NZB indexing sites to be blocked by IWF?

The Motion Picture Association is taking BT to court in an attempt to get them to block access to Newzbin (a usenet indexing site). They propose that BT use its current IWF filter to facilitate blocking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13927335

If they are going to pass this, then we may as well close the internet in the UK now.

There is nothing on that site that I couldn't find using goggle, or countless other sites.

Complete waste of time and money.

If they really wanted to stop it, then why not go after usenet binary access and providers, even if they win (against this website), then people go elsewhere, makes no sense.

Edited by deleted (Tue 28-Jun-11 13:52:21)

Post deleted by billford

Filter evasion

Edited by billford (Tue 28-Jun-11 17:04:25)

I hope they loose! If they want to stop it then go for the organisation running the site not the delivery agent.

BT tries to remain neutral - with "child porn" being the exception and they should be allowed to stay that way.

If the MPA win, then BT should be allowed to charge all of their legal fees to the MPA along with the costs of initially implementing and then maintaining a ban - we as service users should not be forced to pay for the activities of others.

I doubt that it's going to cost BT significantly. How difficult is it to add one more site to the list of blocked ones? Unless some voluntary means can be found to stop people ripping off other people's work this is going to be forced on us, like it or not. It may be "our Net", but those aren't "our Films". What would you say if there was a web site fencing stolen antiques? Would that be OK?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

The Motion Picture Association is taking BT to court in an attempt to get them to block access to Newzbin (a usenet indexing site). They propose that BT use its current IWF filter to facilitate blocking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13927335

Yet more of our liberties being eroded , Why are government pandering to the film & music industries every whim, i say don't start down this censorship road, on behalf of any big greedy corporate body,
I for one don't buy music or films, why is this? well for a kick off it simply is not worth what the want for it, most films are rubbish and the same goes for the music too, there is no quality anymore,
And blocking any sites they choose to won't stop people accessing them and doing as they did before, and the IWF should not be used to protect corporates it is their only for child protection,not for other stuff, hell isp's can't get the filtering correct as things currently are, Cam moron aka mandelscum better start looking for a new job come the next election he will be needing one, oh i forgot he probably won't need to work will he,

They are not stolen movies though, they are copied.

What would you say if there was a web site selling replica antiques? Would that be OK?

I'm not quite sure that analogy holds. That's more akin to someone making their own version of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and then making that available for free. I'd have no problem with that.

What about software. Is it OK to put, say, the latest games online for people to download for free?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

The Motion Picture Association is taking BT to court in an attempt to get them to block access to Newzbin (a usenet indexing site). They propose that BT use its current IWF filter to facilitate blocking.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13927335

curious are they taking any non uk isps to court? somethign special about this country that even tho we already have the toughest copyright legislation worldwide we keep getting special attention for more.

Well, it's a really a continuation of previous action that they took against the site in UK courts. At that time the site was hosted in the UK; now it's moved to the Seychelles. It's logical to start such action in the UK where judges have already ruled against the site and so may be seen as being more amenable. It makes sense to start with just one test case.

No doubt if this action succeeds they will also take action in other jurisdictions. But if they fail here, where they might reasonable expect to have the best chance of success, it may not be worth their while to go to court elsewhere.

In reply to a post by AEP:

I'm not quite sure that analogy holds. That's more akin to someone making their own version of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and then making that available for free. I'd have no problem with that.

What about software. Is it OK to put, say, the latest games online for people to download for free?

Why not most games publishers fail to offer real support for their unfinished, sometimes clones of earlier games that they released, it would seem that the consumer is the one that gets trodden on, no one gives a dam about that, but when these big greedy corporates start crying like babies ,all of a sudden it's a priority??
maybe all their sites should be filtered/blocked taken down domains seized ect ect

In reply to a post by AEP:

Well, it's a really a continuation of previous action that they took against the site in UK courts. At that time the site was hosted in the UK; now it's moved to the Seychelles. It's logical to start such action in the UK where judges have already ruled against the site and so may be seen as being more amenable. It makes sense to start with just one test case.

