Should ISPs pay to block pirate websites? Supreme Court to decide

Re: It's not quite the same thing...

I'm kinda with BT on this, why should they bear the cost of shutting down the rip off?

I am not.

1. They have been instrumental in pushing the capability through (no comment on the actual drivers to do so).

2. They have repeatedly branded everyone who has pointed out what this is going to end up with as a paedophile protector (if not an outright suspect paedophile).

3. They have always been the SP to be at the forefront of deploying this too

So now, the court tells them to bend over and provide services to all and sundry for free. That as far as I am concerned is justice being served. Without Vaseline.

Re: It's not quite the same thing...

although it makes me feel dirty, I'm kinda with BT on this, why should they bear the cost of shutting down the rip off?

The blocking infrastructure is up and running, the cost to add a new address is negligible. The big ISPs block websites by categories anyway as a 'service' to the subscriber.

Zymurgy's Law of Evolving Dynamics: The only way to re-can a can of worms is to use a bigger can.

political banning

websites that disagree with the political establishment

we already have that. A few months ago the Spanish government blocked access to web sites that were pro Catalan separatist; in the run up to the (unofficial) referendum.

"Next up websites that disagree with the political establishment and then it's time for the thought crime police."

None of this blocking is happening on a politican's say so. It is happening in public, decided upon by independent arbiters, to rules set out by our elected government.

And I simply don't buy the argument we must adopt extreme libertarianism to avoid extreme totalitarianism. We can endeavour to strike a balance between "censorship" and freedom. Yes, there will be mistakes, and overshoots on either side. And, yes, constant vigilance is required to make sure it isn't pushed out to either extreme. But I think we can find a reasonable compromise.

Re: Who decides if it's copyright-infringing?

Good thing you mention Youtube, as their business model largely relies on ripping off copyrighted material.

Re: Who decides if it's copyright-infringing?

Typically blocked content is not copyright infringing where the host server is situated or they would attack the source, only once the content appears in the copyright area is there any issue and then only for the local distributers.

However since rights to content are sold to local distributers so they can charge for our access then the ISP and the Governement are working for the distributers interests against ours, monopolies push our viewing cost up without any benefit to us or the content creators.

That the "infringing host" could be said to be just another distributer is said to be invalid on the premise that the distributer has been allowed to purchase the only right to distribute said content in your area, a legal supported monopoly. Netflix for example has most of it's content unavailible outside of the US as our local distributors have been given the only right to distribute here. The producers and artists still got paid by netflix but the blocking laws are not really for artists or producers benefit at all.

Now if the same content was sold direct to us without the local distributers then the producers and artists would still get paid but the leeches would not, hence we have laws to protect the leeches monopoly on what we are allowed to view.

Without the leeches then media access would be cheaper and the ISP and Government would not have to pay out our money to guarranty the leeches right to leech. Most people who use "infringing sites" would prefer to use a legitimate site, those that would not pay at all would not under any scheme.

So if the Government instead removed the distribution monopolies and all the laws created for their unfair protection then the whole "piracy" issue would disappear and we would all save money.

Lastly copyright infringement is never theft as the owner retains possession no matter how many people copy or view it.

Re: Pass it on

"Who should pay for recall costs on a car defect the company the issue reporter or the user??"

That is an appalling analogy.

One is a fault by an existing and established manufacturer

The other is a 3rd party, unrelated to either involved in the case trying to make money out of scam.

Re: Pass it on

>>Just to play the devils advocate....

Sorry, rubbish analogy. A better one would be to say that the police/councils can pass the cost of installing speed cameras (to catch those flouting the speed limits) onto the DVLA - seeing as it's the DVLA that collects the road tax which is used for maintaining the roads.

Even then, it's still not a great analogy really.

Ultimately, I for once agree with BT. If a company wants a dodgy site blocked (because they either cannot be bothered to go after the actual perpetrators, or can't for some reason) and they manage to get a court order for it, they should pay the costs for the block.

Re: Pass it on

"an automated system that blocks *any* site requested by *anyone*, without any due process to investigate whether the request is legitimate or not"

Oh, I see, you're talking about YouTube.

I do believe that the issue at hand is not yet including takedown notices by "anyone". This is a court order we're talking about. I doubt the courts would start sending orders willy-nilly just because Bill Cartier, watchmaker, thought it would be funny to shut down Cartier.com.

Re: Bare the cost?

The only peple who should bare the cost are the distributors, they are after all the only ones who profit from it.

In fact if they got rid of the distributor's content monoply then blocking would be unnecessary, the content creators could deal direct with their viewers or sell to more than one distributor who would then be buying a worldwide distribution right.

Ultimately content distributors have got used to having their hands in the public pocket and this is just more audio cassette tax where they charge everyone regardless of "guilt". They create nothing and are allowed to tax everyone because content exists, not if the content is viewed.

Everyone who uses the internet has to pay the local content distributors because they say so and they bribed the Government officals into agreeing with them. That is the real crime

Re: "Blocking ip traffic is really difficult"

Um, don't think so. Put an IP address on blacklist and you're done.

I'm not an expert, but if you can do exactly that in the Windows hosts file, I doubt it can be any more of an issue for an ISP with trained professionals.