UK Recording Industry Looks To Censor More Sites With No Trial Or Conviction
from the hello-slippery-slope dept
Once the UK recording industry realized that UK courts would order ISPs to block websites it didn’t like, it appears that the industry, led by BPI and PPL began putting together a list of over two dozen sites that they’re asking to have blocked by all UK ISPs, even though many of the sites on the list have never been tried in a court of law or convicted of copyright infringement. Included on the list, for example, is Grooveshark, who has been sued, but has not yet been found to violate copyright laws. It may very well be true that there is infringement on many, if not all of those sites. But, generally speaking, there’s this thing called due process that allows a site to defend itself before being censored from an entire country. Just because a site has some infringing content does not mean that the entire site should be blocked — or you’d have absolutely no user generated content sites online, because the liability would be too high. The UK courts started down this slippery slope by allowing sites to be blocked, and now the record labels are just going to keep piling the list higher and higher.
Filed Under: blocks, censorship, copyright, due process, filter, isp blocks, uk
Companies: bpi, grooveshark, ppl
Comments on “UK Recording Industry Looks To Censor More Sites With No Trial Or Conviction”
It’ll be just like the good ol’ days!!! They won’t have to worry about anything anymore, all the pirates will be gone. ;>
So...
Web 3.0 will be a broadcast medium instead of user generated?
Meanwhile, the Neo Internet will come out and be even harder for government to control.
Damnit, we need a new internet.
Of course there’s ‘Due Process’ involved here Mike.
The BPI and PPL say to the courts ‘Due’ Process these orders to censor these websites quickly.
But, generally speaking, there’s this thing called due process that allows a site to defend itself before being censored from an entire country.
No, the little people don’t have any rights. “Due process” is when the copyright industry gets everything it wants.
None of these sites should be punished until they’ve lost a best- of- seven round of trials in front of 50 person juries.
Right Mike?
Re: Re:
Wow, that was so hyperbolic that the God of Hyperbole has resigned in awe.
Re: Re:
moron
Re: Re: Re:
I was thinking prick, but moron will do.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Re: Re:
Hell, having even one trial would be a massive achievement.
John Steele just hates it when due process is enforced.
Re: Re:
None of these sites should be punished until they’ve lost a best- of- seven round of trials in front of 50 person juries.
I’d be content with a simple adversary hearing beforehand. Why are the content industries so afraid of anyone defending themselves? That’s what I’d like to know.
Re: Re: Re:
Probably because going to court would require them to actually present their evidence, and as they are still mostly at the ‘IP address = person’ stage, a demonstrably false way of identifying infringers, they know they’d be in real trouble as soon as someone computer savy was called by the defense to show how weak their identification methods actually are.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe but most like it is because the MPAA anr RIAA do NOT own the copyright they claim to own.
Re: Re: Re: The next law they should buy
Re: Re: Re:
Funny. SOPA provided for adversarial hearings. You losers should make up your minds.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
An adversarial hearing should be required if you intend to use a nuclear weapon to destroy a 400 square mile area in order to kill an ant.
At the adversarial hearing, the collateral damage to your overreach can be considered, and other innocent and uninvolved parties can show the harm to them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny. SOPA provided for adversarial hearings.
Really? When was that? One of the last minute mark-ups before it was killed by the public outcry?
A lot of what I read was law scholars complaining that SOPA violated the First Amendment by not providing an adversarial hearing before taking actions like cutting off monetary funding. Like this one:
http://www.serendipity.li/cda/tribe-legis-memo-on-SOPA-12-6-11-1.pdf
You losers should make up your minds.
My mind is made up. Maybe you should quit trying to revise history.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny. You’ve been crowing that SOPA, for all intents and purposes, has been implemented. So adversarial hearings were implemented. What was your point again?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you losers should stop cherry picking what you want to address at any given moment. So what if SOPA allowed for that? There’s nothing in the current law that disallows them, and SOPA was so full of other dangerous and unworkable crap that nobody in their right mind would support it just because it happens to have a clause somewhere they agree with.
I know its hard for someone with as limited intellect as yourself to address an entire issue or consider all the implication of what’s happening, but do try to keep up.
Re: Re:
How about a trial in front of a judge and jury? Surely if the sites are guilty of the crimes they are being accused of, and the goal is justice, rather than stamping out potential competition, that wouldn’t be an objectionable proposition, would it?
I mean, the only real reason I can think of to skip the ‘trial’ part entirely is if the sites aren’t actually guilty, or at least guilty of all the crimes they are being accused of, and the ones making the accusations don’t want such ‘inconvenient facts’ coming to light in a court room.
Re: Re:
So you’re complaining of how the Piratebay founders worked their way up the chain, going from court to court…just like any other person would have the right to? What is it about alleged copyright infringing sites and persons that means they don’t get due process and should never see the inside of a court room?