No doubt if this action succeeds they will also take action in other jurisdictions. But if they fail here, where they might reasonable expect to have the best chance of success, it may not be worth their while to go to court elsewhere.

I rather see it as its logical to start in the UK because the government and courts act most favourable ot them here. If I was an owner of a site that was taken down because people could use it to 'search' for content then I would then take action against google etc. as its all the same thing.

These content providers wont stop until we either have no internet or its walled. ie. ports closed by default, isp proxy controlling viewable content etc.

Some people share movies with each other for free, its life they should just accept it.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 28-Jun-11 23:13:21)

article mentions BT's cleanfeed which is a filtering implentation for IWF, not the IWF.

with this case going to court and the site blocking section of the DEA you would think this county does nothing but download copyrighted media all day/every day.

I'm all for the right of consumers to get refunds for shoddy goods and their right to close not to buy a particular good that they don't like. But I'm not in favour of the right to just take something that you don't like.

In reply to a post by acting_funny:

article mentions BT's cleanfeed which is a filtering implentation for IWF, not the IWF.

Yep, just me being lazy and wanting a snappier title, so I typed "IWF" instead of "BT's IWF filter".

But a positive ruling could lead on to the natural progression: that the IWF's list is expanded to cover sites infringing copyright.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by AEP:

Well, it's a really a continuation of previous action that they took against the site in UK courts. At that time the site was hosted in the UK; now it's moved to the Seychelles. It's logical to start such action in the UK where judges have already ruled against the site and so may be seen as being more amenable. It makes sense to start with just one test case.

No doubt if this action succeeds they will also take action in other jurisdictions. But if they fail here, where they might reasonable expect to have the best chance of success, it may not be worth their while to go to court elsewhere.

I rather see it as its logical to start in the UK because the government and courts act most favourable ot them here. If I was an owner of a site that was taken down because people could use it to 'search' for content then I would then take action against google etc. as its all the same thing.

These content providers wont stop until we either have no internet or its walled. ie. ports closed by default, isp proxy controlling viewable content etc.

Some people share movies with each other for free, its life they should just accept it.

That's an incredibly cavalier attitude to the issue. The issues with this specific site are clear cut. Whether this extends out to a more general campaign against indexing sites or not we'll see but either way the current situation of TBs a day of copyright content being posted to Usenet for download cannot stand.

The indexing sites that charge, along with the news services themselves, are profiting from copyright violation. I am unsure why it's 'life' and should be ignored that while the majority of people play the game and pay for their content others are downloading it without paying the producer and yet others are making money out of the content without paying the producer.

Edited by deleted (Wed 29-Jun-11 09:57:20)

Looks like BT have lost the case and MPA have won, I can't access the site in question, and can via other means.

here is a msg from the website.

Update: we are told by several users that BT seem to be blocking the domain name already but not the IP address..

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by acting_funny:

article mentions BT's cleanfeed which is a filtering implentation for IWF, not the IWF.

Yep, just me being lazy and wanting a snappier title, so I typed "IWF" instead of "BT's IWF filter".

But a positive ruling could lead on to the natural progression: that the IWF's list is expanded to cover sites infringing copyright.

No, that isn't a natural progression at all. The IWF's mission is extremely focussed and is nothing to do with copyright, this is the MPA taking advantage of BT's ability to screen sites.

The IWF will not be involved, in any way, with blocking of such sites. They only provide a list of URLs, BT and other ISPs use these lists within their filter. This would be nothing more than an external party forcing BT to add another site to their filter. I emphasise their as this is BT's filter, it uses IWF lists to decide what to filter and that's all.

Edited by deleted (Wed 29-Jun-11 13:08:27)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

No, that isn't a natural progression at all. The IWF's mission is extremely focussed and is nothing to do with copyright, this is the MPA taking advantage of BT's ability to screen sites.

What's makes you so sure though that the IWF will not extend its remit, either voluntarily or via pressure from outside parties (e.g. Government)?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

What's makes you so sure though that the IWF will not extend its remit, either voluntarily or via pressure from outside parties (e.g. Government)?

For a start it's entirely pointless as the IWF have no powers to compel ISPs to use their watch list.

