A coalition of the willing, headed up by the BPI and including the major Hollywood studios, approached BT, the UK’s leading ISP, with a demand – block The Pirate Bay voluntarily or consent to a court order.

The self-styled “world’s most resilient torrent site” is no stranger to censorship. It is already blocked by ISPs in Ireland, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and Belgium but the quest to put it completely out of business continues.

“The Pirate Bay is no more than a huge scam on the global creative sector. It defrauds musicians and other creators of their wages, and it destroys UK jobs,” said Geoff Taylor, BPI Chief Executive.

“Unlike legal music download sites, it exposes consumers to the risk of viruses, theft of personal information and inappropriate content. We would not tolerate Counterfeits ‘R’ Us on the High Street – if we want economic growth, we cannot accept illegal rip-off sites on the internet either. We hope that BT will do the right thing and block The Pirate Bay.”

But at this stage PaidContent is reporting that BT will not simply roll over and comply with the demand for The Pirate Bay to be blocked voluntarily.

“BT cannot block web sites willy nilly,” said the BT source.

Voluntary action aside, BT has reportedly been given the chance to consent to a court order. If the ISP refuses it seems likely that the parties will end up in court for a mirrored re-run of the arguments in the Newzbin2 case. If there are no surprises the High Court could order a blockade of The Pirate Bay in the first half of 2012.

After a lengthy legal process the censoring of Newzbin2 finally kicked in earlier this week, but users of the site are reportedly bypassing the block by various means including the use of Newzbin2′s very own anti-blocking software.

A feature to unblock The Pirate Bay in the event that it too became blocked was already added to the client several weeks ago.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, a Pirate Bay insider laughed off the efforts to slow down the site and said that every time there are attempts at censorship the resulting publicity only gives them a boost.

“Thanks yet again for the free advertising,” they conclude.

Source: BPI and MPA Demand UK Pirate Bay Blockade

Although BT had already lost their case opposing the action, there was a last-minute development when a Newzbin2 and BT user stepped up to intervene in the proceedings.

The individual, known only as “DM”, had already come under pressure from the MPA who, according to Newzbin2′s Mr White, had sent him a bill for “$10,000 in costs” along with a warning that the proceedings could bankrupt him.

Despite these efforts, DM’s application was heard yesterday. TorrentFreak understands that he asked that the full block on Newzbin2 should be avoided, and the MPA should specifically identify which URLs point to infringing material and have those removed instead.

“Congratulations to our user ‘DM’ for having the big clanging balls of steel to intervene on behalf of the users of Newzbin2. He did so in the teeth of desperate ferocious opposition by the MPA and wasn’t fazed by their spineless attempts at personal intimidation,” said Newzbin2′s Mr White in an email to TorrentFreak.

“The MPA were happy to line up their own lackey Copyright Dinosaurs organizations to support their the claim: the BPI, IFPI, Publishers Association and the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment lined up sycophantically and obediently behind the MPA. The MPA hypocrites didn’t feel that it was appropriate for anyone opposing their wishes to be heard.”

Nevertheless, the judge felt that DM’s submission should be aired and he allowed that to go ahead. Whether it has made any difference is yet to be seen.

“The court case concluded but the judge has ‘reserved judgment’ which I’m told means he will deliver his blocking order in an unknown form in a few weeks or so,” says Mr White. “Obviously we are nervous on behalf of our UK users and hope for the best.”

But for ‘DM’ the news on his predicted bankruptcy appears to be good. Because he won his submission he won’t have to pay the costs of the MPA opposing him.

“Of course, £7,500 wouldn’t be enough to buy the MPA any politicians so they probably aren’t that upset. Shame,” Mr White concludes.

Source: High Court “Reserves Judgment” at Newzbin2 Blocking Hearing

Last Wednesday, TeamRDogs – the group behind the site – released Newzbin Client 1.0.0.127, their first software release designed to circumvent BT’s Cleanfeed online censorship system. Our tests revealed that encryption is one of the main tools being used to circumvent the system.

Following the release, TorrentFreak caught up with Mr White from TeamRDogs, a character far more colorful than his monochromatic name might suggest. He told us that being forced to create this software was not only a waste of their time, but a sad testament to the state of the open Internet dream.

“Having to write a client program like this is an admission that the open web is in the process of failing. The ability of vested interests to choke the Internet with a vinculum woven from malevolent law and technology is very depressing,” Mr White told us.

“TeamRDogs would rather spend its time in titty bars drinking whisky and snorting lines than hacking the MAFIAA’s Client of Doom (hmmm, CoD – we may call it that), but they’ve made it necessary.”

The Newzbin2 anti-blocking software, which was updated with a new release just before the weekend followed by a brand new OSX version this week, is said to include ‘Agility Technology’. But what does that mean?

