Every ISP In the US Has Been Ordered To Block Three Pirate Streaming Services (arstechnica.com) 115
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: 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. The orders came in three essentially identical rulings (see here, here, and here) issued on April 26 in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Each ruling provides a list of 96 ISPs that are expected to block the websites, including Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. But the rulings say that all ISPs must comply even if they aren't on the list: "It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants ('Newly Detected Websites') by any technological means available on the ISPs' systems. The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs' DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs (the 'Landing Page')." That landing page is available here and cites US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla's "order to block all access to this website/service due to copyright infringement." "If you were harmed in any way by the Court's decision you may file a motion to the Federal Court in the Southern District of New York in the above case," the landing page also says.
The three lawsuits were filed by Israeli TV and movie producers and providers against Doe defendants who operate the websites. Each of the three rulings awarded damages of $7.65 million. TorrentFreak pointed out the rulings in an article Monday. The orders also contain permanent injunctions against the defendants themselves and other types of companies that provided services to the defendants or could do so in the future. That includes companies like Cloudflare, GoDaddy, Google, and Namecheap. In all three cases, none of the defendants responded to the complaints and did not appear in court, the judge's rulings said. "Defendants have gone to great lengths to conceal themselves and their ill-gotten proceeds from Plaintiffs' and this Court's detection, including by using multiple false identities and addresses associated with their operations and purposely deceptive contact information for the infringing Website," the rulings say. The defendants are liable for copyright infringement and violated the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the judge wrote [...].
Each ruling provides a list of 96 ISPs that are expected to block the websites, including Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. But the rulings say that all ISPs must comply even if they aren't on the list: "It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants ('Newly Detected Websites') by any technological means available on the ISPs' systems. The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs' DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs (the 'Landing Page')." That landing page is available here and cites US District Judge Katherine Polk Failla's "order to block all access to this website/service due to copyright infringement." "If you were harmed in any way by the Court's decision you may file a motion to the Federal Court in the Southern District of New York in the above case," the landing page also says.
The three lawsuits were filed by Israeli TV and movie producers and providers against Doe defendants who operate the websites. Each of the three rulings awarded damages of $7.65 million. TorrentFreak pointed out the rulings in an article Monday. The orders also contain permanent injunctions against the defendants themselves and other types of companies that provided services to the defendants or could do so in the future. That includes companies like Cloudflare, GoDaddy, Google, and Namecheap. In all three cases, none of the defendants responded to the complaints and did not appear in court, the judge's rulings said. "Defendants have gone to great lengths to conceal themselves and their ill-gotten proceeds from Plaintiffs' and this Court's detection, including by using multiple false identities and addresses associated with their operations and purposely deceptive contact information for the infringing Website," the rulings say. The defendants are liable for copyright infringement and violated the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the judge wrote [...].
good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least this makes a tad more sense than removing the domains from DNS.
Re: good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The registration information appears to indicate the entity is not US based.
Re: (Score:3)
The registration information appears to indicate the entity is not US based.
Then one has to ask how such a case has standing. It's not dissimilar to counterfeit products. A judge doesn't rule every shop even those not party to the court ruling has to take action, they go after importers.
Re: (Score:2)
*shrug* The ruling states that the defendants (does 1-10) have been properly served. I find that questionable given that they don't have names, but if the judge is happy...
Re: (Score:2)
i could be misreading it, too. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
"The US court should rule against the website operators,"
They don't know who they are, they are corresponding with a 20 year old AOL email address and expecting an answer.
This is a cry for help.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I know that U.S. probably doesn't even have jurisdiction over these sites, since they're not U.S. based, but maybe I'm missing something. If these are on the internet, they've got to have an IP address, one that's most likely permanent, right? How hard is it to either find the account that's paying the bill for that IP address, or if it's via bitcoin or something, then tell the ISP to block it? "
You must be new here, they use VPNs like everybody else.
Re: (Score:3)
here we go again where nerds want to believe some implementation detail is going to shield them from legal judgement or the law..
