BBC News - BT ordered to block links to Newzbin 2 website.
e anche
- Blocking is a proportionate measure, with the cost to BT of implementing the block being modest.
- The procedure to apply for a blocking order can be fast: section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, which implements Article 8(3), permits a blocking order to be obtained by an application procedure, without the need for a full trial.
- An order requiring BT to block Newzbin2 does not amount to a “general obligation to monitor” the information transmitted and stored by an ISP, which would contravene the E-Commerce Directive.
- The fact that the studios applying for the blocking order do not own all of the copyrights being infringed via Newzbin2 is not a reason to refuse the relief sought.
- The fact that the block could be circumvented is not a reason for refusing to grant the blocking order, with the judge stating that “the order would be justified even if it only prevented access to Newzbin2 by a minority of users”.
(la speranza è l'ultima che muore)
- The principles of European law are sufficiently clear to enable the court to grant the order without making a reference to the European Court of Justice.
- In relation to the balancing of fundamental rights which was necessary, the copyright owners’ interest in having their right to Article 1 European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“ECHR”) right to property protected, clearly outweighed the interests of Newzbin2 users’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression, and even more clearly outweighed the Article 10 right to freedom of expression of Newzbin2’s operators.
- The fact that the outcome of the balancing exercise in relation to fundamental rights may involve an interference with use of the internet does not in itself give rise to any special considerations.
- The Opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice in Scarlet v SABAM did not prevent the Court granting a website blocking order. The filtering order contemplated in the Scarlet v SABAM reference to the ECJ was clearly distinguishable from the order sought by the film studios in this case. The order in the present case being clear and precise, merely requiring BT to implement a solution that BT accepted as technically feasible and not excessively costly, with safeguards enabling the order to be varied or discharged if circumstances change in the future. The blocking order falls well within the range of orders which was foreseeable by ISPs on the basis of section 97A, and still more Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive.
giusto oggi un collega si lamentava con me del fatto che non potesse vedere i film sul suo ipad, legalmente.
non pare esserci un grande impulso dall'industria ad aiutare i cittadini onesti a restare onesti.
rimando al mondo nuovo:
Sembra complesso ma vuol dire che
- i beni digitali devono essere ottenibili e fruibili su ogni dispositivo : per evitare abusi e creazione di monopoli se chi fornisce il contenuto è lo stesso soggetto che gestisce la rete di distribuzione o che produce l’hardware
- ogni bene digitale si deve portare dietro la propria licenza d’uso: così si può sapere se è un Creative Commons, o una copia privata di qualcuno o un oggetto venduto da qualcuno o un oggetto nel pubblico dominio, ecc..
Inoltre, l'ordine prevede che BT blocchi il sito usando l'infrastruttura di filtraggio per i siti ritenuti pedopornografici da IWF (uno scandalo che merita una discussione a sé).
Come ho sempre sostenuto, se si creano le infrastrutture per la censura allora decidere cosa censurare è solo una decisione politica.
Scritto da: Marco d'Itri | 28/07/2011 a 21:43