This article is by Mark Gregory, a senior lecturer in electrical and computer engineering at RMIT University. It originally appeared on The Conversation.
opinion Last week, the English High Court ordered British Telecom (BT) to block access to a members-only website that offers links to pirated films. NewzBin2, the site in question, offers links to pirated films on what’s been described as a “grand scale”.
The ruling – which gives BT just 14 days to act – follows legal action by the Motion Picture Association (MPA) earlier this year. It’s the first copyright infringement case of its kind, legally requiring an internet service provider (ISPs) to deal with the thorny issue of illegal downloads.
The High Court outcome is already being hailed as a major win for movie studio bosses in their ongoing copyright protection battles. Chris Marchich, managing director of the Motion Picture Association in Europe stated: “Securing the intervention of the ISPs was the only way to put the commercial pirates out of reach for the majority of consumers. This move means we can invest more in our own digital offerings delivering higher quality and more variety of products to the consumer.”
BT, which has for some years employed an internet filtering system called Cleanfeed to block access to child pornography, welcomed the High Court outcome. That same system – created in 2003 and live since June 2004 – will now be used to filter NewzBin2.
A spokesperson for BT said it was “helpful to have the order now and the clarity that it brings”.
The ruling may also gives the company an avenue for dealing with an anticipated backlash from rights groups and groups sponsoring freedom online: BT, the company can rightly claim, has been forced to implement filtering, and has no choice in the matter. The MPA has already stated it will likely request other ISPs to block NewzBin2. With or without that, the judgement is likely to have an impact elsewhere in the world, including Australia.
In 2008, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) took action against iiNet – a prominent ISP – claiming that iiNet had allowed its users to illegally download copyrighted movies. The Australian Federal Court ruled in February this year that iiNet did not authorise the acts of infringement that occurred on its internet service.
The Australian High Court granted AFACT special leave to appeal the Full Court of the Federal Court in August and it’s likely the matter will return to the High Court later this year. It’s perfectly possible the Australian High Court will take notice of the latest international developments relating to this matter.
In the US, the six largest ISPs have agreed to a voluntary “six strikes” system of copyright notices and mitigation measures, including offender download speed reductions, mandatory copyright education and an appeals process. In New Zealand, a copyright protection system has been in place since 1998, which includes warnings, detection and enforcement notices that ultimately may lead to offenders being fined up to NZ$15,000.
In the UK a similar system was announced last year – it includes detection, infringement notices, a frequent offender register and an appeals body. The English High Court has effectively added to the copyright protection available to movie studios by requiring ISPs to block access to identified websites that permit customers to download copyright material.
Internet filters were introduced in Australia this year by major ISPs including Telstra, Optus and several smaller ISPs. The providers announced they would voluntarily block more than 500 websites. This step has drawn criticism from groups such as Electronic Frontiers Australia and other groups supporting online freedom and no censorship of the internet.
Should we be worried or relieved? That comes down to opinion and personal choice. It’s only a matter of time before the internet is fully regulated in Australia. The English High Court decision brings this reality one step closer.
This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.
This really is one of the ways that they should be combating Piracy. If an ISP has a filter already in place blocking certain ‘illegal’ material then of course they should be open to being asked/forced to block other ‘illegal’ content websites.
Although all this is really going to do is force people to get around the filter or further underground. It’s about time we saw a replacement for Bit Torrent anyway.
“This really is one of the ways that they should be combating Piracy.”
I respectfully disagree. I believe the whole idea behind an enforced filter of any kind is flawed. A study i read a year or 3 ago (to lazy and not enough time to go searching for it) checked on the status of a child porn filter in (i think) Canada. They found that because the filter was there law enforcement got lax on the whole “finding the bad guys” side of law enforcement and did nothing about the child porn sites.
A filter is nothing more then sweeping the dirt under a rug, the dirt is still there and you have done nothing to get rid of it or fix the underlying problem.
Um, so what’s stopping “NewzBin2” from simply popping up on another server? NewzBin3? Will it require a whole new High Court case to block that as well?
From Techdirt post on the subject.
“Next up, rather than just block URLs, BT has to block the URLs using intrusive, privacy-destroying deep packet inspecting… and “re-route” IP addresses. The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist. And, at Hollywood’s urging, the judge left that expansive, such that even if a URL or IP address point to other legal content, along with Newzbin, those URLs and IPs can be censored. ”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111026/04022516521/uk-court-upholds-its-first-web-censorship-order-bt-has-14-days-to-block-access-to-newzbin2-gets-to-pay-privelege.shtml
Good to see a filter designed for a specific purpose (child porn) isn’t seeing scope creep.
Right?
*sigh*
Nah no creep, BTW, I’m just going to save you from having to look at that evolution rubbish on the internet next
NewzBin (now NewzBin2) has had a chequered history. The last operator was also taken to court and lost.
Unlike the US and a few other locations, the UK and EU are a tad more copyright holder friendly.
However filtering content based on potential copyright infringement, does not ensure compliance and negates the legal system (which exists to service this sort of thing). It’s a “pre-crime” type block.
Which does not bode well for any attempt to introduce such a thing here. Conroy is on record as stating there will be no scope creep, and yet his poster-child filter has started down that path.
It always starts with the best of intentions.
If i recall correctly the family first guy already wanted to add a few religious things to the filter before they even begun to think of what they wanted on it
In the Newzbin(2) case, copyright owners specifically requested the ‘blocking’ orders, after the Newzbin(1) operators thumbed their noses at the inital damages/injunction granted by the court by moving their company and servers offshore whilst still making thousands of pounds (advertising revenue) from the site.
The Newsbin(2) case was a last resort effort by copryight owners to mitigate piracy occuring by way of the Newsbin service.
The ISP blocking going on at the moment in Australia isn’t Govt imposed filtering – it’s voluntary filtering by Optus and Telstra. If a court rules that those iSPs block certain sites as a result of a finding for a copyright owner in Court – that could hardly be said to be the Govt’s fault.
And what does “fully regulated” mean? Is it like “fully sick”?
‘And what does “fully regulated” mean? Is it like “fully sick”?’
I guess it means fully de – vpn’d?
Comments are closed.