Here is the reality. Commercial VPN providers are in effect Internet Service providers themselves even if they are using the internet to deliver the internet... I am certain at least this judge will reach that conclusion. The VPN providers will simply be told they also have to comply, if they don't want to be sued in the US and potentially face banking penalties. You won't 'win' t
Re: (Score:2)
Shield them from the law? No. That's not even the point. For the same reason that these companies want the ISPs to do that.
ISPs are far easier to reach than users. Trying to get unique users of those services is playing whack-a-mole and neither cost effective nor getting anywhere. But there are way fewer ISPs than there are users. So this is what they target.
All a VPN does is move the endpoint of your connection. In this case, it moves it abroad.
That doesn't shield anyone from prosecution, but that's also b
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't shield anyone from prosecution, but that's also by no means the goal. It's simply rerouting around an outage, i.e. what the internet can do. The internet can solve technical problems to its infrastructure. It cannot solve legal or social problems. It was never meant to do that.
The idea technology can't solve legal or social problems is an interesting theory given it can most certainly create them.
Re:good luck with that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes its about evading prosecution, sometimes its about evading the rules of the road and enforcement. I don't disagree it that its easier to go after ISPs than users, it is. I don't disagree that VPNs move the endpoint they do.
What I disagree about is routing around the damage. It does not work that way in the real world, at least not for most folks. Yes there will be handful of nerds that have access to private links and various multi hop ways to get traffic where they want. In reality providing high-throughput vpn isn't free. Places that can actually take little Bobby's dad's credit card give him a client he understands how to use will dry up quickly. A long with the source a lot the content being shared in extra-legal fashion.
Remember 1997 - There was nothing you could not find as Warez with very little effort. The gnutella/bearshare/limewire era - you could put your hands on basically any movie hours after release if not weeks before.. All without knowing how literally anything worked! Its not nearly so easy today for someone coming at it from a noknowledge perspective. How smooth your kodi-over-vpn-to-Uzbekistan-on-raspi works notwithstanding.
The outcome here of this long term is that we will end up with an internet where domains and hosts get blocked for this reason or that in sporadic way: Is the site down or is the ISP fucking with it because the IP showed up on some media cartels RBL list the courts force them to use - I don't know - let me try each of my four VPNs? Sound like a fabulous experience! The result is more traffic will get steered to handful of sites like Facebook that can keep themselves off the naughty lists one way or another. Your site on that VPS at digital Ocean - hah maybe it will reachable for me maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember 1997 - There was nothing you could not find as Warez with very little effort. The gnutella/bearshare/limewire era - you could put your hands on basically any movie hours after release if not weeks before.. All without knowing how literally anything worked! Its not nearly so easy today for someone coming at it from a noknowledge perspective.
I used to download shitty quality MP3s of individual songs with Napster. Today I torrent full albums in lossless quality, as well as HD quality movies that would not have even been possible with the bandwidth back then.
Very little knowledge is needed to do this. Typical 6 or 7 year old will probably have no trouble circumventing any order this judge may impose, because the typical 6 or 7 year old may not know the legal system, but when it comes to computers they are much brighter. Would not be surpris
Re: (Score:3)
Remember 1997 - There was nothing you could not find as Warez with very little effort. The gnutella/bearshare/limewire era - you could put your hands on basically any movie hours after release if not weeks before.. All without knowing how literally anything worked! Its not nearly so easy today for someone coming at it from a noknowledge perspective. How smooth your kodi-over-vpn-to-Uzbekistan-on-raspi works notwithstanding.
No its just as easy to do it now as it ever was. The reason that its gone away is its easier to just subscribe to netflix than download pirated movies. People are quite happy to pay for convenience. In the good old days you would have to buy the DVD, that could be scratched, or misplaced, have space allocated to store the move, be forced watch the ads and anti pirating warnings, physically search through the DVDs to find it again. Or you could simply download the movie in less time it took to copy the DVD t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good luck with that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Noble ideals, like freedom and privacy, tend to have a short half-life.
Especially when they become inconvenient for the rich and powerful.
see what I did there? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your half life comment implies it's eroding.
Why can't you implement the freedom growth that came before?
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you use a VPN provider headquartered outside of Five Eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
VPN providers are included in the ruling.
