America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 months ago by Sunoverbeach. 10 replies replies.
Court Orders All ISPs to Block Three Specific Services
Gene363 Online
#1 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 28,507
Talk about nutty decisions. Or is this just a test case to empower the Ministry of Truth?

Quote:
A federal judge has ordered all Internet service providers in the United States to block three pirate streaming services operated by Doe defendants who never showed up to court and hid behind false identities.

The blocking orders affect Israel.tv, Israeli-tv.com, and Sdarot.tv, as well as related domains listed in the rulings and any other domains where the copyright-infringing websites may resurface in the future.


Article: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-every-isp-in-us-must-block-pirate-sites-run-by-mysterious-defendants/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LrieGDMac8

Quote:
A copyright battle has spawned a sweeping order demanding internet service providers block a set of pirate sites — one of the broadest such rulings to date.

As TorrentFreak recently reported, a New York district judge ruled in late April on a series of copyright lawsuits against three sites that rebroadcast mostly Hebrew-language television. The rightsholders demanded monetary damages from the site operators — who didn’t show up in court — and an injunction meant to prevent viewers from accessing the services. Judge Katherine Polk Failla approved the request and ordered a voluminous list of ISPs to block Israeli-TV.com, Israel.tv, and Sdarot.com. The companies are required to block not only the current addresses but also any domain known to be “used in the future ... by any technological means available.” Users should instead be directed to a page that notifies them of the block.

It’s not just ISPs that are affected either. Web hosting providers, web designers, domain name registration services, and advertising companies — among others — are all barred from doing business with the sites.

Copyright suits can ask for blocking orders. But it’s highly unusual for them to be this comprehensive, says Meredith Rose, senior policy counsel of the nonprofit Public Knowledge. “That scope of the injunction and listing that many players in it is beyond the norm,” she says. Among other things, third parties are supposed to get a chance to show up in court and contest blocking orders, which raises the barrier to demanding them. That doesn’t appear to have happened in this case.



https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/6/23057391/pirate-site-injunction-isp-blocking-requirement
RayR Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,188
There are Israeli pirates? Confused Never heard of such a thing. 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

Anyway, I think you're right Gene, this is a test of the power of the Ministry of Truth to censor disinformation.
Speyside2 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,067
When the government tells non government entities to inforce the law in such a wide scope we have a problem Houston.
rfenst Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,972
They could also be fined for knowingly violating copyright laws. Non-compliance might even lead to contempt charges.

Basically, they critically failed to appear for the hearing. That begs for a ruling against them if they were given notice of the hearing. Notice + no show = no argument = losing (within the boundaries of the law).

The most common exception, which is rare, would be an emergency hearing, which requires a showing of irreparable harm. In such case, a party need not necessarily even be notified of the emergency hearing, if not practicable.

As to other providers, unless it was an emergency hearing, they have the right to be notified, present and heard (due process).

Emergency hearings are always followed shortly thereafter by a full hearing on the merits with a record that every other party has notice of the allegations and charges.

Without copyright protection, businesses and people can get ripped off when someone else uses their work product. This takes away their incentive (financial or otherwise) to produce products and services.

Remember the LimeWire debacle 10-15 years ago where musicians weren't being paid for people downloading their music for free?
Gene363 Online
#5 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 28,507
rfenst wrote:
They could also be fined for knowingly violating copyright laws. Non-compliance might even lead to contempt charges.

Basically, they critically failed to appear for the hearing. That begs for a ruling against them if they were given notice of the hearing. Notice + no show = no argument = losing (within the boundaries of the law).

The most common exception, which is rare, would be an emergency hearing, which requires a showing of irreparable harm. In such case, a party need not necessarily even be notified of the emergency hearing, if not practicable.

As to other providers, unless it was an emergency hearing, they have the right to be notified, present and heard (due process).

Emergency hearings are always followed shortly thereafter by a full hearing on the merits with a record that every other party has notice of the allegations and charges.

Without copyright protection, businesses and people can get ripped off when someone else uses their work product. This takes away their incentive (financial or otherwise) to produce products and services.

Remember the LimeWire debacle 10-15 years ago where musicians weren't being paid for people downloading their music for free?


I agree, however, the judges order is not to the " "They" " of the lawsuit, it is to business entities that were not parties to the lawsuit.

Mr. Jones Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 17,041
Who cares??

I never heard of them.

I don't watch them...

What gauls me LATELY...are all these RICH PRICKS WHO
DISREGARD SUBPOENAS FROM THE U.S. GUBMENT LIKE THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW...

AND NOTHING HAPPENS TO THEM...

W.T.F. IS GOING ON IN DENMARK?

YOU AND I DISREGARD A SUBPOENAS AND WE GO TO JAIL ..PRONTO LIKE....

NOT IF YOUR NAME IS T.R.U.M.P. THOUGH...

W.T.F.???
BuckyB93 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,621
First of all, I don't understand where the judicial system can implement a ruling against parties that are not even involved with the case.

Second of all, then go as far as to extend them to theoretical domain names that might be used in the future.

Who decides on the potential domain names that might be "used in the future" that should be banned? Are we going to leave it up to the the ISP to choose what domain names are acceptable and not acceptable? The courts? The government?

What if current or theoretical domain names used in the future have no ties to any pirating sources or resources? Do they get shut down simply because the ISP or the courts don't like the name?

Sunoverbeach Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,507
So, is Israelimilfs.com a no go?
BuckyB93 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,621
Depends, do they offer free shipping?

NINE!
Sunoverbeach Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 12,507
Contact Celtic bomber in customer service. See if he can cut you a deal
Users browsing this topic
Guest