As a second point it would ruin their core mission, some ISPs would stop using their child porn filter lists if they started filtering due to copyright.

I'm not sure what you think the IWF can and can't do but given they offer a list to ISPs which they voluntarily implement as far as parties to pressure to try and cut copyright infringement go they're about as pointless as they come.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I'm not sure what you think the IWF can and can't do but given they offer a list to ISPs which they voluntarily implement

Hardly voluntary, Government puts great pressure on ISPs to become members of the IWF and implement the block list. Now the Government has the DEA to implement, specifically section 17 which says that ISPs can be made to block access to sites dealing with copyright infringing material. A block list could prove useful to this end, ah, we already have a system in place, the IWF.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it appears to be in the MPA's line of thinking.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 29-Jun-11 23:39:08)

The IWF have a clear remit http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/remit-vision-and-mis...

They have nothing to do with anything else.

I suppose it's a moot point what list the copyright infringing sites go on, whether it's an extension of the IWF remit or a new list, the IWF proxy servers currently employed by every major ISP could just feed off a second list of copyright infringing sites. And if the MPA successfully argue that BT have to block access Newzbin, coupled with the blocking provisions within the DEA, it may well become mandatory for ISPs to observe this new list.

As already pointing out the IWF are nothing to do with copyright, if there was a case to create an equivalent of the IWF for copyright breaking sites sure it could be set-up but it wouldn't be tacked on to IWF

I would be two different lists used by the BT Filter

Yes, but as I say it's a rather moot point as far as the end user is concerned, either way access will be blocked.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I'm not sure what you think the IWF can and can't do but given they offer a list to ISPs which they voluntarily implement

Hardly voluntary, Government puts great pressure on ISPs to become members of the IWF and implement the block list. Now the Government has the DEA to implement, specifically section 17 which says that ISPs can be made to block access to sites dealing with copyright infringing material. A block list could prove useful to this end, ah, we already have a system in place, the IWF.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it appears to be in the MPA's line of thinking.

Could you give some examples of the government pressurising ISPs to join the IWF?

The IWF make a list of child pornography they do not operate Cleanfeed or any other actual blocking mechanism. If the IWF were to be involved it would be an unnecessary step, you'd be sending a list of copyright sites to the IWF to send to ISPs, firstly this can't happen as the legality of blocking the copyright sites vs the watch list are quite different and second as noted the IWF filter is voluntary, there is no legislation in place requiring ISPs to implement it so tacking DEA copyright implementation on to it is moronic. I'm unsure what the confusion is here or why you're so obsessed with the IWF becoming the copyright police?

Sending a list of sites to ISPs and demanding they block them is trivial, and such a list would have to be confidential, so why involve a non-governmental agency as a go between? BT are getting picked on because they have the most customers, any ISP of any size can block specific URLs regardless of the source of the request and all ISPs bar white label resellers can block IP addresses.

EDIT Just to clarify I'm talking about existing ready to go technology, to implement a new filter specifically for copyright stuff once an ISP has the hardware would take a sys admin a day, no more.

Edited by deleted (Thu 30-Jun-11 11:45:10)

As I've already said, it's a moot point who implements it; the point I'm making is that all major ISPs now have the infrastructure is in place to block sites according to pre-defined lists, and if the the MPA wins its court case with BT it makes wholesale blocking of copyright infringing sites across all major ISPs a real possibility.

I'm not concerned if such sites are blocked, provided the sole point of the site is to assist in copyright infringement.

Since 2010 blocking Internet users from accessing the content on this list is mandatory for all UK based ISPs that want to be eligible for contracts with government agencies and other public bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_an...

In reply to a post by john2007:

I'm not concerned if such sites are blocked, provided the sole point of the site is to assist in copyright infringement.

I'm not too familiar with Newzbin, but what if the indexing site hosts links to legal material as well as material infringing copyright? Would that justify a block?

In reply to a post by john2007:

I'm not concerned if such sites are blocked, provided the sole point of the site is to assist in copyright infringement.