Re:good luck with that. (Score:5, Informative)
not suprised. (Score:1)
may be malware vectors too.... i'm sure they don't mean to be?
Not just block, redirect the domains. (Score:3)
Really not a fan of the court having ISPs redirect domains to other domains."The domain addresses and any NewlyDetected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs’ DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs" varies per domain.
israel.tv -> zira-usa-11024.org
israeli-tv.com -> zira-usa-11025.org
sdarot.tv - zira-usa-11026.org
Re: (Score:1)
Really not a fan of the court having ISPs redirect domains to other domains....
Isn't this literally what ISP's exist for?
Re: Not just block, redirect the domains. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This depends on what the page you actually requested had in it?
Re: (Score:2)
An Internet Service Provider exists to provide a path to your requested destination on the internet, not put you on a roundabout going the wrong way with shitty directions.
Re: (Score:2)
Like a hotel Wifi that redirects you to the landing page until you agree to pay $15/day.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a toll booth with exact directions, not a roundabout leaving you lost. You haven't paid for that service yet, and "free" internet service should probably rank right up there with free lunches and beer. An assumption at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Every IP going to the same host is a form of routing. A degenerate form.
Re: (Score:2)
Those IPs asked for a specific destination, and they got it. If you're in a hotel and haven't paid for that service yet, your GPS has directed you to the toll booth, which is the only path forward, and will still take you to your requested destination.
If I'm looking for the National Monument in DC, I won't appreciate a re-direct to the damn shopping mall, nor will I be happy when I find that was the destination I was provided. I will appreciate a GPS system that will route me as efficiently as possible t
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this literally what ISP's exist for?
No, it literally is not. Their ostensible job is to deliver my packets to the intended recipient. And that's what a common carrier does.
On the other hand, so long as there are zero shenanigans (not even a tracking cookie, not that my browser would set one without my permission anyway, as configured) and any servers make it clear what's happened then this is not actually a big deal. ISPs may not exist for this purpose, but it's part of what governments do.
Re: (Score:2)
Really not a fan of the court having ISPs redirect domains to other domains....
Isn't this literally what ISP's exist for?
Uh no. "That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works." /sigh
Re: (Score:2)
Two of those three are already gone anyway. And thus begins the game of whack-a-mole.
Judge is an idiot (Score:2)
It's safe to say this judge is an idiot who doesn't understand how technology works or the precedent he or she is setting. It's like telling the USPS that they need to automatically filter out all packages that contain marijuana - when they shouldn't even be looking in the packages in the first place.
This will get ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Violating a court order is a really good way to piss off someone who can jail you for contempt. That was the downfall of Gawker media. Judge told them to remove the video and they said no.
Re: (Score:2)
violating it by asking an higher court to stay it (Score:2)
violating it by asking an higher court to stay it
Re: Judge is an idiot (Score:2)
Exactly what I thought when I saw both the headlines and the article.
There are a few court orders that others must respond to, like subpoenas, but not orders like this.
The part of the order demanding DNS services surrender domains is well established as the wrong method. The parts forbidding non-party banks from doing business is not how business works and also the wrong method. Both have proper procedures to make those legal demands, but not like this.
The order will be rescinded in 3, 2, 1...
Re: (Score:1)
The only alternatives are to create an ISP service that lets individual users block domains they don't like or to create corporate entities to do it for you. I forgot the third alternative let it all through. All three are ridiculous.
Re:Judge is an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it isn't. It is like telling the USPS that they need to automatically filter out all packages that are going to the following three addresses -- regardless of their contents. They aren't looking in the packages, just refusing delivery service.
Re: (Score:3)
They're not blocking the destination addresses (i.e. the IP addresses), they're trying to block three specific domain names, plus any future domain names registered by the (unknown) defendants, which is obviously unknowable. The domain names aren't part of any "delivery service" involving the defendant's web sites. They're the content of other "packages" addressed to DNS servers not associated with the defendants.
An ISP can refuse to reply or reply with incorrect data (which would be ignored by clients with
Re: (Score:3)
No, it isn't. It is like telling the USPS that they need to automatically filter out all packages that are going to the following three addresses -- regardless of their contents. They aren't looking in the packages, just refusing delivery service.