Re: Re: Re:
Replace “infringers” with “terrorists” or “paedophiles”.
The rationale is always interchangable to suit the needs of the powerful.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rationale fails with all of these groups.
Re: Re:
Has this person completely lost his marbles? (UK saying, in case nobody knows! No guesswork needed as to the meaning)
and the thick fuckers in the UK courts will do exactly as the BPI wants, removing and blocking even more sites without making more options available to customers. bringing more and more censorship into what is supposed to be a democratic country, making it more like the countries that are frequently condemned for doing that very thing eg China, Iran, N.Korea makes the UK look exactly like it is, a country of double standards which are swapped according to the result desired at the time! the USA started this shit! it’s about time it admitted how wrong it was to allow it to begin and stop threatening countries that dont do similar to itself. perhaps then, some progress will be made that is amicable to all parties!
This really pisses me off.
Justice and due process mean nothing anymore.
On one hands we have the courts willing to censor websites on a whim and massive surveillance by government who are looking for powers for even more.
On the other hand we have legislation that passed which bring back the days of secret courts. No juries, no publicity.
And the worst thing is, mainstream media gives zero coverage to what is happening. We are marching towards the Orwellian nightmare like a herd of lemmings to a cliff and anyone who points this out is branded part of the ‘tinfoil hat brigade’.
Re: Re:
like a herd of lemmings to a cliff
Lemmings to a cliff was a myth created by Disney
Pfft. Grooveshark has been blocked by at least 2 ISPs in Denmark by a permanent “temporary” court-order… One of the blockings on mobile phones is happening through an A-DPI technology. Looking at the kiwi law and the argumentation and specifically outright lies we are seeing from the ministers on the usefulness of packet surveillance (only a small number of the packets are logged for inspection, which costs many millions while the data are utterly useless for the police even though they fiercely defend the need for it!) I think it is safe to say that any kind of privacy online will die if this continues!
A matter of proportionate ease.
“generally speaking, there’s this thing called due process” — You admit to infringement on those sites, which is EASILY done on “teh internets”, and so it’s logical that shutting them down should be as easy. Otherwise the pirates are so much advantaged that they — well, LOOK at the internet for all the proof needed of what happens without recognition of other people’s rights to the income from their creative works. The Masnick is again just wailing that pirates can’t steal all they want.
Besides that, “sites” are not persons with inherent rights, but are commercial entities that agreed to some restrictive terms in getting the site name — besides must obey common law terms like “don’t take what isn’t yours”.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike “supports copyright” but always overlooks or excuses piracy.
04:16:42[f-257-6]
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
Idiot
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
“Pushing a button is easy; hell, making a complex machine should be just as easy!”
“Getting fat is easy; hell, losing weight should be just as easy!”
“Being stupid is easy; hell, learning and mastering knowledge should be just as easy!”
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
If I punch you in the face in real life, I won’t be punished for it until I’m tried and convicted in a court of law by a jury of my peers. In fact, I can kidnap you, brutally rape you and mutilate your body until you’re dead, and it’ll be the exact same: no punishment until I’m tried and found guilty in a court of law. Funny how that scenario is somehow less heinous than being accused of secondary or tertiary infringement on government-granted artificial monopolies.
Re: Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
Yes, but the person being brutally raped and mutilated until dead usually isn’t handing out large bri…er…campaign contributions and lucrative job offers to those in power.
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
One of these days, you will come crying about due process for you–you better hope there’s someone left that gives a crap about you.
Re: Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
No, he whines about due process all the time when people hide his insane drivel through use of the report button. Like many authoritarians, he’ll happily strip the rights of others, then cry bloody murder when he feels his own rights are infringed.
Re: Re: Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
Yes, how DARE anyone protest about Slimey Farage ‘invading’ their country? 😉
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
well, LOOK at the internet for all the proof needed of what happens without recognition of other people’s rights to the income from their creative works.
You mean a quickly growing, vastly creative marketplace of ideas accessible by anyone? THE HORROR!
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
I didn’t agree to any restrictive terms when I got my domain name.
Re: A matter of proportionate ease.
What a pratt.
censorship
Ahh yes, the sites are censored. Someone goes over and deletes the material off their servers so nobody can ever see it.
Wait, that’s not the case. The sites aren’t being censored. The sites still exist with all of their content.
Would you consider using geo IP to redirect people to a mobile site as censorship? After all, the real site wouldn’t be reachable anymore, as the user would always get sent to a different site. Does that mean mobile users are censored?
Re: censorship != deletion
Censorship is the prevention of communication between two consenting parties by a third. Outright deletion of material is sufficient but not necessary for censorship.
All chickens have feathers.
