Pirate Site Blocking Is Making Its Way Into Free Trade Agreements (torrentfreak.com) 39
The new free trade agreement between Australia and the UK includes a site blocking paragraph. The text requires the countries to provide injunctive relief to require ISPs to prevent subscribers from accessing pirate sites. While this doesn't change much for the two countries, rightsholders are already eying similar requirements for trade deals with other nations. TorrentFreak reports: The inclusion of a blocking paragraph in the copyright chapter of the trade deal was high on the agenda of various copyright holder groups. Following a series of hearings and consultations, both countries settled on the following text:
1. Each Party shall provide that its civil judicial authorities have the authority to grant an injunction against an ISP within its territory, ordering the ISP to take action to block access to a specific online location, in cases where:
(a) that online location is located outside the territory of that Party; and
(b) the services of the ISP are used by a third party to infringe copyright or related rights in the territory of that Party.
2. For greater certainty, nothing in this Article precludes a Party from providing that its judicial authorities may grant an injunction to take action to block access to online locations used to infringe intellectual property rights in circumstances other than those specified in paragraph 1.
This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, which represents rightsholder organizations such as the MPA, BPI, and the Premier League. The group repeatedly urged the UK Government to include site-blocking powers in the agreement. In a recent submission to the UK Government, the Alliance once again stresses the importance of site blocking, while also hinting at broadening the current anti-piracy toolbox. "It has become a hugely valuable tool in the armory of rights holders looking to protect their IP. It is vital that the UK Government ensures the preservation of the no-fault injunctive relief regime," the Alliance writes. "We would also encourage the opening of dialogue, wherever possible, to share experience around UK practices and to encourage faster, more efficient website blocking procedures, whether through civil, criminal, administrative or voluntary means."
The site-blocking language is already included in the latest trade deal draft but the Alliance is also looking ahead at future agreements with other countries. In this context, the blocking paragraph will send a clear message. "We would therefore urge the UK Government to include reference to the site blocking legislation in the FTA with Australia as it will send an important message to future countries that we might chose [sic] to negotiate trade agreements with." The Alliance for Intellectual Property doesn't mention any other countries by name. However, it specifically references a report from the U.S. Copyright Office where site blocking was mentioned as a potential future anti-piracy option. In the same report, the Copyright Office also stressed that further research would be required on the effect and impact of a U.S. site-blocking scheme, but the idea wasn't dismissed outright.
1. Each Party shall provide that its civil judicial authorities have the authority to grant an injunction against an ISP within its territory, ordering the ISP to take action to block access to a specific online location, in cases where:
(a) that online location is located outside the territory of that Party; and
(b) the services of the ISP are used by a third party to infringe copyright or related rights in the territory of that Party.
2. For greater certainty, nothing in this Article precludes a Party from providing that its judicial authorities may grant an injunction to take action to block access to online locations used to infringe intellectual property rights in circumstances other than those specified in paragraph 1.
This hasn't gone unnoticed by the Alliance for Intellectual Property, which represents rightsholder organizations such as the MPA, BPI, and the Premier League. The group repeatedly urged the UK Government to include site-blocking powers in the agreement. In a recent submission to the UK Government, the Alliance once again stresses the importance of site blocking, while also hinting at broadening the current anti-piracy toolbox. "It has become a hugely valuable tool in the armory of rights holders looking to protect their IP. It is vital that the UK Government ensures the preservation of the no-fault injunctive relief regime," the Alliance writes. "We would also encourage the opening of dialogue, wherever possible, to share experience around UK practices and to encourage faster, more efficient website blocking procedures, whether through civil, criminal, administrative or voluntary means."
The site-blocking language is already included in the latest trade deal draft but the Alliance is also looking ahead at future agreements with other countries. In this context, the blocking paragraph will send a clear message. "We would therefore urge the UK Government to include reference to the site blocking legislation in the FTA with Australia as it will send an important message to future countries that we might chose [sic] to negotiate trade agreements with." The Alliance for Intellectual Property doesn't mention any other countries by name. However, it specifically references a report from the U.S. Copyright Office where site blocking was mentioned as a potential future anti-piracy option. In the same report, the Copyright Office also stressed that further research would be required on the effect and impact of a U.S. site-blocking scheme, but the idea wasn't dismissed outright.
When you gonna stop voting for (Score:2)
When are we gonna stop falling in line?
Re: When you gonna stop voting for (Score:2)
You can stop voting, but it doesn't help.
