Does every case mean every site? Or every request over each full URL? Or every claim of an end user infringing?
Do sites about to have their business ruined get a chance to protest ?
BT's head of retail Simon Milner came out swinging after the legal setback over web-blocking. While admitting the company is "not deliriously happy", it welcomes a clarification. And BT won't be appealing the decision. "We believe in an open internet – we won't do any other blocking," he told us. "We will never stop our …
At least we can learn from Chinese internet users how to circumvent that.
As an aside, newzbin2 already has a mirror as a secret service on the TOR anonymising network. How is that for efficient? I'm sure it sets a standard for all the similar sites out there for when BT is ordered to block access to them also.
So in effect that judge just compromised net neutrality in the UK for absolutely nothing.
For the purposes of privacy legislation, in the UK and most of Europe the judiciary tends to regard URLs as a combination of content and routing information. Specifically, everything up to the hostname (http://forums.theregister.co.uk) is considered routing information, and thus interceptable. Everything that comes after (/post/reply/12345) is considered content and thus protected (e.g., under RIPA in the UK). Don't ask me for more specifics as I am not able to access any references right now, but a bit of digging in LexisNexis should come up with relevant jurisprudence.
Therefore, I presume it's each new hostname or IP that counts as a different site. But don't quote me on it.
<<"We believe in an open internet – we won't do any other blocking," he told us. "We will never stop our customers getting to any service they want to get to.>>
Website blocking maybe, but internet blocking as a whole? Most ISPs and other companies offering email services already participate in an internet blocking scheme, known as spam blacklist IP blocking, which in simple terms prevents email sent from blacklisted IP addresses (whether the email is bona fide or not) arriving in your inbox.
That the RIAA etc could supply a list of sites that they disagree with and that I may not have heard of?
Pretty please - then I would <s>white</s>black-list all the sites that they felt were robbing them of their profits (I'm sure robbing comes in therir somewhere) just so that I could be on the safe side.
I'm just glad that at the age of 46 there are people who feel that they can dictate what I can see or do, where would I be without them?
Anyway - list please and then I can break out my TOR client and backup their content* for later study.
*Yeah - I know, but someday I WILL have enough storage for that sort of thing
Newzbin2 does *exactly* that. It provides you with an NZB file containing direct links to (in the vast majority of cases) copyrighted materials held on Usenet servers, that is it's raison d'etre. I'm a Newzbin(2) customer, have been for years, and I dont try to dress it up in 'legitimate' clothing, all Newzbin customers know what it is and any who deny it are only deluding themselves.
Can we stop the holier-than-thou attitude on this please? All Newzbin customers (myself included) are freetards, and dont give me that shit about using it to search for Linux distros either, as these are all more readily available from the creators websites anyway.
Coat, mines the one with poachers pockets.
90% of the time that I use bittorrent or the like of newz2bin etc usually involves me looking for an old version of an application which in the course of being updated lost some particular feature that I had previously found useful (where the feature has been spun into a standalone program which I now have to pay for)
I really would be annoyed if I had my access blocked to something that I really feel that I have a right to.
As for robbed software or media, that will always be around and be a target that moves too fast for effective control.
I've got a Barbour. That's got an immense poacher's pocket at the back. Good for a couple of rabbits or three. (Nice for a bit of shoplifting, too, if you were so inclined. Just have to leave the rabbits in the shop someplace)
That's a coat. 35 years old, but still good..
Was that the rights holders wanted a changein the law (SWAT teams on the doorstep, 3-strikes etc. ectc.) but the current law has been judged to be adequate and not needing changes.
So the rights-holders have to justify ISPs switching off websites on an individual basis before a judge - not just on a post-it note slipped under a door at BT for instance.
The more time the rights holders spend chasing down court orders to block "sites", the less time they'll spend going after individual users.
As has already been pointed out, the technology and the law do not live in the same sphere, and there will always be technical solutions to circumvent the law.
Expect piracy to increase as a result of this ruling
As I expect that soon site-blocking orders will include a super-injunction element, to prevent the publication of the offending URL. The by-product of this will be that censorship will happen out of plain sight - which is just how THEY want it. Once hearings become unreportable, they can get briefer and briefer, until they become perfunctory telephone conversations, or bulk administrative exercises. Imagine a box file full of tightly-packed printed URLs to be blocked, approved weekly, on the nod.
