All the latest UK technology news, reviews and analysis
|
|
|
26 Oct 2011
BT has been given 14 days to block the Newzbin 2 file-sharing site, and must cover the costs of the technical measures it puts in place, in an order clarifying the High Court's initial ruling.
The decision represents the first time that an internet service provider (ISP) has been forced to block access to a site, and sets a precedent that could be used to implement similar measures on other sites and ISPs.
The ruling is also noteworthy as it was made under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act, rather than the Digital Economy Act (DEA) which was developed in part to respond to online piracy, and so renders a large portion of the DEA irrelevant.
Chris Marcich, president of the Motion Picture Association, which brought the case against BT, claimed that the organisation was forced to take the action to protect the creative industries from piracy.
"This is a win for the creative sector. Securing the intervention of the ISPs was the only way to put the commercial pirates out of reach for the majority of consumers," he said.
"This move means that we can invest more in our own digital offerings, delivering higher quality and more variety of products to the consumer."
Spyro Markesinis, vice president for business and legal affairs at Momentum Pictures, the distributor of The King's Speech, one of the films being infringed on the site, said that the ruling is vital to ensure the success of the film industry.
"There is a real concern that films such as The King's Speech will not be made if these rogue sites are allowed to undermine legitimate sales and syphon off illegal profits," he said.
"We will continue to work not only with government and the ISPs to stop piracy, but with our digital partners to bring the best, most attractive offers to consumers via legitimate channels."
Latest stories from Law
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
What is the most important IT priority for your company this year?
Sneak peek at the forthcoming glass-based machine
Connect with V3.co.uk
This paper focuses on a series of best practices and techniques for development teams looking to improve their software development processes
Why good data management at all levels is essential in the modern business (video, 6mins)
Support Analyst x 1/2 Skills: Apple Mac OSX, Windows...
Network Consultant - London - 55-65k My client are...
A leading global provider of critical information to...
Playstations and table football in the kitchen? Standard...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
What should happen instead?
Just because it is easy to circumvent the ban, doesn't mean it should not be in place. The internet is part of our society and not a realm where any crime can take place. It's hard to police things like copyright infringement and child pornography online, but this doesn't mean the policy, and the courts should give up trying. Besides it's only people with good technical knowledge that will be able to circumvent the ban. It would be interesting to hear what should happen instead? No action to be taken against Newzbin? I think the one injustice is that BT should pay for the technical blocking measures. Rosalie Marshall - V3 reporter
Posted by: Rosalie 31 Oct 2011
Chris, Spyro, you've failed.
Why? Because all you have to do to unblock newzbin is to change your DNS server. Try Google DNS for instance. 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and you're on someone else's domain.
Posted by: TGM 28 Oct 2011
Getting around BT if you're caught out.
Log into your router. Set DNS servers to manual and enter these numbers in: 8.8.8.8 8.8.4.4 Apply/Save changes and exit the browser. Congratulations! You're outside BT's jurisdiction!
Posted by: Here you go 28 Oct 2011
whoever made this judgement should be sacked
Whoever did it clearly does not understand the nature of the problem he is dealing with. Judgements made like this should really not be allowed. All you need is a proxy to bypass the ruling - its not complex, its not difficult and it costs NOTHING. So whoever wasted all these legal fees on such an innefectual and misguided judgement should really be looking for legal vindication. Sue for Incompetance probably. Dont get me wrong, i'm happy he doesn't have a clue - but i think judges need a harsh wake up call when making legal decisions on matters they are clearly dangerously ignorant about.
Posted by: john nicholas 26 Oct 2011
Innane decision by ignorant courts
This is the most ill informed courtroom decision i have ever had the misfortune to read about. Despite only having 14 days to respond i imagine newzbin has already taken steps to circumvent it. If the courts understood the actual mechanics behind how the internet works then they would be trying to make such futile decisions. Besides that, They are spending all this money to kill a service that people actually want to use in order to get digital content. Rather than spend money to provide a service of their own these companies smash the resourcefulness of others. It wouldn't be so sickening if the 'movie' business actually got off its ass and provided a platform that people actually want to use to see films. I might pay for that - I would probably boycott it because of their practises much like i do with apple products.
Posted by: kpjm 26 Oct 2011