Shared publicly  - 
 
The blocking of Newzbin

As I see it, the MPA have attacked what they see as the easiest target rather than the correct one, indeed their justification for taking BT to the High Court would seem to be inherently wrong based upon 'common carrier' precedents.

Newzbin2, we are told, hosts links to content which the MPA would like blocked. However Newzbin2 is not hosted by BT, nor (as I understand it) is Newzbin2 the major 'offender' of this type.

Should one sincerely wish to block Newzbin2 then the right place to do so would be with its ISP, blocking the servers at source. Alternatively, blocking within the transit between there and the UK would block the site for the whole UK (as one would think the MPA desires), A quick traceroute shows a route via the USA (New York-SanFrancisco-SanJose-SantaClara) on Global Crossing and hosting with Savvis in their Santa Clara facility. Given how the MPA and MPAA work closely together -- and much of the disputed content is almost certainly of USA origin -- then one would have thought those targets easier to block.

But instead the MPA chooses to block a porportion of UK customers.

Then there is the issue of the volume of links on Newzbin2. Wikipedia tells me that Newzbin are not a public site; access being restricted to invitees only. And it is a matter of general knowledge that the largest linkfarm in the world -- Google, Inc -- has massive numbers of download links for torrents of all types.

But instead the MPA chooses to go for a private, closed service.

One might almost think that the MPA were not really interested in solving what they see as a problem.
1
Richard Gadsden's profile photo
 
I rather hope that the courts' response to seeing thousands of requests is to say that they will process one request a (working) day, and the rest will sit in a queue. So if they get a thousand, then they will get through those in about four years.
Add a comment...