You may be right. But I guess that it's up to the MPA to use the law in the way that they think is most efficient. Who can blame them - it's their money.

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

Well. at least we now agree as to why Google hasn't been blocked.

It's up to the MPA to spend their money on litigation that they think is most effective. If you think that blocking NewzBin is not effective, then what's all the whining about?

In reply to a post by AEP:

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

Well. at least we now agree as to why Google hasn't been blocked.

It's up to the MPA to spend their money on litigation that they think is most effective. If you think that blocking NewzBin is not effective, then what's all the whining about?

Of course, the other reason they haven't gone after google - google can afford very expensive lawyers....

Very true; and the case against Google would be orders of magnitude weaker. For starters they don't charge the end user, and for seconds they are not narrowly targeted.

But, in the end, a company and its lawyers are going to start with the easy cases. They'd be failing their shareholders were they to do otherwise. If they are successful there they may never need to pursue others.

In reply to a post by ian72:

The reasons I believe are much different to that.

Newzbin I assume are actually setting out to provide a service that at least in part provides indexes to copyright material. If the copyright holder asked them to remove these links then would they? If they wouldn't then they are an accessory to copyright theft.

Good point, on that front Newzbin state that they have never been contacted by the MPA. Its easy to believe either party either way to be honest. Newzbin has a facility to ask for an index to be removed if you are the copyright holder so the facilities exist, whether MPA has used them is another matter. So its whether they did ask but got ignored, I don't believe they've stated in any of their court claims they've asked for removal and it has been ignored? So I'd suggest they've never tried.

Usenet (one of many hosting servers that host the actual content which Newzbin mearly trawls and indexes) does comply with DMCA requests, so the question is why is the MPA doing for a branch of the tree and not one of its roots?

In reply to a post by ian72:

Google are primarily a search engine of everything on the net (at least that isn't protected against search crawlers in some way). Some of this is copyright and if asked to take it down they will.

Yep I've seen that myself but there's a lot more to take down the MPA should get cracking!

In reply to a post by ian72:

So, google work within the law and copyright whereas Newzbin have stated that they will break the censorship system that has been ordered by a legal process and therefore are working outside of the law.

Well not really that's a bit of naughty journalism to be honest (is there another type?) they've not said they'll break anything, the way its reported on the BBC site and others suggests they'll attack Cleanfeed. They've mearly said that the way that Cleanfeed will block them will be irrelevant as there are existing tools on the net people can use to still access their site.

In reply to a post by AEP:

Correct they have not asked for Google to be banned.

Well. at least we now agree as to why Google hasn't been blocked.

It's up to the MPA to spend their money on litigation that they think is most effective. If you think that blocking NewzBin is not effective, then what's all the whining about?

Its not effective that is a fact and they will soon see. I'm complaining because its setting a precedent in that other parties outside the UK can block access to websites as they wish. Once this starts I've no idea where it will end, I couldn't give two figs about Newzbin its "the bigger picture"

In reply to a post by AEP:

Very true; and the case against Google would be orders of magnitude weaker. For starters they don't charge the end user, and for seconds they are not narrowly targeted.

But, in the end, a company and its lawyers are going to start with the easy cases. They'd be failing their shareholders were they to do otherwise. If they are successful there they may never need to pursue others.

What has charging got to do with it though? Surely a wrong is a wrong whether its Google or Newzbin? You can't say its ok to index copy written material but don't you even think about charging for the pleasure because that is just wrong

I'm complaining because its setting a precedent in that other parties outside the UK can block access to websites as they wish.

No it isn't. It is setting a precedent that sites who are involved in a criminal conspiracy can be blocked. Good thing too.

Companies will still have to convince a court of law before a site will be blocked. I'm in favour of the rule of law.

What has charging got to do with it though? Surely a wrong is a wrong whether its Google or Newzbin?

I can see that you are unfamiliar with copyright law. The difference that charging makes is that it changes a civil offence into a criminal offence.

In reply to a post by AEP:

I'm complaining because its setting a precedent in that other parties outside the UK can block access to websites as they wish.

No it isn't. It is setting a precedent that sites who are involved in a criminal conspiracy can be blocked. Good thing too.

Companies will still have to convince a court of law before a site will be blocked. I'm in favour of the rule of law.

But is it a criminal conspiracy to index someone elses server? I'd say its not.

So if the MPA took Google to court and said it was possible to source (for free) a download of the latest Harry Potter film via Google they would win and Google would have to sort it out?