Closer to coming from certain addresses. And not just the USPS, but DHL, Fedex and all the other private logistics companies that certain companies are not permitted to send to anyone because what they're sending has upset some of their rich friends.
Re: (Score:2)
It's safer to say you are an idiot who doesn't understand how the law works.
No Authority (Score:3)
A Federal District Court Judge simply has no Power outside of their own District.
They have no more Power to Order "Every ISP" to "Block" anything. Only the Supreme Court can issue Orders that affect the Entire Country.
This is bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a bureaucratic process within a democracy and the question is for me, does any judge have the right to make such a decision? Should add "if the blocked entity caused harm...".
Re: (Score:2)
A Federal District Court Judge simply has no Power outside of their own District.
They have no more Power to Order "Every ISP" to "Block" anything. Only the Supreme Court can issue Orders that affect the Entire Country.
This is bullshit.
Eh, they have set a precedent at the federal level, meaning that, should anyone choose to take suit outside of said court's jurisdiction, the judge hearing the case will almost certainly come to the same conclusion in a summary judgement, assuming there's not a mass of new evidence to overturn it. So, in effect, this is a nationwide ruling, despite it falling under the guise of being a district decision.
The defendants could pursue an appeal, in which case they reach the appellate court, then SCOTUS if they
Re: (Score:3)
A Federal District Court Judge simply has no Power outside of their own District.
They have no more Power to Order "Every ISP" to "Block" anything. Only the Supreme Court can issue Orders that affect the Entire Country.
This is bullshit.
Eh, they have set a precedent at the federal level, meaning that, should anyone choose to take suit outside of said court's jurisdiction, the judge hearing the case will almost certainly come to the same conclusion in a summary judgement, assuming there's not a mass of new evidence to overturn it.
You're misunderstanding his point, and stating the exact opposite as truth. Precedent is only binding within the same jurisdiction. A judge in another jurisdiction is not bound by the decisions of another (though it can take them as advisory if it so chooses). A federal district judge's rulings are precedential only in that district--another district in the same circuit can, and often does, rule differently on essentially the same issue. If a circuit court of appeals hears the case, then their decision
Re: (Score:3)
You're misunderstanding his point, and stating the exact opposite as truth. Precedent is only binding within the same jurisdiction.
Agreed and apologies for oversimplifying my point.
A judge in another jurisdiction is not bound by the decisions of another (though it can take them as advisory if it so chooses).
Now, from my understanding of US law, it's you who is oversimplifying. My understanding is that, should a case be brought under a different, yet equal in power jurisdiction, any equal judgement can be called as precedent by either party (or third parties in the case of amicus briefs). At which point, the judge has to consider it with additional weight (IE, it means more than just one person's opinion, but does not have to be followed to the letter).
A federal district judge's rulings are precedential only in that district--another district in the same circuit can, and often does, rule differently on essentially the same issue. If a circuit court of appeals hears the case, then their decision is binding within that circuit but not any of the others. Circuit splits are quite common (e.g. the 10th circuit rules one way, the 5th circuit rules another) and it's only if the Supreme Court hears the case that their opinion is binding on all federal courts.
On th
Re: (Score:2)
And even that only affects one country. No ISP (or VPN provider) outside the US gives a fuck about any of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing though, a lot of VPN providers are American companies, even if they operate their services abroad. I'd be surprised if this somehow doesn't apply to them when Ameerican users are connected to them.
The most obvious workaround for this is to use another VPN to connect to the VPN, although I'm not sure how many people will be eager to sign up for more than one at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing though, a lot of VPN providers are American companies, even if they operate their services abroad. I'd be surprised if this somehow doesn't apply to them when Ameerican users are connected to them.
The most obvious workaround for this is to use another VPN to connect to the VPN, although I'm not sure how many people will be eager to sign up for more than one at a time.
It isn't that simple.
This is like some local town traffic court judge issuing a ruling that no one in the entire COUNTRY could drive their car on Sunday.
