back to article One court order could gag EVERY ISP in Denmark

Internet service providers (ISPs) and copyright holders in Denmark have agreed on a framework that would see all ISPs in the country block access to copyright-infringing content if one of the providers is ordered to do so by a court. The Danish Ministry of Culture said that it would work with ISPs and rights holders groups to …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Such solutions could contribute to the spread of legal services and to reduce levels of piracy"

    So they subscribe to the idea that "piracy" blocks the proliferation of legal services and that forbidding them will magically cause legal alternatives to appear. This idea appears to be a fallacy, yet they're going ahead with it anyway. Score one for the copyright mafiaa.

    1. Old Handle

      Re: "Such solutions could contribute to the spread of legal services and to reduce levels of piracy"

      No, you misunderstood. When they said "legal services" they didn't mean "lawful (music) services", they really meant "legal services" or in other words, law firms. And I'm sure they're correct.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      We will censor to to within an inch of your life, we will censor everything to the point that you will not know you are censored. We will make a utopia, more perfect than what George Orwell could envisage.

      Finally we will censor words so that censorship will no longer be used, therefore censorship will not exist. But you won't know that will you.

      We will have control.

  2. Desk Jockey

    Beat up the small minnows first

    This idea sounds ripe for abuse. The copyright holders will just pick the weakest ISP they can find, get a blocking order in which then applies to all the other ISPs who might otherwise contest that order as being unfair/unworkable. If they want to do it properly, they need to open up the order to objections from all the ISPs before it can be applied. It would still be pointless though.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Beat up the small minnows first

      What's to prevent them from buying a small ISP? quis ipso custodes....something.

  3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Potential problems

    So what's to stop a "rights holder" organisation from setting up an ISP and instructing its management to roll over without a fight every time in order to obtain a "court decision" whenever they want one?

    And what's to stop someone (else?) setting up an ISP that doesn't follow this "framework", preferring instead the quaint and clearly outdated idea of having its day in court?

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: Potential problems

      wow, I guess i should have read the post after the one to which I originally replied...

  4. Crisp

    I can see this working really well.

    Just like how blocking the Pirate Bay stopped copyright infringement in the UK .

    That's an end to it once and for all.

  5. Panzerbjørn

    But on the other hand...

    Copyright infringement **is** actually illegal...

    And while I'm sure many people enjoy getting entertainment for free, it really is not that different from driving 70mph in a 70mph zone. It might not seem like you're doing anything wrong, and the vast majority, I suspect, would agree that it isn't so wrong, but that doesn't make it any less illegal.

    Of course, if the content providers were smarter about providing content online, this probably wouldn't be a problem.


    1. M7S

      Re: But on the other hand...

      Is that actually what you meant to say?

      You compare illegal downloading to driving at the legal speed limit.

      You then say that despite possible social approval, it's no less illegal.

      Something is unclear, or perhaps you meant to say driving at 70 in a 50 zone, for example.

      1. Panzerbjorn

        Re: But on the other hand...

        Nope, that was my being fat fingered and not proof reading my comment properly -_-

        I meant to write 75 in a 70 zone...

        Fail icon because that's what I did ^_^

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But on the other hand...

      Copyright infringement **is** actually illegal...

      Wrong. Just plain WRONG.

      Wake me up when copyright infringement becomes a criminal offense, until then, stop spreading FUD.

      1. Jtom

        Re: But on the other hand...

        "Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000."

        If you are in the USA, you should be awake by now.

  6. Piro Silver badge

    Lots of things are illegal

    But the government in these cases are basically working by using taxpayer's cash to protect American giants of music and video, which is not a good use of time.

    Also, since when has trying to stop people doing illegal things in this way ever been common? This would be like all cars having speed limiters for the roads they're on using GPS tracking, or having copy and paste disabled on your computer so you can never duplicate copywritten text to cite.

    It's simply wrong, no matter what, it's a waste of government time and money, and does not benefit they people they claim to serve. It's also very choosy and picky about who it protects. It has absolutely nothing to do with killing crime, and all to do with big publishers throwing their toys out of the pram.

  7. Christoph

    Just how will this apply?

    Will they confirm that the content is actually as claimed, or will they follow the current model of "It has the same title as our copyright work, therefore it is our copyright work".