Now you have to realize that site blocking can only go so far. Obstacles leads to new inventions circumventing the obstacles.
Ever wondered why so many ISPs delay native IPv6? That's because they have a hard time figuring out how to bind you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem I see is, the anti-corporates you speak of who are so "woke" are only powerless as long as they aren't handed political power.
If given the chance, they'll be just as bad as the pro-corporate candidates. We've seen this already at the state and local level, when they've managed to align with the Democratic Party and proceed to dismantle the police/Justice system, leading to huge increases in shoplifting and other non-violent property crimes, destroying business big AND small in the area.
At least for
Re: (Score:2)
Its the same in Australia, no party who is actually able to form government is willing to say no when the copyright cartel (or for that matter, the 5 eyes intelligence cartel) asks for something to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
What you need is a system that distributes power, instead of concentrating it. In countries where coalition governments are the norm, corporate ownership of the government is much less common and you tend to see strong consumer and employee rights.
In those countries, politicians have to be good at making a case on rational grounds rather than ideological ones, and in building a consensus. Corporate shills don't get very far.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate shills don't get very far.
That's a nice theory, but it seems to be based on your personal observations.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the pro-consumer and pro-employee rules that come from the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If given the chance, they'll be just as bad as the pro-corporate candidates. We've seen this already at the state and local level, when they've managed to align with the Democratic Party and proceed to dismantle the police/Justice system, leading to huge increases in shoplifting and other non-violent property crimes, destroying business big AND small in the area.
Examples or it ain't so.
Re: (Score:2)
The very first sentence of the summary begins with: "The new free trade agreement between Australia and the UK..."
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that the Australia-UK "free trade" agreement isn't really a free trade agreement. It's a limited agreement on zero tariffs for some stuff that Australia wanted. The UK got basically nothing, the government's own forecast is that it will actually reduce GDP and devastate some UK farmers. The main goal of the negotiation was to limit the damage, while still being able to lie about getting a wonderful post-brexit "free trade" agreement.
In other words it's probably not representative of what a
Re: (Score:2)
And this is where Web3 steps in (Score:1, Informative)
Encryption + decentralization = uncensorable
Re:And this is where Web3 steps in (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need anti-efficient blockchain technology to do that, we were doing it just fine with technologies like I2P and Freenet, thank you very much. Take your planet-torching ponzi grifter trash elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I2P and Freenet aren't really doing fine. Like all decentralized systems, they struggle to maintain availability of data.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry however, It doesn't effect communications services offered by the government. *evil laugh*
Sidenote: I've had to hide this post from
I see a service ripe for misuse (Score:2)
If, theoretically, I had a hacked email account at the UK Bureau of Silly Walks, I could request that one or more ISPs in Australia block access to Twitter.
in the USA this may hit some 1st issues! (Score:2)
in the USA this may hit some 1st issues!
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. From 1 week ago:
https://torrentfreak.com/us-co... [torrentfreak.com]
So a trade agreement isn't out of reach.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes but that isn't the same thing.
A US judge is held to their claims of the blocked sites purpose.
If the site actually has copyright violating material, the judges ruling is left be.
When the site does not and is only providing content postings, a judge claiming it is a pirate site can have their ruling thrown out by a higher court, and is next to guaranteed to be thrown out by the supreme court.
In the EU and AU, someone speaking their opinion that is arrested on charges unrelated to that, such as being a pi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in the USA this may hit some 1st issues!
I doubt it. That is only for nutters to defend being dicks. We're talking about megacorps here, your pesky constitution is of little concern to them.
Also it's the US using free trade agreements to foist these laws onto other nations, bypassing their legislative assemblies and judicial systems.
All those nutters who whined about "dictators in Brussels", you've delivered us to a worse one in Washington.
Rules for only the most challenged. (Score:2)
Good on trade negotiators for spurring along technical education if nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Already has this (Score:2)
Australia (and nearly every other country) already has this. The problem is this becoming springboard to a more oppressive regulations: This will be turned into "we have to protect corporations" with consumers having fewer and fewer rights. In Australia, corporations don't have the same privileges as in the USA, making such corporatism difficult, but when it becomes a political issue, the consumers will lose.
Guess it's back to SneakerNet again (Score:2)
Undemocratic (Score:5, Insightful)
How's that going to work? (Score:2)
They don't already have free trade? (Score:2)
Easy (Score:2)