They simply don't have the authority to issue an Order that affects anyone outside their JURISDICTION (in this hypothetical case, the "Town").
Re: (Score:2)
But people IN the USA and American companies both *ARE* in the US's jurisdiction.... the fact that machines might be situated in other countries is irrelevant, this is about what parties that are both situated inside of America are doing.
Obviously, the domestic vpn provider would not have any obligation to limit services to non-americans who use end points outside of the USA.
If VPN companies in the USA don't
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, since people outside of the town are obviously not within the town's jurrisdiction.
But people IN the USA and American companies both *ARE* in the US's jurisdiction.... the fact that machines might be situated in other countries is irrelevant, this is about what parties that are both situated inside of America are doing.
Obviously, the domestic vpn provider would not have any obligation to limit services to non-americans who use end points outside of the USA.
If VPN companies in the USA don't want to comply, they would have to decide to no longer do business with customers who are from the USA.
You are obviously confused.
A District Court simply cannot issue an Order to "Do Something" that affects:
A) Non-Parties (No Personal Jurisdiction);
B) Anyone Outside Their District (Improper Venue).
"A", above, completely negates the whole bullshit "All ISPs" part of the Order. That's the job of Congress; not a pissant District Court.
We don't even have to get into "B"; because "A" is completely Dispositive.
Hope this helps!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except a company that is *IN* the USA is not outside of USA jurisdiction, is it? The fact that a particular machine owned by them might be in another country is immaterial, they are basically operating that connection point by remote control while they themselves are still *WITHIN* American jurisdiction.
You still don't get the concept of "Districts". And Jurisdiction.
Check out the first Comment to the Article, below (District Court Rulings limited to Parties, only) :
https://volokh.com/2010/05/25/... [volokh.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, if I understand the link correctly, then that would mean this ruling would only really apply to VPN providers what have a company presence in the state of New York.
I saw the term "federal judge" and assumed that meant nation-wide. I can't wrap my head around how a federal judge would only have state level jurisdiction, but hey.... the USA is weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, if I understand the link correctly, then that would mean this ruling would only really apply to VPN providers what have a company presence in the state of New York.
I saw the term "federal judge" and assumed that meant nation-wide. I can't wrap my head around how a federal judge would only have state level jurisdiction, but hey.... the USA is weird.
Quite frankly, I was also surprised as to the limits in Jurisdiction and Precedent for U.S. District Court Judges. They are even more restricted than I thought!
And I know that similar limits even apply to the next "Level", U.S. Court of Appeals; which follow the same "District" Jurisdictions.
Apparently, Only the U.S. Supreme Court issues Rulings that are Universal in Scope, as to Jurisdiction, and Applicability to Parties and Non-Parties alike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, there are probably a number of VPN providers in the USA that do operate out of New York, as it's not that unpopular a state for business.
But unless they were specifically "Joined" (added) as Parties, then the Judge's Order is as the Buzzing of Flies.
Specifically, it appears to boil down to 3 Entities known as "Israel.tv", Israeli.tv, and SDAROT.com; a/k/a "Does1-10". That's IT!
All the rest of the Posturing about "Every ISP in the United States" is 100% frighteningly Bullshit! That CUNT In the Black Dress has no more power to Order "Every ISP. . ." to do anything than my Dog does!
There were 3 Orders:
https://storage.courtlistener.... [courtlistener.com]
https://s [courtlistener.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in all three of those orders, VPN service providers are among those listed among "third parties providing services used in
connection with Defendants' operations". Are you trying to tell me that a district court has no binding authority over the actions of a parties that lie within its jurisdiction? What is the point of it, then?
The term "Third Parties" is a Synonym for "Non-Parties".
Unless we are talking about a Third-Party Order To Compel Production (a "Discovery" Order), which is the Only time a Non-Party can be Bound by a Court Order, the Rule is that, unless an Entity is Named in the Caption of the Case (the part at the top of a Court Filing/Order where it says, e.g., State of Florida a/k/a "Goofy" v. Mickey Mouse), then they are a Third-Party (Non-Party), and the Order does not apply to them, Period!
Got it?
