Lord mandleson Copyright change could block Youtube

Welshchris · 05-03-2010, 14:04

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...l-economy-bill

Spectato · 05-03-2010, 14:51

With any luck, most concerns will essentially 'ignore' this hogwash and carry on much as things are.
Otherwise there's gonna be an orgy of confusion, wrongful accusation, persecution and censorship.
It's not like it's actually going to stop people from plundering the Net for free media and software etc.

iFrankie · 05-03-2010, 14:57

Id be lost without youtube lol

Ignitionnet · 05-03-2010, 15:34

Those people paying for Rapidshare, et al, abuse could be in for some fun over this.

Potentially an extremely bad idea, would have to be handled incredibly carefully and probably best left alone.

Horace · 07-03-2010, 00:15

The amendment if it gets passed would allow companies with a reasonable probability of success to ask a court to force isp's to block any site which links to pirate content :

"the extent to which the operator of each specified online location has taken reasonable steps to prevent copyright infringement content being accessed at or via that online location or taken reasonable steps to remove copyright infringing content from that online location (or both)"

Most search engines would fit that criteria unless they started very heavy filtering and if search engines were excluded then a torrent site could also argue for the same treatment - if this went through I could well imagine pretty much every major torrent site being added to a block list as well as RS/Megaupload and maybe even Usenet servers. It's so broad it's difficult to imagine much getting excluded on the grounds of legitimate use. The only alternative would be to use an out of country VPN, that's until the major VPN's are also added to the list in further legislation.

nomadking · 07-03-2010, 00:35

What about where site X links to site Y, which then links to site Z, which is classed as containing pirate material?

Ignitionnet · 07-03-2010, 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

What about where site X links to site Y, which then links to site Z, which is classed as containing pirate material?

It's still just a link, when you follow the link to Z which is blocked you'll be stopped.

If X downloads the stuff from Y which downloads from Z functioning as a sort of proxy then X will be harbouring the material so will be blocked.

Horace · 07-03-2010, 16:31

Since a torrent file is simply a link to trackers which in turn links to file hosts it's more like V (Google) > W(torrent site) > X(torrent file) > Y (trackers) > Z (hosts). Considering the wording of the document; if X is considered block-able since it fulfils the definition of 'via' then V should also be considered block-able since neither are actually linking directly to hosts containing the material but they are both part of a chain.
The word 'via' has been used since the torrent hosting sites and trackers are not themselves hosting anything illegal, in essence its the same as a person A sending person B the url of a pirate copy of a movie who in turn sends it to person C who actually downloads the film, person A,B and C all being considered guilty parties but person A actually found the link using Google - if person A is guilty then Google is also guilty.

Ignitionnet · 08-03-2010, 11:59

Following that to its' extremes most of the Internet would have to be blocked. I would expect that particular chain to start at W as the vast majority of torrent sites are 99%+ dubious material with the odd legal one for variety.

The law is wide ranging as they want it to be but its' implementation would require a lot of common sense.

Better yet not being implemented at all but we'll see - something does have to be done I quite agree but it's a tricky balancing act.

DaiNasty · 08-03-2010, 12:48

And behind it all of course is the all-permeating socialist theme...

If they can control it, then they can tax it.

Horace · 09-03-2010, 05:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

And behind it all of course is the all-permeating socialist theme...

If they can control it, then they can tax it.

Well, this is a lib-dem/Conservative supported amendment but there's no need to bring party politics into this argument since it seems it's supported by all sides.

I agree that my examples are extreme but I'm trying to point out the stupidity of it, it's either very open to abuse or useless since anyone contesting a block could reasonable ask why sites further up the chain aren't also blocked. I also wonder where a site like Torrentz.com would stand in all this.

slowcoach · 10-03-2010, 00:09

We used to manage all right before the Internet.

Bricktop · 10-03-2010, 00:32

Peter may block YouTube but Im sure he will use <deleted> for his gay porn. What a rat faced lying corrupt thief he is. Im sure he will still use his broadband to download his gay porn vids and post on gay contact sites.

iFrankie · 10-03-2010, 22:42

How immature are some people... lol

**Hugh** · 10-03-2010, 23:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bricktop

Peter may block YouTube but Im sure he will use <deleted> for his gay porn. What a rat faced lying corrupt thief he is. Im sure he will still use his broadband to download his gay porn vids and post on gay contact sites.

You seem to have an obsession with gays.........