MPA force BT to block access to Newzbin

Further to my previous thread: http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/f/4015992-n...

The Motion Picture Association have won their action against BT, who now must block access to Newzbin.

Linky: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322957

"MPA signalled its intention to pursue other ISPs".

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 28-Jul-11 10:33:55)

It was inevitable that sooner or later this would happen and personally I think it's about time. Unfortunately many people think it's ok to take media that has a monetary value and not pay for it - that can't be right from whatever angle you look at it.

Hopefully once this gets understood that the Real issue can be tackled, which is bringing media companies into account for high media costs that seem to be held artificially high.

Rather than just taking without paying for media, a far bigger statement could be made (in regard to pricing) by boycotting media companies. With facebook member "campaigns" reaching the population, I'm sure that could be a good way to get any large companies attention.

It raises interesting questions of course, such as:
- If Newzbin creates 10 mirrors, with 10 domain names and 10 ip addresses, are BT obliged to hunt them all down and block them?
- Why are customers from all other ISPs allowed to view this "prohibited" content?

As I see it, this ruling is pointless unless:
- A list is set up and maintained which can add "prohibited" sites with minimal legal proceedings
- All ISPs are obliged to block the sites on the list.

If the blocking is implemented via Cleanfeed then any ISP using that will have the block too.

BT with its share of the market is an obvious choice, and path is open for shorter cases to get similar rules with other providers potentially.

Prohibited is the wrong sort of list, why? A government may not like something and prohibit discussion, but the discussion might still be perfectly legal.

Why are customers from all other ISPs allowed to view this "prohibited" content?

You answered that in your OP. BT are just the start.

I think this is a very good ruling. Concerns such as BT should not turn a blind eye to the fact that they are aiding people to break the law. This is no more a matter of "freedom" than the freedom to drive a car after having downed a bottle of Vodka.

In reply to a post by AEP:

You answered that in your OP. BT are just the start.

Are copyright holders really going to take court action, one by one, against every ISP in the UK for every individual site infringing copyright on the internet? Is that really workable?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

It raises interesting questions of course, such as:
- If Newzbin creates 10 mirrors, with 10 domain names and 10 ip addresses, are BT obliged to hunt them all down and block them?
- Why are customers from all other ISPs allowed to view this "prohibited" content?

As I see it, this ruling is pointless unless:
- A list is set up and maintained which can add "prohibited" sites with minimal legal proceedings
- All ISPs are obliged to block the sites on the list.

Even under those circumstances it can be bypassed fairly easily by anyone with a little knowledge. So it is not the 'victory' that the MPA consider it to be.

Not paying for films/music etc is not right but the industry could stop ripping off the consumers and charge a fair price.

I doubt it. But, in consort, they are certainly going to take down the most obvious offenders. They'd be stupid not to.

As I pointed out before, this has cost BT millions - or more exactly BT users. BT is an innocent party, that carries data and should not act as censor. The MPA should sort out those providing te feeds or te data centres housing the servers it sits on and not the carrier.

BT does not care what the network carries, a user asks a server for data and pays BT to carry it. It is not BTs problem.

This ruling will start an avalanche and massive legal costs for the ISPs who will pass them on to us.

BT have already shown, with Phorm, that they have investigated in the technology necessary to track users' browsing habits. It shouldn't be too difficult for them to block a particular server or group of servers.