a computer for any purpose other than school related assignments. [J.J.] is to be supervised when using a computer in the common area of [his] residence or in a school setting.

Note that he wasn’t accused of any sort of computer crime here. Also, my first reaction that first ban was to wonder what’s wrong with encryption software? And, um, how does he know if he’s got trojans or viruses on his computer? That said, the rest of the bans also seemed extreme and overly broad — which was the point that J.J. made in challenging the conditions. Thankfully, a judge agreed and has dumped those conditions as being unreasonable restrictions on free speech:

Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer. . . . Two hundred years after the framers ratified the Constitution, the Net has taught us what the First Amendment means.

As for the oddities in banning him from using computers with viruses, trojans or keystroke monitors, which he could potentially violate without even knowing it, the court changed the terms to say that he can’t knowingly use a computer with any of those things on it. Unfortunately, they still include “encryption” on the list. I find it troubling that the court is okay with demonizing encryption (and, to a lesser extent, “hacking” tools) when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so. Does that mean he can’t even encrypt his email?

Filed Under: bans, encryption, internet, probation