Really? That's what you are going with. An ISP wants a judge to look at block requests rather than just taking the media companies word that the site should be blocked. Yep, they are freetard loving a$$holes alright....
Really try and editorialise a bit better, as if it was sarcastic it did not come across.
Is that our legal "experts" and judges don't have a single bloody clue about technology.
The very same people that will use sites like this are the very same people who can circumvent any futile blocking attempts.
Each and every time the music / movie industry does this sort of legal bullying it is one more time I will not buy one of their products. This does not mean I will download it either but I am just royally hacked off with these corporations essentially bullying everyone else just because they cannot evolve their markets and are just plain greedy fuckers.
Lets hope they run out of that sooner rather than later.
Nick Lansman; "However, concerns about over-blocking, ease of circumvention and increased encryption are widely recognised, which means that blocking is not a silver bullet to stop online copyright infringement. Rather, as the government-commissioned Hargreaves Review recently found, there should be more focus on offering innovative, fully-licensed content services to give consumers what they are clearly demanding."
So; the ISPs know it, the government knows it, internet users know it, even the dogs in the street know it! So why have the copyright mafiaa still got their heads stuck up their own arses (or each others arses)?????
Give me what I want, when I want it, and for a reasonable price, build it and if the product is right people will use it and be glad to pay to use it*. Think Sky+ box and TCM, Film4 etc. I can't wait for netflix to start operating this side of the atlantic.
* No, it won't get rid of freetards
Paris, head stuck... oh you know the rest....
You almost have to admire the stones on Milner.
Vision is an industry joke. Youview - another industry laugh. Was it not called Canvas? Oh and why does BT Wholesale Content Connect still seem to have no content after more than 5 years in development? Start-ups with far less resources have gone from zero to hero in less time!
You only have to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmhimnAsYWM to see one of the execs bumble his way through a CDN interview...
The entire industry is going in completely the opposite direction and BT continues to behave like the 3 wise monkeys.
Not blocking! A highly questionable statement. We all know BT blocks and actively gets in the way of the customer experince using QoS, claiming that they have to protect their customers from themselves and each other. Bit Torrents is blocked, you can test it yourself, no discrimination as to what it is, legal or otherwise. Capacity is "managed" to substantially less than your line speed and their is nothing the user can do about it, specially during peak times.
You could call BT if you want to hear the standard reply of "We only guarantee X speed in peak hours". X was 2meg last time I called customer service, I had a 8meg service, clocked at 7meg.
"We believe in an open internet" - yeah really?
Good luck blocking Newsbinz and other sites, cat and mouse time again. We will all watch this and giggle as the courts and SPs stumble about fly swatting.
How about turn up a service that people actually want? Portable, affordable, multidevice media platforms.... Oh that's right Apple and others already did ;)
The idea that an ISP isn't primarily concerned with providing communications facilities to its customers seems disingenuous. As if their primary motivation is to act as unofficial censor whenever a big enough content company claims something communicated infringes its rights. The job of judge, jury and executioner has to stay with the courts. As if Big Content ever could be trusted to police fair use and act impartially when shareholder value is at stake.
It's one thing for a court to order the Post Office not to accept parcels from Joe's Cheapest DVD Car-Boot Sale Emporium, as only a court can test the legitimacy of what Joe is selling against an over-complex set of legislation and case law. Expecting the Post Office "voluntarily" to steam open parcels from anyone and second guess the contents when a contributary copyright infringement litigation gun is held against their heads is another thing entirely.
The copyright infringing material isn't on Newzbin2, or any other usenet indexing site, it is solely on usenet, which is a globally distributed system that cannot (currently) be dismantled by MPAA in the US due to freedom of speech laws, so they can't go after the actual content, only sites that exist solely to make it easy to access that content.
Pure search sites will escape all this, so even if you cannot access newzbin2.com, you can use any number of pure usenet search engines, all of which will produce nice nzb files, just like newzbin.
Even if they go after the search sites, and some judge foolishly allows it, the content is still there. Monitoring message headers from a.b.mm, a.b.mm.x264 and a few others for nzb files will find all current scene releases.
You'll notice that the complexity increases as I step through these solutions. I think this is the aim of going after indexing sites - make it harder to do, and more people may buy the content instead.