“This is simply a mechanism that will allow the application and its configuration to be modified to adapt to the new web censorship techniques that we can envisage arising,” Mr White explains. “The App can also ‘Phone Home’ for a friendly message if Newzbin2′s Intarwebs is cut off.”

While Newzbin2 could indeed become the first victim of the pro-copyright web-blocking movement in the West, if the lobbyists get their way it certainly won’t be the last. But by picking on a site like Newzbin2, which has already shown it is prepared to fight technology with technology (a route to failure in itself), the prospect of successful future web blocks has already been reduced.

Mr White told TorrentFreak that rather than keep their toys to themselves, in the spirit of sharing Newzbin2 could adjust their code to assist other victims of web-blocking.

“We could adapt it to help out other websites so if, for example, the MAFIAA start to go after NZBMatrix [another Usenet indexing site] or torrent sites we’d be happy to help them out.”

However, it’s not all plain sailing. We’ve already had pessimists point out that since TeamRDogs obtained the original Newzbin database by unconventional means, their software should be viewed with caution. But that notion is dismissed by Mr White.

“Some people will worry that [the client] will have adware/malware etc: given the heuristic examination that it will inevitably be subject to that would be dumb on a Sony scale,” says Mr White referencing the Sony CD rootkit fiasco. “It’s clean, we swear this on Ron Jeremy’s manhood.”

Mr White says that in addition to the new client, TeamRDogs also recommends tools offered by 3rd parties.

“Despite the App we reckon that MAFIAAFire will also be a good bet for most for now but we believe in having options,” he concludes. “And doubles all round.”

Source: Newzbin2 Offers Anti-Blocking Tech To BitTorrent Sites, Releases OS X Version

Although the blocking measures aren’t expected to be put in place until after mid-October, a breakdown in one of Newzbin2′s DNS servers during the last few days led to fears that it had been implemented early.

The fault was quickly fixed, and Newzbin2′s operators said the problem encouraged them to work harder on their promised anti-blocking solutions.

Today, TeamRDogs – the group behind the site – released Newzbin Client 1.0.0.127, the first public piece of software designed to circumvent BT’s Cleanfeed online censorship system, the tool which the MPA hopes can neutralize Newzbin2 in the UK.

“We are pleased to announce the first Newzbin2 client software,” said Newzbin2′s Mr White.

“This is targeted at UK users who are likely to get blocked in October. This first version is a bit rushed and so not very polished. As time goes by we shall improve it and add features.”

The software provides a basic web interface for the Newzbin2 site but while OSX and Linux versions are planned for the future, the client (which downloads in a 2.4mb installer) is currently only available for Windows users. So how does it work?

“We can’t say how our client application works but it uses a number of techniques to utterly defeat Cleanfeed,” said Mr White in an email.

“The application also has Agility Technology to break any updated web censorship methods or anti freedom countermeasures.”

Using network protocol analysis software, TorrentFreak ran some basic tests on the Newzbin2 client today which revealed that it does indeed defeat known features of Cleanfeed in a number of ways.

Initially the client tries to resolve the site’s domain name to an IP in the usual manner via DNS, but from there, and without going into too many details, an encrypted session is initiated between the client and the Newzbin2 site in a way that Cleanfeed won’t like, rendering blocking impractical and snooping more or less impossible.

As can be seen from the screenshot above, the client also provides some other features such as accessing the Newzbin2 website via the TOR anonymity network. Other useful links to online resources such as IMDb and common search engines are also provided.

The client is in the early stages of development and will need a few features updating if it wants to be near bulletproof. We’re sure Newzbin2′s Mr Violet, the guy who put in much of the work, has all that covered – and more.

Source: Newzbin2 Release Encrypted Client To Defeat Website Blocking

Both ISPs accused the former government of pushing through the legislation without due process and questioned whether the Act is enforceable under current EU legislation. They also challenged the statutory order, currently in draft, designed to apportion the costs of meeting the requirements of the DEA.

Under the law, service providers are required to take action against subscribers flagged as illicit file-sharers and could be required to block domains associated with infringement.

Just under an hour ago, that decision arrived.

“The High Court today ruled in favour of the Government in a judicial review of measures to tackle online copyright infringement in the Digital Economy Act,” said the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in an announcement.

“Mr Justice Kenneth Parker upheld the principle of taking measures to tackle the unlawful downloading of music, films, books and other copyright material. BT and TalkTalk had brought the judicial review, claiming that the measures in the Act were not compliant with EU law and were not proportionate. The judge rejected the challenge.”

On the statutory order dealing with the costs of implementing the DEA, the government indicated that the ISPs could avoid some, but not all costs.