It would certainly be preferable to restricting individual users' access to the net as a whole, given the apparent difficulty and inaccuracies involved in that.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by john2007:

I'm not concerned if such sites are blocked, provided the sole point of the site is to assist in copyright infringement.

I'm not too familiar with Newzbin, but what if the indexing site hosts links to legal material as well as material infringing copyright? Would that justify a block?

If the whole domain is blocked? In that case my concern would be proportional to the ratio of users of legitimate data to users of copyright infringing data.

In reply to a post by john2007:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by john2007:

I'm not concerned if such sites are blocked, provided the sole point of the site is to assist in copyright infringement.

I'm not too familiar with Newzbin, but what if the indexing site hosts links to legal material as well as material infringing copyright? Would that justify a block?

If the whole domain is blocked? In that case my concern would be proportional to the ratio of users of legitimate data to users of copyright infringing data. But at the end of the day they can block sites, the person who to access that blocked site will find a way to circumvent the blocking,

They can block sites all day, but it won't stop piracy those who want to access the blocked sites will be able to access those sites, they will just circumvent the measures that the isp have implemented

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

But at the end of the day they can block sites, the person who to access that blocked site will find a way to circumvent the blocking,

Some will, some won't. The IWF concede that despite the ISP filters in place that determined individuals will find the content they want, however those less determined and technically minded will probably stop. When it comes to copyright infringement, the percentage of people stopping due to lack of technical ability or determination is probably higher than the percentage of people who would stop when seeking IWF-filtered content.

It's unfortunate that you've added your comment within my quote. It reads as if they were my words.

But its all worthless anyway. 5 mins to set-up Tor or MafiaaFire and your passed whatever is blocked anyway

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

But at the end of the day they can block sites, the person who to access that blocked site will find a way to circumvent the blocking,

Some will, some won't. The IWF concede that despite the ISP filters in place that determined individuals will find the content they want, however those less determined and technically minded will probably stop. When it comes to copyright infringement, the percentage of people stopping due to lack of technical ability or determination is probably higher than the percentage of people who would stop when seeking IWF-filtered content.

Fine with that but come on, even for the less determined/technically minded, how savvy do you have to be to type in "I can't access Newzbin" and find 100 blogs showing you two tools (Tor or MafiaaFire) to get around it.... simple

Lots of effort , lots of going to court, lots of added process etc etc, undone in a matter of minutes. It will be like this for any type of forced internet control, the government cannot control the internet as its not theirs to control

In reply to a post by Anonymous:

Since 2010 blocking Internet users from accessing the content on this list is mandatory for all UK based ISPs that want to be eligible for contracts with government agencies and other public bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_an...
[/quote

Thank you, in one post you've managed to do more to advance that argument than the entire rest of the discussion, my point still stands though regardless. Having the IWF add lists of copyright violating sites to their watch list would cause all kinds of legal pain and be unnecessary.

People can get round the IWF blacklist just as easily - it doesn't mean there shouldn't be an IWF blacklist.

But to be given a choice by the isp, to apply the filter or not should be available to all end users, Seeing as most isp's implement the filtering in ways that result in a lot more than the iwf has listed, regularly file hosting sites are incorrectly blocked because of this ,

The end user should in those cases be entitled to compensation if they had a premium account with any file host that was incorrectly filtered by their isp, ,

Now if that became a reality them more and more isp's would stop filtering sites

Not saying otherwise

As far as the IWF list goes it seems to be a stupid implementation. Rather than block access the ISP should be required to log accesses to blacklisted urls. Those logs should then be used to support prosecutions against those involved.

In reply to a post by john2007:

As far as the IWF list goes it seems to be a stupid implementation. Rather than block access the ISP should be required to log accesses to blacklisted urls. Those logs should then be used to support prosecutions against those involved.

???
So the Shakespeare-typing monkey could become criminal now? For that to work, the child-porn blocking list would need to be publicly available, in fact widely publicised, which might somewhat dilute its effectiveness.

In reply to a post by john2007:

As far as the IWF list goes it seems to be a stupid implementation. Rather than block access the ISP should be required to log accesses to blacklisted urls. Those logs should then be used to support prosecutions against those involved.