Now, it seems that
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, and presumably the court knows it, then what is the point of ever issuing such an order in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, and presumably the court knows it, then what is the point of ever issuing such an order in the first place?
There isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're evading the question, why do courts do it if in the first place if they know that unnamed third parties cannot be held accountable for not complying?
Stupid Judge.
Seriously. It is as simple as that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I had said before, I'm not in the USA, but why are judges who make rulings they have no legal authority to demand allowed to keep their jobs, exactly?
That, my friend, is about a 20 hour discussion! At the very least!!!
I'll answer with a question: Doesn't the Country you are living in have things, especially in the Government, that are maddeningly-illogical and even often completely contrary to what most of the Citizenry thinks/wants?
And If you say "No", I will know you are lying, LOL! ;-D
Re: (Score:2)
A federal district judge recently overturned the CDC travel mask mandate. No power outside the district. Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the executive didn't want to bother appealing since they were letting it expire anyway in another week, it didn't in a literal legal sense affect anything outside the district.
Precisely.
People always get this wrong. I used to get this wrong, until a lawyer friend of mine explained how Scope of Authority worked.
Re: (Score:3)
Its really amazing the certainty people say stuff with on Slashdot. Especially when its on the subject of relatively active political and legal debates.
Its really an open question right now to what degree a district court's jurisdiction goes beyond its district. Should the issue injunctions that reach geographically beyond their district, can they enforce them? Does an effected party simply have to operate in their district or must the be domiciled there? These are are legal questions currently that have a
Re: (Score:2)
Its really amazing the certainty people say stuff with on Slashdot. Especially when its on the subject of relatively active political and legal debates.
Its really an open question right now to what degree a district court's jurisdiction goes beyond its district. Should the issue injunctions that reach geographically beyond their district, can they enforce them? Does an effected party simply have to operate in their district or must the be domiciled there? These are are legal questions currently that have answers but are under some degree of challenge and really might be resolved either way by SCOUTS on an issue by issue basis..
Ok; so where is the Delegation of Authority (or other Legal Authority) that gives a U.S. District Court Judge the Power to have Jurisdiction over Parties (let alone Non-Parties!), or create Binding Precedent Outside their own District?
That's why it is concerning when a Judge in the District where Mississippi is located issues an Order upholding an anti-abortion Law; but a Matter of Great Importance when the U.S. Supreme Court Upholds that Law, and then adds "And oh by the way, we're going to go ahead and Re
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is true. I remember Federal District Judges (In Hawaii if I recall correctly) blocking some of Trump's early immigration mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is true. I remember Federal District Judges (In Hawaii if I recall correctly) blocking some of Trump's early immigration mandates.
It really doesn't hold, if someone challenges it up to SCOTUS.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I think that they are district court simply for geographical organization of cases, so that you don't have to travel too far for your case to be heard. But it is still a federal judge making federal level judgments.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I think that they are district court simply for geographical organization of cases, so that you don't have to travel too far for your case to be heard. But it is still a federal judge making federal level judgments.
Still not Binding outside of the District.
Re: (Score:2)
A Federal District Court Judge simply has no Power outside of their own District.
But the California government has no power outside the state and still effectively sets many standards nation-wide. Similarly, ISPs operating in the judge's district are required to comply and are likely to do so in a way that affects all their customers just because that's the easiest, cheapest and legally safest approach. That's going to mean the great majority of US consumers are affected by this judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
A Federal District Court Judge simply has no Power outside of their own District.
But the California government has no power outside the state and still effectively sets many standards nation-wide. Similarly, ISPs operating in the judge's district are required to comply and are likely to do so in a way that affects all their customers just because that's the easiest, cheapest and legally safest approach. That's going to mean the great majority of US consumers are affected by this judgement.
I predict this Order will be struck down on Appeal, for being overly broad and unduly burdensome, and a clear abuse of discretion.
Re: (Score:3)
It gets better, because the ruling is that any ISP, whether named or not, must block a site if it appears on a list that can be added to at a whim. For now, it's three particular sites, but "any Newly Detected Websites" can be added. There is an implication that this means any sites that are basically mirrors or provide the same content as the ones to be blocked, but as that isn't specifically said, any site can be added at any time and failure by any ISP in the country to block it is a contempt of court. The onus will probably be on the ISPs to continually check this list for updates.