    Will they block major sites that use an individual's copyright photograph without asking?

  8. Khaptain Silver badge

    Hypothetically speaking

    Let's think for a moment what would be the "real" result if all of the "illegal content/copyright infringement" sites were to be made unavailable.

    * Would those that use those sites suddenly start "buying" things with money they don't have in the first place ?

    * Would artists start to get paid more with money that never existed ?

    * Would the copyright holders magically start milking the imaginary cash cow ?

    Of course they bloody wouldn't. All of the arguments held by the BMI, the MFIAA etc all involve an imaginary cash cow that will somehow magically re-appear and create an enormous flow of wealth for all concerned parties.

    When will we see an end to this futile vision.

    1. Panzerbjorn

      Re: Hypothetically speaking

      I realise that I'm not everyone and that this is just my opinion, but yes, I would happily pay if they could provide me with what I want.

      Here, this is basically what I mean:

    2. (AMPC) Anonymous and mostly paranoid coward

      Re: Non.Hypothetically speaking


      New sites would spring up in their place or IP addresses would be used instead of URLs to get to blocked content. I would love to see how the Danes plan to make this all work. Will they stop all internet access inside and outside of their country after the blocking order takes affect.... sheesh.

      frigging ayatollahs.

  9. Gabor Laszlo

    I'm so sick

    of copyright infringement being called 'internet/online piracy'.

    Depriving 'IP rights holders' of alleged potential profit is NOT the same as murdering people and taking their valuables on the high seas.

    This phrase both demonizes otherwise harmless people in the public consciousness, and erodes the shock value of real piracy.

  10. Xenobyte
    Thumb Down

    Blocking sites is against the Danish Constitution!

    Section 77 of the Danish Constitution explicitly bans the introduction of any kind of censorship but yet the courts keep on blocking more and more sites...

    Blocking free access to otherwise public information is universally recognized as censorship.

  11. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Denmark used to be quite a nice place, although the girls were always a bit strange. Now the whole country seems to have gone nuts.

  12. Anonymous Coward

    Oh let them blow it out thier arses..

    "The ministry's plans to issue "guidelines for blocking access to illegal services on the internet" is just one of a raft of new measures it announced it would take to help combat online copyright infringement."

    Oh well people's, back to burning everything to DVD and sharing it with your freinds....

    Actually all jesting aside, I am thinking we are absolutely saturated in a tsunami of content....

    As I stood in the shower last night, fatasizing about Jesus coming, I for one am leaning very much towards the idea of marginal cost content, and having BANDS and theater groups, actually touring and booking venues in order to make a living.

    Like IF the recorded content is any good, then they must be worth seeing, right?

    Back to some stern disciplin from Jesus......

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When wil you freeturd supporters understand!

    It is not just the big music giants and bad guys that get hurt by illegal downloaders but small software companies, local musicians who try to launch their music and bypass the big publishers and many others. A whole generation has grown up thinking it perfectly acceptable to take something that they want without paying for it. If I had my way, an illegal downloader would have his computer confiscated and sold to pay back to the people he has stolen from!

    1. Gabor Laszlo

      Re: When wil you freeturd supporters understand!

      Let me guess: author of crappy software noone is willing to pay for, and you found a torrent with your stuff somewhere on the internet once with all of ten seeds.

  14. lukewarmdog

    Freeturd Supporters Rally

    Nobody wants to hurt the small software companies or local musicians so, in order to protect them, if we all pledge to <only> watch, listen, read, play and use content from the big providers then the argument becomes moot. Unknown album by never heard of artist that refuses to be allowed to be pigeonholed? Don't download it. Problem solved.

  15. Bob J.

    HG Wells was right

    How sad. This is the "new" Danish Government, the so-called "left" Danish Government, the Danish Government supposedly for the people and not the corporations. How wrong the Danish people were to believe such propaganda. The New Bosses are the same (or worse than) the Old Bosses.

    It's the same all over the world: get a really extreme party of the right going to scare people, than have a mildly right party posing as a left party win the election -- and discover belatedly that the corporations are even more in charge. Shades of Blair, Obama, and now Helle Thorning-Schmidt. It's not copyright holders' rights that are at stake, it's freedom itself.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like