And we are not in china or any other communist state ,or are we?

Why should isp's spy on their customers in the name of the film & music industry?

Who do you think would end up paying for the logging ect?

Also by using certain methods widely available isp's would not be able to log any activity,

Finally it would be an invasion of privacy and they would get taken before the courts themselves

do you work for this government?

How often have you accidentally visited a child porn site?

If they downloaded hundreds of files they would be criminal. If they visited such sites by mistake they wouldn't stay. Certainly I don't think a significant number of downloads would be required for a search warrant to be issued.

What do you think the IWF do?

In reply to a post by john2007:

What do you think the IWF do?

All they do is collate a list of url's that they believe contain cp, then they make the said list available to those isp's that use it's list, these should then get loaded into the said isp's filtering proxy, which is all find and good, but because it doesn't work like that in reality , lots of unrelated url's domains get blocked too, (that are not on the iwf filter), presumably if isp's where to be able to filter 100% accurately 100% of the time this would cost money-we the customer would end up paying for it, and once again all the pedophiles would still be able to get their fix of cp
So why waste time and money on filters in the first place,it does not serve it's purpose,all it infact does does do is block file hosts incorrectly,

I think the filter is the wrong way about as well. As I said rather than prevent access, I think access should be allowed but logged. That way it would be easier to spot the people who are downloading child porn and innocent people who visit similar but improperly blocked urls could be left in peace.

In reply to a post by john2007:

I think the filter is the wrong way about as well. As I said rather than prevent access, I think access should be allowed but logged. That way it would be easier to spot the people who are downloading child porn and innocent people who visit similar but improperly blocked urls could be left in peace.

That is illegal without appropriate and specific legal authorisation. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by john2007:

I think the filter is the wrong way about as well. As I said rather than prevent access, I think access should be allowed but logged. That way it would be easier to spot the people who are downloading child porn and innocent people who visit similar but improperly blocked urls could be left in peace.

That is illegal without appropriate and specific legal authorisation. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

Neither system is legal. I'd prefer mine. What we have at the moment amounts to censorship.

In reply to a post by john2007:

Neither system is legal. I'd prefer mine. What we have at the moment amounts to censorship.

Wait a minute. You're saying that Cleanfeed along with all the ISPs implementing filtering are breaking the law?

That's a fairly strong accusation as far as they go. Any legal basis?

Regarding the other point you're fine with logging people's internet activity and sending them to clink if they visit certain sites but not fine with blocking access to those sites in the first place?

Censorship is obviously not ideal although I would debate this point if the contents is illegal, to suggest that Orwellian surveillance is somehow preferable seems, well, insane.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by john2007:

I'm not concerned if such sites are blocked, provided the sole point of the site is to assist in copyright infringement.

It would certainly be preferable to restricting individual users' access to the net as a whole, given the apparent difficulty and inaccuracies involved in that.

sad to report takedown requests do happen for entire domains even for minor infringements. some copyright agencies are very agressive and see nothing wrong with taking legal content offline to serve their purpose. They are also very impatient, I have had takedown requests demanding immediate action, telling them to wait 72 hours eg. is often met with a threat. This is why I have little respect for copyright holders, I find them very uncooperative and quite arrogant as if they think they the only people in the world that matter. The ones who dont cooperate I now force them to get a court order, since if they want to be awkrawd I can be as well. Funny enough most of them cant get a order or its not serious enough for them to bother. However if the law was to change so that we had blacklists implemented at the isp level I suspect any site that had even a minor infringement would potentially be blacklisted, with no chance of the domain owner able to fix the content first. I think thats a real possibility and it would be abused.

The IWF for the most part is actually useless, its bypassed using a simple proxy and when I checked out their thoughts on the issue, the actual idea behind the IWF is to prevent 'accidental' browsing of child porn as they well aware serial abusers can bypass it anyway. Given I suspect child porn is well hidden, the chances of someone accidently viewing it is very remote and I myself would close the window if I stumbled across it.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 06-Jul-11 07:26:47)

And the story rumbles on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14035502

It's the current top news item on TBB