Thus the language of the ruling can be used to create a carte blanche blocking of anything by everybody at any time. Also known as unaccountable censorship. Fuck that, and fuck this shithead judge.
True.
I didn't even get into that part; because the Jurisdictional Question seemed Dispositive. ;-D
And it apparently is such longstanding, "Black-Letter", Settled Doctrine, that a District Court Judge cannot hold Non-Parties in their own Districts (Let alone a Foreign District!) in Contempt (for not following an Order), that any Relevant Precedents are lost to the sands of time!
That's a sieve, moron. Not a bottle. (Score:3)
OK, so putting aside that whole Streisand Effect they just caused (nice job), it still blows me away that a judge can assume the internet today still represents a bottle that he or she can simply order a cap be put on.
That's a sieve, moron. Maybe at least try and understand 21st Century "tubes" technology before hammering on it like a dullard.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush!
They think they're in control and are happy. We know they are not and are happy. Why upset everyone and make everyone unhappy?
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest effect will be to increase uptake of VPN services.
Same as suing people for using P2P software. It didn't stop piracy, it just pushed people towards VPNs.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they have no choice. They are attacking the US Internet with dated shit with 20 year old proof of concepts.
They are not educated. They literally do not understand their dated shit does not work. And if they DO understand, well then we've just highlighted yet another problem with our "legal" system; corruption.
We The People also have a choice, watching ignorance like this. Fucking vote better.
Re: (Score:2)
We The People also have a choice, watching ignorance like this. Fucking vote better.
"Better" is not something that the Party allows on the ballot.
First time? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If this stands and is enforced, will this be the first time ever in the US that an ISP providing internet access to home subscribers is forced by the government to block something?
Sort of. For the US federal government, the Office of Foreign Assets Control has included domain names to be blocked in their list of sanctions at times in the past. The New York Times reported in 2008 that a foreign travel agent website was on the blocklist because they allowed booking travel to Cuba, and at least one US registrar was complying with the block order. It doesn't appear that most registrars ever complied with that list and OFAC seems to have abandoned the practice. Technically enforcement
fight back and make it an 1st amendment issue! (Score:2)
fight back and make it an 1st amendment issue!
Peer to Peer Autonomous Starlink (Score:2)
The only remedy.
This seems crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
How can a court order the whole country .. people who are not party to a suit to do something like this? What grants judges the right to impose all new filtering regimes on the entire country?
This Judge is not only blocking content but attempting to compel speech by forcing a redirect which in the era of HTTPS is not even possible especially if the sites involved had the good sense to enable HSTS.
"Including, without limitation, ISPs, web hosting providers, CDN service providers, DNS service providers, VPN service providers, domain name purchasing service, domain names privacy
service, back-end service providers, affiliate program providers, web designers,
shippers, search-based online advertising services (such as through-paid
inclusion, paid search results, sponsored search results, sponsored links, and
Internet keyword advertising), any banks, savings and loan associations,
merchant account providers, payment processors and providers, credit card
associations, or other financial institutions, including without limitation, PayPal,
and any other service provider"
Judges are supposed to interpret the law not impose new law on the whole country. These filtering regimes were explicitly considered in the past and explicitly rejected in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges are supposed to interpret the law
Indeed, and unfortunately that means you end up with judges who don't understand a single thing in that word salad you just mentioned above means.
Re: (Score:2)
I got the impression the judge is requiring the ISPs to misdeliver the packets -- just change the destination address. No need for redirectors.
If a user's web browser refuses to display the page due to it looking like a MitM attack, that's not the ISP's problem. If the judge can give an order to all ISP
Thanks for the links (Score:2)
Didn't know those.
Love,
Streisand.
Meta Piratebay (Score:2)
So when will there be a Piratebay in the metaverse?
Distributed DNS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Next up: Russian cinemas offering streaming services for oppressed US movie enthusiasts.
Re: (Score:2)