a High Court in the UK has commissioned several censored entire sites, at the request of the copyright industry, because they contain a link to the Popcorn Time application. This is an inefficient, disproportionate and dangerous act of censorship - not to mention completely unnecessary. Just a VPN, in all countries, to completely bypass censorship.
The courts seem to live even in times book burning when they had some kind of authority on what information was allowed to exist and what information could be effectively silenced. This was not the case for about 20 years.
The Internet, after all, was created to continue operating even in the event of a nuclear war on a large scale. He has more than enough resilience to withstand - practically ignore - lost a court here and there. John Gilmore was quite right when he noted that the Internet interprets censorship judicial technical damage to the network, and some roads around it
Let's call a spade a spade :. This is censorship. Not all things that we call censorship are today; in fact, most are not. When a forum moderator deletes a post, for example, is not censorship because it is the owner of the publication platform (server) who exercises property rights and the copyrights. Those owner of the publishing platform always get to decide what to publish, even against someone else's will. This does not mean censorship.
Censorship is when government decides that someone can not publish, or not carry . And that's exactly what happened here.
Such measurements are restricted in what we call human rights , as guaranteed by the Charter of the European Union. Courts can issue such restrictions, but can not do it lightly: any restriction must be "necessary, effective and proportionate." These words have a very specific meaning:
A restriction being necessary means that there must be an identified need to do something. It need not be this particular thing, but there must be a state of systemic discontent in a form that requires judicial action. In this case, the copyright industry were not satisfied (they have been for the past century or more), which apparently qualified.
Moving forward the need, specific legal action is proposed. For that to occur, the proposed action should be effective - that is, we must solve the identified problem. The notion that judicial censorship has any kind of effect at all on the Internet shows that the courts are stuck in the last century, and the High Court order fails miserably this test.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, such an order shall be proportional , that is, it should not create more problems than it solves. This is where the real danger. A court gave the censorship orders against sites that provide links - Links - a software application that can or can not be used to exercise normal property rights and violating the monopoly of copyright in the process. This does not take lightly any censorship
We would like everyone to take stupid decisions as read the very simple explanation named "World of Ends" -. Explaining what the Internet is and how to stop taking it for something else. Apparently the courts think that ISPs have a say whatsoever in what their customers can or can not access the Internet, or were tricked into thinking so by the copyright industry.
There is also the question of what the courts will do when they discover that it is trivially bypassed using a standard VPN, or even just using TOR. Does the High Court to try to ban all virtual private networks, even those not in the same country?
Good luck with that.
0 Komentar