Re: Re: censorship != deletion
“Censorship is the prevention of communication between two consenting parties by a third. Outright deletion of material is sufficient but not necessary for censorship.”
Censorship is the CONTROL of communication between two consenting parties by a third. Outright deletion of material is sufficient but not necessary for censorship.
There fixed your logic issue.
Re: censorship
ahem
now wait just one durn tootin’ minute there, pardner…
aren’t you the same jerkoff who insists that hiding a comment here in techdirtia is the same as egregious ‘censorship’ ? ? ?
doesn’t it ever occur to you that wanting to have it both ways equals a massive failure in logic and consistency ? ? ?
(which is the bottom-line stance of the MAFIAA as well:
laws for thee but not for meeeeeeeee ! ! !)
the thing MANY of us dislike about you is your intellectual dishonesty and lack of consistent principles…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: censorship
Go you! Move those goalposts!
Re: censorship
So if you are on a soap box preaching about the joys of copyright, and police want to stop you it is only censorship if they hack into your brain and delete your thoughts? Maybe telling you to shut upis also censorship. Maybe locking you in a soundproofed cell for the rest of your life isn’t censorship, after all, you can still talk all you want, they’ve just removed everyone else’s ability to hear you.
Re: censorship
“Wait, that’s not the case. The sites aren’t being censored. The sites still exist with all of their content.”
Wait…so when you and your ilk scream at Techdirt for “censoring” your comments when they’re reported…they’re not in fact censored now? After all, the comments are still there, with all their content. They’re not being deleted. Which is it?
Re: Re: censorship
Wait…so when you and your ilk scream at Techdirt for “censoring” your comments when they’re reported…they’re not in fact censored now?
You can’t have it both ways, can you? If Techdirt isn’t censoring, then clearly the Brits aren’t either. Make your minds up, I’m waiting.
Re: Re: Re: censorship
When the Techdirt community reports a comment, it is hidden from view but still accessible to anyone. Techdirt staff and management do not get into legal trouble if someone views these comments.
These sites though in the UK…the ISPs have to go to some effort to block them, or face sanctions. While pointless (since you only need a proxy or VPN to view them anyway), if the judge sees that Blocked Site A can be viewed on ISP B, he’ll go ballistic that they’re violating his order.
What the judge is doing in the UK is censorship. The sites may still be there with all of their content, but the onus is placed on third parties to try and ensure no-one accesses them. Techdirt doesn’t censor.
Re: Re: Re: censorship
Techdirt’s “censorship” does not prevent or impair the ability of anyone to read the comments. The Brits proposal does. Apples & zebras.
Re: Re: Re:2 censorship
Oh really? Nobody uses a proxy? It’s about on par with having to click on the “show comment” field here.
It’s funny to watch you guys squirm. You can’t have it both ways, but you are trying really, really hard to pull it off.
Re: Re: Re:3 censorship
No, it’s funny to look at tools like you try to move the goalposts, while doing a great job of dismantling your own arguments.
Here, for example. The hiding of comments here has two components that don’t apply to the attempt to block the sites in question. One is that there’s no attempt at censorship, just a warning that a certain proportion of the community here agrees that the comment in question is “abusive, spam, trollish or otherwise inappropriate”, as the report button is marked.
The other is that there’s a clear message with a one-click was to show the comment again. That’s not applicable to using a proxy or VPN, since the average user won’t know how to do that – blocking any legitimate speech on those sites from a majority, unlike the hiding of comments here, which block nothing.
But, hey, thanks for admitting that any attempt to censor content in this ways is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard to anyone who knows what they’re doing. Won’t you join us in going for workable and effective solutions, rather than the constant useless (and hugely damaging to legitimate activity) methods promoted by the idiots in charge and their corporate masters?
Re: censorship
horse with no name is an ass
Denied seeing
It gets worse when you realise that the last Judge who ordered KAT, Fenopy and H33t to be blocked directly said that rights holders do not need to comply with the DMCA & EUCD when take-down notices are simply too much hassle.
The law can be ignored if it is too much hassle? So one commercial business can censor away rivals? Where those rivals have never been convicted of any wrongdoing?
Welcome to the UK where such censorship is quite normal. I can only hope this time a strong defence can be made headed by Grooveshark and backed up by ISPs and more. The latest OFCOM report gives them some good ammo this time.
Re: Denied seeing
Re: Re: Denied seeing
There was no defence offered in that case meaning no wisdom or logic seen. The Judge said the above simply to try and validate his order to block the sites.
Work around it
big corporation gets court order to block website
website gets blocked
next day website is back
block has been circumvented
big corporation jumps up and down crying
public says “what a wanker” in regards to corporation’s actions
sales drop drastically as people buy from small upstart instead
‘piling the list higher and higher.’
That should be making the list longer and longer