“The judicial review also considered the statutory instrument that splits the cost of the Act’s mass notification system between rights holders and internet service providers.

“The judge ruled ISPs could be made to pay a share of the cost of operating the system and the appeals process but not Ofcom’s costs from setting up, monitoring and enforcing it. The Government will now consider changes to the statutory instrument.”

In a statement responding to the judgement, a DCMS spokesperson said the government is pleased that the court has decided in favor of the DEA.

“We are pleased that the Court has recognised these measures as both lawful and proportionate. The Government remains committed to tackling online piracy and so will set out the next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act shortly.”

Both BT and TalkTalk say they are “disappointed” with the outcome and are considering their options. They could include going to the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice.

Regulatory body OFCOM is currently considering if site blocking under the DEA is a workable practice. They will report to government shortly.

Source: ISPs Challenge to Digital Economy Act Rejected

Lawyers Gallant Macmillan hoped that the Court would order the ISPs to hand over the identities of hundreds of alleged filesharers so that Ministry of Sound can prise a cash settlement out of them.

However, in contrast to their earlier stances, BT and and their subsidiary Plusnet refused to cooperate. Their concerns stemmed from the catastrophric data security breach at lawyers ACS:Law last month.

Chief Master Winegarten, who hears most if not all of these types of cases in the UK, granted BT’s request for an adjournment of the hearing.

In a statement, Plusnet’s COO Richard Fletcher wrote: “The incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people’s confidence in the current process.

“We’re pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined by the court, this will then act as a precedent/test case for the future.

“We want to ensure broadband subscribers are adequately protected so that rights holders can pursue their claims for copyright infringement without causing unnecessary worry to innocent people. We have not simply consented to these orders in the past, we have asked for stricter terms as public concern has risen. The data leak with ACS:Law prompted us to take further action today.”

Fletcher’s statement, which echoed that from parent company BT, added that the companies were also seeking a moratorium on outstanding applications and orders. This could potentially be good news for those subscribers whose identities have already been handed over to lawyers in the UK, but are yet to receive letters.

The hearing will continue on January 12th 2011. At this stage it seems unlikely that any more court orders of this type will be granted in the meantime, bringing a temporary halt to the ‘Speculative Invoicing’ of alleged file-sharers in the UK.

Source: UK ISPs Successfully Resist File-Sharing Data Handover

“It’s our belief that this haste meant the Digital Economy Bill, as it then was, became law without being properly scrutinised and without its impact being properly assessed,” writes TalkTalk boss Charles Dunstone today.

TalkTalk, which has been speaking out against both the Bill and Act from the beginning, intends to carry on its opposition by hopefully taking its argument to the High Court with the support of a rival ISP.

“Today, in conjunction with BT, we’ve filed papers with the High Court asking for a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act,” says Dunstone. “We’ve asked the High Court to look at whether the Act was passed into law without going through the correct parliamentary procedures.”

TalkTalk also believes that there could be incompatibilities between provisions in the Act and the E-Commerce Directive which restricts the obligations of ISPs. Other areas concerning subscriber privacy could also be problematic, with Dunstone noting that the measures in the Act designed to prevent file-sharing could undermine “the basic rights and freedoms of citizens.”

“As a result, we’re seeking clarity from the Court before we and other industry players are asked to implement the Act,” says Dunstone. “We want to avoid a situation where we invest tens of millions of pounds in new systems and processes only to find that the Act is unenforceable and the money wasted.”

In recent times, TalkTalk has sought to protect its subscribers from outside interference and is the only mainstream ISP in the UK to stand up to ACS:Law and its campaign against alleged file-sharers. In advance of ACS:Law going to court to obtain the real identities of individuals behind IP addresses it has harvested, the law firm approaches ISPs and asks them if they will contest the court action.

TalkTalk always refuses to comply and is therefore never included in court documents. This means that TalkTalk subscribers are protected from all the wrongful accusations documented dozens of times in recent months. The same, however, can not be said about BT. When approached by ACS:Law, BT indicates in advance that it will cooperate, which means its customers become heavily targeted.

Support TalkTalk on this too, BT, and then your subscribers will really take you seriously.

Source: UK ISPs Take Digital Economy Act to High Court

Petter said he fears that the anti-piracy process could cost ISPs a staggering £365m a year – £165m a year more than the £200m the BPI says the industry will lose to online music piracy in 2009. The BT boss went on to label the BPI’s losses assessment as “melodramatic.”

Geoff Taylor, chief executive of BPI, is now hitting back, claiming that Petter has exaggerated his figures too.

Taylor also claims that since February the group’s anti-piracy tracking company (most probably Denmark-based DtecNet) has harvested the IP addresses of 100,000 BT Broadband customers alleged to have been engaged in illicit file-sharing.