...from serious journalism. Thanks for the reminder that this is just a blog.
Freetards and the trenchcoat brigade. Seriously? What twaddle.
Never mind the multiple studies showing that the biggest "pirates" are also the customers that spend the most honest cash.
Never mind that you don't have to be a "pirate" in order to understand and appreciate the need for a proper system of justice involving more than some corporate entity pointing a finger and going "punish them".
Just, never mind at all.
"...Never mind the multiple studies showing that the biggest "pirates" are also the customers that spend the most honest cash..."
Cite them then, I've never heard of any study that says copyright infringers spend the most money (I presume implicit in that is that they spend the money on media.)
Well, there are the following reports (all commissioned by governments you'll notice and not the industry more interested in putting out deliberately skewed figures)
And the one study that *was* commissioned by one of the movie companies was apparently conveniently suppressed.
So that's a study done for the Canadian government. One for the Japanese government and one for the Dutch government. All supporting the conclusion that 'pirates' are actually amongst the best customers for films and DVDs. Plus one that was apparently suppressed because those that commissioned it found the conclusions 'unpleasant'.
"Film industry sinks Movie pirates"
A few ORG quotes aside, it was a straight-up press release from the **IA.
BT are now ordered to use their CleanFeed system to try to block Newzbin, and presumably also TPB just as soon as the **IA lawers can cite precedent at a suitably gullible judge.
CleanFeed was, until now, a low-profile initiative designed to help limit the amount of CP being downloaded in the UK. Now instead, it will likely be targetted for circumvention by the army of 'freetards' (sic) who do not believe that the word theft can be legitimately applied to intangible assets.
I just hope the peados don't end up benefitting from this disgusting cartel stitch-up.
While ripping off the studios is wrong, and I can rent a recent DVD from my local library for £1 for a whole week, one thing that Usenet provides is access to many thousands of old movies, documentaries, and radio and TV shows that are simply not available to buy anywhere. There is a billion dollar business out there waiting to happen for some keen entrepreneur. I'd do it, except I'm too old now to cope with the stress.
So lets get this right, using a hide IP address and thru a proxy server that means that the BT march off to say Malaya and stonk a block yeah get real. All this sort of thing is purely for non technical legal nits. Lets face it with so many free Proxy servers one can go anywhere.
Lets us suggest that UK law is so all over the world, UK police act throughout the world. How stupid.
Given the extreme ways that BT "manage" their network, I find it a little odd that they are suddenly defending neutrality.
By extreme I mean an Infinity connection which can run at 37/8mbs, but during "peak" times (4pm-midnight and most of the weekends) is limited to <500kbs down and 1mbs up if you happen to use p2p.
Whilst their claim that p2p can seriously impact services sounds valid, their management is not prioritising other traffic, it's a set value throttle (one that makes my old 2mbs ADSL seem fast). Once midnight passes and the throttle comes off (sometimes they seem to forget) the torrents start flying - which seems strange... If all the bandwidth hogging torrents have been pushed into the same time window, and all trickling along until 00:01 ticks by, surely when they are all released at the same time their "excessive" consumption should result in only a marginal speed increase. Yet in my experience there is a sudden jump into the 10+ mbs region.
Apart from linux distros, and replacement ISOs of software you own but the CD/DVD you have has failed, there is another legitimate use for walking on the dark side.
As a software author I regularly trawl P2P/Usenet etc, looking for hacks and cracks to my software and leaked serial numbers. It's just like the car manufacturers/testers employing (hopefully reformed) car thieves to test vehicle security.
Classic fail here !
Block the intermediary that provides a link to Usenet while leaving the individual Usenet providers alone.
Perhaps it would be too costly & difficult to prosecute each Usenet provider.
After all each provider maintains a separate copy of the offending file(s).
Thanks for the free advertising BT, I didnt know Newzbin2 existed prior to this.
They do "3 strikes" with regards to torrents and such, shutting off service after each "strike" -- but, have their IP address->cable mdoem database scrambled so in actuality they shut people's service off at random. When they did this to me, that was when I cancelled service.
Now, they do DNS hijacking (with an opt-out, that reportedly intermittently doesn't work.) Instead of returning a proper DNS response indicating a name doesn't exist, it falsely claims non-existent names are mediacom's server, which (for port 80 at least) serves up loads of ads and crap.
