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

[Bradley Amm]

That will be a DDOS target soon

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Mark Sergeant
Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2016 11:52 AM
To: Michael Keating; Mark Andrews; Narelle
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Internet companies forced to block The Pirate Bay, bittorrent websites in Australia, Federal Court rules

DNS based, with an A record of:

101.167.166.53

which serves that page for any request that may hit it.

Cheers,

Mark

From: AusNOG <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>> on behalf of Michael Keating <mkeating44 at gmail.com<mailto:mkeating44 at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 20 December 2016 at 14:47
To: Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org<mailto:marka at isc.org>>, Narelle <narellec at gmail.com<mailto:narellec at gmail.com>>
Cc: "ausnog at ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at ausnog.net>" <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

For what it's worth, Telstra have a block on The Pirate Bay already.

[cid:image001.jpg at 01D25ACA.26EBB1C0]

Regards,

Michael Keating

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 at 1:27 pm, Narelle <narellec at gmail.com<mailto:narellec at gmail.com>> wrote:
duh s/reasonable/unreasonable

You can bet your bottom dollar that the ISPs in question will be arguing that anything beyond certain basic steps with basic equipment would be UNreasonable. The cost to comply is set at $50 per domain name so that must give you an indication of what the court thought this was worth.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Narelle <narellec at gmail.com<mailto:narellec at gmail.com>> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Mark Andrews <marka at isc.org<mailto:marka at isc.org>> wrote:



You would just be cutting off your nose to spite your face.





The real questions are what happens when DNS blocks are shown to


be ineffective.  Is the court going to have to modify the orders.


Then the applicant will have to go back to the court and make the claim that the respondents were not complying with the order to "take reasonable steps to disable access".

You can bet your bottom dollar that the ISPs in question will be arguing that anything beyond certain basic steps with basic equipment would be UNreasonable. The cost to comply is set at $50 per domain name so that must give you an indication of what the court thought this was worth.

If it requires doing incredibly difficult stuff on every single piece of network with specialised equipment and highly expert engineering staff, then it might no longer be reasonable. Where the line beneath that falls, I couldn't tell.

Either way I think I see a mole in that hole over there...

And none of this includes the analysis of the almost but not quite rolling injunctions. What makes one "web site" the same as another torrenting file store?

*disclaimer* IANAL and I own all the seasons of GoT I've ever watched.

happy silly season

--


Narelle
narellec at gmail.com<mailto:narellec at gmail.com>




--


Narelle
narellec at gmail.com<mailto:narellec at gmail.com>



_______________________________________________

AusNOG mailing list

AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>

http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20161220/48a12f62/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 95313 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20161220/48a12f62/attachment-0001.jpg>