The BPI CEO, who says that his group handed the information over to BT, notes that the ISP has done nothing about the problem.

BT says that if the industry wants action against these individuals it should prosecute them, but BPI said that the ISP is shirking its responsibilities.

“It’s shameful for a company like BT to know that a high percentage of the traffic it carries is illegal material but do nothing,” Taylor told The Mirror. “If you operate a commercial service and know it is being used to break the law, taking steps to ensure it is used legally is a cost of doing business.”

However, Taylor’s comments don’t really hold water. BT has hosted more communications in its past and present forms than any other company in UK history, and for many years held a monopoly on telephone communications. BT and every other communications company provides infrastructure which people can use to break all kinds of laws and so far, no-one apart from the entertainment industries feels that carriers should take the responsibility for the actions of others.

The British music industry frustrations are only too clear. They don’t want to take the path of the RIAA and start taking legal action against alleged sharers, so are pressuring ISPs to take action against them instead. ISPs don’t want to be judge, jury and executioner, particularly since there is no legal basis to do so.

So now all eyes are now on the government which will soon have to decide which action to take. Smart money right now is on throttling the connection speeds of file-sharers as an absolute last resort, but this won’t be enough for the music industry, who want outright disconnection or at least a temporary suspension of Internet access.

Source: BPI Decries ISP Inaction Against 100K Music Pirates

Yesterday, speaking with the UK’s The Mirror, John Petter, boss of ISP BT’s consumer division, said that measures to tackle Internet piracy will be costly.

Noting that ISP profit margins are already small, Petter said he fears that the process could cost ISPs a staggering £365m a year.

However, according to Jupiter Reseach, whose figures the BPI uses when trying to convince others how much money they lose, the British music industry will lose £200m worth of business to online piracy in 2009.

If the BPI’s ‘losses’ figures are to be believed (and we have to go along with the ridiculous premise of 1 download = 1 lost sale in order to do so), saving £200m worth of business will end up costing ISPs almost double that amount.

“Their [music industry] claims are melodramatic and assume people would buy all the music that is illegally downloaded, which is nonsense,” said Petter, adding that laws are already in place to deal with illicit file-sharing, but the industry doesn’t want to use those particular ones because it would hurt their public image.

Petter’s final point is possibly the most important one. He believes that the war against file-sharing will lead to a technological arms race as Internet users find new ways to hide their activities.

Indeed, by spending a measly £3.00 per month on a cheapo VPN service from the likes of SwissVPN, it’s possible for any user to tunnel right out of the UK and no-one in the country will have a clue what they are doing on their connection. Not the BPI, not ISPs, not the government.

That’s around 10p per day to defeat a £1m a day system that isn’t even in place yet. Something doesn’t add up.

Source: UK Anti-Piracy Plans Cost More Than Music Industry ‘Losses’

After initially telling everyone how it would never cave in to the labels, Eircom quickly changed its tune. A few days into the court case, suddenly there was a “world-first” agreement between the labels and the ISP.

Eircom had entered into an entirely voluntary agreement with the labels, where they would simply accuse alleged copyright infringers (via DtecNet, the RIAA and BPI anti-piracy partner), and on the third accusation the ISP would disconnect that subscriber on a Terms of Service violation.

Although it hasn’t been put into place yet due to “ongoing technical discussions concerning implementation,” this deal does seem very cosy.

And it gets cosier still. As part of the agreement with Eircom, the Big Four agreed that they would go after other ISPs to force them to agree to the same terms as Eircom did, so the company “would not be at a competitive disadvantage.”

So who would be next on the hit-list?

According to a report in the Irish Times, that honor has been bestowed on Ireland’s second-largest telco BT Ireland, and the country’s largest cable operator UPC Ireland.

On Tuesday, two sets of legal proceedings were issued at the High Court by “EMI Records (Ireland) Limited and others”, one against BT Communications Ireland and another against UPC Communications Ireland. IRMA, Ireland’s equivalent to the RIAA said it targeted these ISPs since their customers share the most music.

While a spokesman for BT said he couldn’t comment at this stage, a spokeswoman for UPC said their company position hasn’t changed. It will not enter into an agreement with the record labels that goes further than existing legislation – i.e no voluntary 3 strikes.

“There is no basis under Irish law requiring ISPs to control, access or block the Internet content its users download. In addition, the rights-holders’ proposal gives rise to serious concerns for data privacy and consumer contract law,” she said adding: “UPC intends to vigorously defend its position in court.”

Eircom took that position too, but look where they ended up – in the lap of the Big Four. Time will tell if UPC can maintain its strength against determined opposition.

Source: Irish RIAA Takes ISPs To Court To Force 3 Strikes