MUCH worse, they interfere with HTTP connections, hijacking 404s to go their ad and crap-filled page -- with NO opt out (they falsely claim they have one, it doesn't work and they've theoretically been "looking into it" for about 6 months.. which to me means they *aren't* looking into it, that is just a stall tactic.). What pisses me off about this is a day or two ago, I wasted an hour thinking a site had mysteriously lost it's DNS, just to find out they had hijacked my 404 page.
To top it off, apparently now insert their OWN ads into pages such as google (luckily I haven't seen this yet). I guess they are thinking twice about this after some friendly calls from site owner's lawyers.
Apparently they even do all this now for *commercial* lines, including the inability to opt out. No, I don't have service from them and never will in a miilion years if they won't give me a clean internet connection; but I saw all this crap first-hand via wifi.
Looking at it from BT's view they have what they want, which is no one suing them for taking a site offline. BT's nightmare was a worthy (say, a medicines handbook) but hacked (say, torrenting) site, BT taking that offline, and then being whacked by the site and its users for compensation, contributory negligence, or worse. Now that's all a court's problem and if BT are merely following a court order then BT can't be touched legally, no matter how poor the decision of the court.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Looks like the lawyers all got paid and nothing changed.
If a UK court tells BT to do something they will do it - great - what's new?
Whatever BT does or doesn't think about this hardly matters - ISPs have continually tried to dodge any sort of responsibility for anything and if they end up inside some complex, expensive and unsuitable legal/regulatory system it's their own stupid fault (although we will all end up paying for that).
And why do the rights associations think this sort of move is of any use at all? Their current business model is based on a monopolistic approach which every other economic sector has written off as failed. They need to move into the 20th Century (or even the 19th would do). Their economic and trading strategy is pretty much straight out of the British East India Company handbook.
One of the major problems I see with this ruling is that previous breaking cleanfeed was illegal, not because of the technicalities in doing so but because if you did you were essentially downloading CP.
Now you break cleanfeed and simply be accessing an index file (that there is nothing illegal about). Yes it can be used for illegal purposes but on it's own there isn't anything illegal.
"We will never stop our customers getting to any service they want to get to."
That obviously doesn't extend to email. BT have been performing wholesale blocks on emails from legitimate websites for a number of years based on very small numbers of "spam" reports from idiots who don't know the difference between "report and spam" and "unsubscribe".
This is a hoot. Son't need anything complicated just a proxy server. All newzbin does is give the ability to provide a nzb for anything that takes peoples fancy that is on Usenet. Then run something like NOMP with a news server to get all the bits and pieces using the nzb as a template. I don't know how many people still use Usenet and those that do will be resourceful. I just can't see the point of the exercise.unless it is just a stalking horse to block masses of websites downstream.
Paris regularly contributes to the newzbin sister site.
Almost 40 million residents of Japan spent the weekend in The Time Before Smartphones after local telco KDDI Corp. experienced its biggest outage to date – affecting both voice calls and data communications.
Luckily for the company and its customers, the outage began in the wee hours of Saturday morning – 1:35AM (1635 Friday UTC) to be exact – rather than peak time.
However, the disruptions did drag on, at least for some, until Monday morning.
Three people accused of selling pirate software licenses worth more than $88 million have been charged with fraud.
The software in question is built and sold by US-based Avaya, which provides, among other things, a telephone system called IP Office to small and medium-sized businesses. To add phones and enable features such as voicemail, customers buy the necessary software licenses from an Avaya reseller or distributor. These licenses are generated by the vendor, and once installed, the features are activated.
In charges unsealed on Tuesday, it is alleged Brad Pearce, a 46-year-old long-time Avaya customer service worker, used his system administrator access to generate license keys tens of millions of dollars without permission. Each license could sell for $100 to thousands of dollars.
Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise is the latest networking outfit to add Wi-Fi 6E capability to its hardware, opening up access to the less congested 6GHz spectrum for business users.
The France-based company just revealed the OmniAccess Stellar 14xx series of wireless access points, which are set for availability from this September. Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise said its first Wi-Fi 6E device will be a high-end "premium" Access Point and will be followed by a mid-range product by the end of the year.
