[AusNOG] Internet companies forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules

[Nathanael Bettridge]

The landing page will likely end up being ads for various streaming services sadly.
It would be nice if we saw a landing page that was either basic like the US Dept Of Trade domain seizure pages (logo and short text, nothing else) or contained links to Public Domain and CC content instead of the usual paid services.

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Nick Stallman
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2016 1:14 PM
To: Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>; ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Internet companies forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules


You could if you announced the /32 internally and had your own server set up for the IP?

I wonder if a ISP (e.g. TPG) could be vindictive enough to make the court's decision backfire deliberately?
E.g. deliberately block the Cloudflare IP in line with the court's recommendation, not bending the rules at all but doing it with the intention that it'll affect other Cloudflare users and cause headlines against the court decision?

Just like ASIC back-pedalled very quickly when it was exposed that they blocked thousands of sites instead of just one.

The only thing stopping it is ISP's actually choosing to not affect other Cloudflare users. The court decision allows for the worst case.

On 20/12/16 13:06, Paul Wilkins wrote:
Furthermore, there is a requirement that blocked websites be redirected to a server displaying a notification of the block.
So though IP blocking is mentioned in the court order as an available option, you cannot in fact comply in full with the court order via an IP blocking mechanism.
I am not a lawyer. This is not expert opinion.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins

On 20 December 2016 at 12:59, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com<mailto:paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>> wrote:
The ISP parties to the judgement have a choice, block by IP, DNS, or URI.
Now no one is going to block by URI or IP, when they can redirect from their DNS server. There is no responsibility to block DNS from 3rd party servers.
I am not a lawyer. This is not expert opinion.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins

On 20 December 2016 at 12:43, Damien Gardner Jnr <rendrag at rendrag.net<mailto:rendrag at rendrag.net>> wrote:
Didn't the court order specifically say they were to do DNS blocking?  Why are there articles suggesting they are going to block cloudflare?  Just for shock value?

On 20 December 2016 at 12:42, Bradley Amm <brad at bradleyamm.com<mailto:brad at bradleyamm.com>> wrote:
https://www.playerattack.com/news/2016/12/16/92893/aussie-pirate-bay-ban-massive-collateral-damage/


From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf Of Jay Dixon
Sent: Monday, 19 December 2016 7:23 AM
To: Chris Ford

Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Internet companies forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules

i love that the byproduct of this court case is a comprehensive list of all the good torrent sites and mirrors.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Chris Ford <chris.ford at inaboxgroup.com.au<mailto:chris.ford at inaboxgroup.com.au>> wrote:
I've been following this here https://s115a.com/cases/current

From my skim of the lists the respondents to the actions all roll up to Telstra, Optus, Vocus or TPG). I didn't see any independent ISPs listed. So unless you are a group company of the Big 4 you won’t be a recipient of the orders, and if you are, I'm sure you are already well aware of what is going on.


-----Original Message-----
From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>] On Behalf Of Mark Newton
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2016 2:41 PM
To: Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net<mailto:ausnog at rossw.net>>
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Internet companies forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules
On Dec 15, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Ross Wheeler <ausnog at rossw.net<mailto:ausnog at rossw.net>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Nathan Brookfield wrote:
>
>> The Federal Court has ordered internet companies to block five copyright-infringing websites, including torrent website The Pirate Bay.
>
> So, the next questions are:
> * who tells us ISPs officially, what we have to block?

A court order.

> * when do they tell us.

After you have been named as a respondent in a Federal Court action, and been presented with an order.

> * does it only apply to the big-few, or everyone?

It applies to everyone who is named as a respondent in a Federal Court action under s115a and has subsequently received a court order.

> * if the previous answer is "everyone", who do we bill,
>   and do we have to "trust them" that it'll be paid, or can
>   we just send them the bill and not do anything until it is?

The previous answer isn’t “everyone.” You bill the claimant. The payment conditions will be in the court order.

> The phrase "tilting at windmills" springs to mind.

Yes, pointless exercise. Training Australians to use evasion methods; once they’re doing that, further enforcement action is ineffective, so driving them in that direction is practically indistinguishable from saying, “Meh, don’t care anymore.”

The overwhelming response I’ve seen to yesterday’s action is, “LOL.” I’m encouraged by that.

   - mark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20161220/9b8bc66b/attachment-0001.html>