Wi-Fi 6E is compatible with the Wi-Fi 6 standard, but adds the ability to use channels in the 6GHz portion of the spectrum, a feature that will be built into the upcoming Wi-Fi 7 standard from the start. This enables users to reduce network contention, or so the argument goes, as the 6GHz portion of the spectrum is less congested with other traffic than the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz frequencies used for Wi-Fi access.
Interview While the IT industry waits to see if and when Intel will introduce software-defined silicon in Xeon CPUs, one startup is moving ahead with plans to bring a pay-for-what-you-use pricing model to the telecom market with its "base station-on-a-chip" later this year.
Silicon Valley-based EdgeQ, which is led by former Qualcomm and Intel executives, announced last week that it has begun sampling an EdgeQ-based 5G small cell and OpenRAN PCIe accelerator card for base stations with telecom operators and equipment makers.
Things are apparently moving smoothly enough for the startup that Adil Kidwai, EdgeQ's head of product management, told The Register that its RISC-V-based chip will appear in mass-manufactured products like small cells and base station accelerator cards "by the end of this year."
The Gallium group, believed to be a Chinese state-sponsored team, is going on the warpath with an upgraded remote access trojan (RAT) that threat hunters say is difficult to detect.
The deployment of this "PingPull" RAT comes as the gang is broadening the types of organizations in its sights from telecommunications companies to financial services firms and government entities across Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe and Africa, according to researchers with Palo Alto Networks' Unit 42 threat intelligence group.
The backdoor, once in a compromised system, comes in three variants, each of which can communicate with the command-and-control (C2) system in one of three protocols: ICMP, HTTPS and raw TCP. All three PingPull variants have the same functionality, but each creates a custom string of code that it sends to the C2 server, which will use the unique string to identify the compromised system.
The Canadian government has joined many of its allies and banned the use of Huawei and ZTE tech in its 5G networks, as part of a new telecommunications security framework.
“The Government is committed to maximizing the social and economic benefits of 5G and access to telecommunications services writ large, but not at the expense of security,” stated the Government of Canada.
Companies using equipment or managed services from the two Chinese companies have been until 28 June 2024 to stop operating or remove the equipment.
Brit telecoms giant BT is undertaking a trial of new antenna technology that may boost the range of 5G networks and reduce mobile network energy consumption.
The receiver technology works by exploiting a quantum effect called "electromagnetically induced transparency" to form a highly sensitive electric field detector. According to BT, this could theoretically make it over 100 times more sensitive than traditional receivers, allowing it to detect weaker signals and thus extend the range of a mobile network deployment.
Regular readers will no doubt have become twitchy at the mention of the word "quantum" so we asked BT if it could supply us with a simple explanation of how the new antenna technology works. It told us:
The FTC has settled a case in which Frontier Communications was accused of charging high prices for under-delivered internet connectivity.
The US telecommunications giant has promised to be clearer with subscribers on connection speeds, and will cough up more than $8.5 million, or less than a day in annual profit, to end the matter.
Frontier used to primarily pipe broadband over phone lines to people in rural areas, expanded to cities, and today supplies the usual fare to homes and businesses: fiber internet, TV, and phone services.
The Communication and Workers Union (CWU) will this week publish the timetable to run an industrial action ballot over the pay rise BT gave to members recently, with the telco's subsidiaries to vote separately.
Earlier this month, BT paid its 58,000 frontline workers a flat rate increase of £1,500 ($1,930) for the year, upping it from the £1,200 ($1,545) initially offered. BT hadn't cleared this increase with the CWU, and the union branded the offer as unacceptable at a time when inflation in Britain is expected to soar by 10 percent this year.
In a public town hall meeting last week, the CWU said it will take an "emergency motion" to the Annual Conference this week to "set out the exact ballot timetable," said Karen Rose, vice president at CWU.
Chinese telco Pacific Networks and its subsidiary ComNet must cease all services within the United States within 60 days from Wednesday March 16 following an order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
In a canned statement, the FCC cited "potential security threats" as the justification for its action, which passed on a 4-0 vote.
The agency concluded that the companies, which it deemed US subsidiaries of Chinese state-owned entities, are "subject to exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government" and "highly likely" to be forced into complying with requests from Beijing without independent judicial oversight.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022